Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

But, but, Buuuuush. . .

Comments Filter:
  • If we went for the classic conservative talking point of "sell insurance across state lines" we would see a large number of small offices closing as well, as they wouldn't be able to afford to hire enough office staff to handle the billing and regulations of all the different plans that could be presented.

    That said, one website claimed this guy finished his MD in 1975. That would put him at about 65-70 years old today, which means he was likely looking at retirement in the not-too-distant future. Whet
    • The unicorn of Obama's competence? Just ask a sycophant--they'll tell you he's great. Problem solved.
      • The unicorn of Obama's competence?

        Don't be ridiculous. The topic is supposed to be health care, right? Hence I pointed out that the idea of "selling insurance across state lines" is useless. It is the conservative health care unicorn.

        That said, I see that the MD mentioned in the article you linked to is from Kentucky. I recall another popular MD from Kentucky who is a Tea Party darling, yet I haven't heard anything of him closing his medical practice in response to the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010.

        • Health care; Benghazi; the economy: the man's a wrecking ball.
          • Health care; Benghazi; the economy: the man's a wrecking ball.

            Well I don't know what they have to do with Benghazi but the philosophy of the Paul family is indeed disastrous.

    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

      If we went for the classic conservative talking point of "sell insurance across state lines" we would see a large number of small offices closing as well

      So what? Seriously. If a small business can't handle the free market, then it should go away. That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing, and the worst of all worlds is a government that keeps burdensome or expensive regulations around just to make sure businesses that rely on those regulations don't suffer.

      • ...the worst of all worlds is a government that keeps burdensome or expensive regulations around just to make sure businesses that rely on those regulations don't suffer.

        That is precisely the world you live in today. The businesses that rely on those regulations are who make the biggest contributions. That money will dry up the the politicians they support don't put those regulations into place. Obamacare is good for industry, and the fly-by-nights who know to close the doors before the cops get too close.

        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          ...the worst of all worlds is a government that keeps burdensome or expensive regulations around just to make sure businesses that rely on those regulations don't suffer.

          That is precisely the world you live in today.

          In many areas, yes. I hope you don't think you're arguing against me in some way.

          • I hope you don't think you're arguing against me in some way.

            On the contrary sir. I am always pleased by your rare lucid moments such as these. You're getting a little bit closer to nature.

            • What are we going to do to get damn_registrars back on his meds? He's falling just short of accusing me of wiping out endangered species on other planets.
              • This is you and d_r [youtube.com]...

            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              Odd. You think that me saying the same things that I say very, very often -- weekly, at least, for many years -- is ... rare.

              You know that's self-refuting, right?

      • If we went for the classic conservative talking point of "sell insurance across state lines" we would see a large number of small offices closing as well

        So what? Seriously. If a small business can't handle the free market, then it should go away.

        This isn't about the free market. This is about increasing the cost of doing business. If you dramatically increase the number of different health insurance plans that any given office is expected to be able to handle, you increase the overhead costs of that office. You are forcing them to hire more employees who are not health care professionals, increasing the cost of health care without actually delivering any additional health care.

        That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing

        Who is it a good thing for, when you are driving smaller medical pr

        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          This isn't about the free market.

          False. It is removing arbitrary restrictions on business. This is about the free market.

          If you dramatically increase the number of different health insurance plans that any given office is expected to be able to handle ...

          Irrelevant. Not my problem. We are freeing the market. Adapt or die.

          You are forcing them to ...

          Anything you say next is false. I am forcing nothing. Neither is the government. If they are forced to do anything, it is by free market forces.

          Who is it a good thing for

          Everyone, except for those relying on government to protect their interests against the reasonable interests of others, and I have no sympathy for such people.

          Could you go further off topic if you tried?

          I didn't go off-topic at all.

          There are no federal regulations preventing the sale of insurance from state A in state B

          So? I wonder wh

          • This isn't about the free market.

            False. It is removing arbitrary restrictions on business. This is about the free market.

            There is nothing arbitrary about selling insurance. The individual states have the right to dictate what policies - based on coverages and other terms - can be sold within their state. Any insurance company who creates a plan that meets those standards can sell it there. They are defined by the states for their own states. If a state wanted to they could drop all the requirements and let every company sell every policy; there is no federal restriction preventing that from happening.

            If you dramatically increase the number of different health insurance plans that any given office is expected to be able to handle ...

            Irrelevant. Not my problem. We are freeing the market. Adapt or die.

            So then when the co

            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              There is nothing arbitrary about selling insurance.

              I didn't say there was. I said the restrictions are arbitrary. I was explicit.

              I can't bother to read past your first idiotic comment.

              • I can't bother to read past your first idiotic comment.

                Wow, that is how you respond to seeing your argument torn to shreds? You pick one comment to snipe on and then declare yourself the victor. I'm sorry that your argument is so emotional and devoid of fact and reason that you find yourself forced to do such a thing. Now if you could learn something from that, we would all be impressed.

                However being as reality, facts, and logic all are diametrically opposed to the argument you are trying to make, I would not expect such a thing to happen. So go ahead,

                • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                  I can't bother to read past your first idiotic comment.

                  Wow, that is how you respond to seeing your argument torn to shreds? You pick one comment to snipe on and then declare yourself the victor.

                  I didn't pick one comment: I read only the first one, and then gave up when you lied about what I wrote. And you're doing it again, so again, I won't continue reading.

                  • I can't bother to read past your first idiotic comment.

                    Wow, that is how you respond to seeing your argument torn to shreds? You pick one comment to snipe on and then declare yourself the victor.

                    I didn't pick one comment: I read only the first one, and then gave up when you lied about what I wrote. And you're doing it again, so again, I won't continue reading.

                    That was in no way a lie:

                    • Your argument was torn to shreds and demonstrated to not be capable of doing anything valuable
                    • You were demonstrated to be lying about the abilities of such an argument
                    • You ignored the bulk of the reply and commented only on one part of it
                    • You declared yourself victorious in the discussion in spite of all truth and reason

                    And then, to wrap it all up, you lied about lying. I'm sorry that you take your dramatic and profound loss so personally that you have to lower yourself to such a

  • Whatever happened in the past is easy to correct. You just have to want to.

Can't open /usr/fortunes. Lid stuck on cookie jar.

Working...