The next time you want to slam someone for "acting like you know what you're talking about", don't respond with a bunch of links to Wikipedia. Links, I might add, that are only marginally-relevant to the topic at hand. That shit wouldn't fly in college, so why do you think it's going to hold weight in a professional environment?
Slashdot, a 'professional environment'? As if we needed more proof that you're a fucking lunatic...
I'd like bid 5$ to buy the next 1,000,000 page views served to me. That ought to buy me an ad free internet for quite a while.
You clearly don't view as much porn as I do.
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.
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.
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 why you think you're making a point.
indeed what the conservatives are looking to do with their proposal is to usurp the state right to refuse plans
I do not recognize the "right" of any government to ban the sale of a legal product or service.
Furthermore that idea will increase the cost of delivering health care.
Even if that is true -- it's not -- it's irrelevant.
This is not a huge issue for me: while it is absolutely clear that laws restricting the sale of legal goods and services are stupid and harmful, it would have far less of an impact on freeing of the health market than much more sensible and broad legislation: to remove the business subsidies for health insurance, and replace it with an individual income tax credit, which will necessarily have the effect of driving down -- massively -- the cost of care and insurance.
...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.
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.
10 miles is overkill.
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
