Dan wrote:
>
> One thing to remember about experimentation: 99.99% of experiments fail;
What's the criteria for success? An experimental form of governance (or
some aspect of governance) may not yield a completely successful law or
system of laws, but I'm relatively certain that important kn
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
> One would have to be quite dense to not notice after over a decade on the
> list.
> Once again, your default position is to assume that others are stupid.
> Do you actually think your feeble attempts to place others in a defensive
> position
Charlie wrote:
>
> I do occasionally blow up. Once when I was accused of racism, once when a
> private discussion I'd had with someone was forwarded to the list, and ISTR
> Nick and I talking completely at cross-purposes. I was really annoyed on
> Friday night, partly 'cause I'd got home after dr
The Atlantic has a thoughtful article by David Goldhill on health care
and health insurance reform. It is long, but I think well worth
reading. I've also included below a few paragraphs that I thought were
particularly interesting.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200909/health-care
| I
On 16/08/2009, at 5:46 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Charlie wrote:
I do occasionally blow up. Once when I was accused of racism, once
when a private discussion I'd had with someone was forwarded to the
list, and ISTR Nick and I talking completely at cross-purposes. I
was really annoyed on
At 02:51 AM Sunday 8/16/2009, John Williams wrote:
The Atlantic has a thoughtful article by David Goldhill on health care
and health insurance reform. It is long, but I think well worth
reading. I've also included below a few paragraphs that I thought were
particularly interesting.
http://www.th
Rob wrote:
>
>LOL.I'm the cellar dweller!
Yea, that's true, but we know why. That's where all the best list wines
are kept.
Dan M.
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
___
At 10:15 AM Sunday 8/16/2009, David Hobby wrote:
John Williams wrote:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
One would have to be quite dense to not notice after over a decade
on the list.
Once again, your default position is to assume that others are stupid.
Do you actually thin
>FWIW the _Atlantic_ article is well worth reading carefully. I've
>already forwarded the link with my recommendation to a couple of
>other lists, and got a couple of comments back.
The problems the article lists are real; I won't argue that the present
system is really messed up. However,
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Ronn!
Blankenship wrote:
>
> I'm only a little way into the article, but I take it Semmelwies is no
> longer mentioned in the medical school (or pre-med) curriculum?
I think that the guidelines Goldhill refers to are more systematic and
comprehensive than anything
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:15 AM, David Hobby wrote:
> Hi. Seriously, are you trolling, or just
> dense? : ) We rank respect the way most communities
> do--completely informally.
Not trolling. Possibly dense. There is that reference to "we" again,
which is what led me to believe that there was
John Williams wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:15 AM, David Hobby wrote:
...
Yes, Charlie is someone I respect. His posts are
thoughtful, and when he argues, he does it in a fair
and constructive way.
So, you consider his post to me thoughtful, constructive, and worthy of respect?
That one
One thing that is often discussed in reference to health insurance is
that if someone is unexpectedly afflicted with a chronic condition,
their health insurance premiums will usually increase drastically.
Health insurance for someone diagnosed with a chronic condition might
go from $2,000 a year to
When you reach a point where the suggested solution to ridiculously
overpriced health insurance is to take out an insurance policy on your
insurance ... perhaps it's a sign that you ought to consider some
other system.
Patrick
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, John Williams wrote:
> One thing tha
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Patrick
Sweeney wrote:
> When you reach a point where the suggested solution to ridiculously
> overpriced health insurance is to take out an insurance policy on your
> insurance ... perhaps it's a sign that you ought to consider some
> other system.
Actually, char
John Williams wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Patrick
Sweeney wrote:
When you reach a point where the suggested solution to ridiculously
overpriced health insurance is to take out an insurance policy on your
insurance ... perhaps it's a sign that you ought to consider some
other system.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> I'd guess that Patrick is expecting health insurance
> to have health status insurance already built into it.
One would think the whole point of health insurance is to provide you
with health care (more precisely, the funds to acquire such) sh
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> It does strike me as a kludge, though. To continue
> your example of car insurance, I don't believe that
> anybody markets insurance against having your car
> insurance premiums rise dramatically.
I do not think there is a as large a risk of
On 15 Aug 2009 at 20:00, John Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 7:51 PM,
> dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > That's a true statementbut the problem with failure with radically new
> > government is that the failures are horrid: (e.g. the French Revolution,
> > the Cultural Revolu
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Patrick Sweeney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> But if I do fall ill, for the insurer to raise my rates rather than
> provide the agreed-upon care seems like dirty pool.
That is only true if you had an agreement with the insurance co
On 16 Aug 2009 at 14:08, John Williams wrote:
> New ideas can be difficult to get used to. Perhaps they could be
> bundled together for those who prefer it. But it would be a bundle --
> the two types of insurance are fundamentally different, since one pays
> a lump sum or equivalent (like life in
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> Many people won't go for checkups if they have to pay out of pocket,
> and they will ignore dangerous conditions for too long.
Did you read the article, or just the excerpts I posted? This was
discussed in the article.
> Sure, evidence is
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> And immediately you're creating the concept that as aoon as anything
> happens, your insurance will go up, because the risk to the insurer
> that you'll not be paying them anymore has been pushed to another
> party.
I do not see how this f
> Obama, yesterday, was right on target when he said there was no single
> silver bullet for this problem. But, we do know things can be better,
> because we are paying twice as much as the average developed country per
> person with worse than average results.
I have heard, but have been too la
On 16 Aug 2009 at 14:44, John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
>
> > Many people won't go for checkups if they have to pay out of pocket,
> > and they will ignore dangerous conditions for too long.
>
> Did you read the article, or just the excerpts I po
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> Yes, you're simply refusing to accnowledge the actual results of the
> policys proposed...
What exactly am I refusing to acknowledge?
> to be charged (as their "status" insurance can be cancelled,
Health status insurance "cancelled"? Not
On 16 Aug 2009 at 15:52, John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
>
> > Yes, you're simply refusing to accnowledge the actual results of the
> > policys proposed...
>
> What exactly am I refusing to acknowledge?
That you'd simply once again reduce the num
On 16 Aug 2009 at 11:45, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> >FWIW the _Atlantic_ article is well worth reading carefully. I've
> >already forwarded the link with my recommendation to a couple of
> >other lists, and got a couple of comments back.
>
> The problems the article lists are r
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> , so if you're a bad
> health risk or have prexisting conditions you're very unlikely to be
> able to get status coverage at a deacent price or at all in the first
> place,
That is not the way health status insurance works. A pre-existing
On 16 Aug 2009 at 16:30, John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
>
> > , so if you're a bad
> > health risk or have prexisting conditions you're very unlikely to be
> > able to get status coverage at a deacent price or at all in the first
> > place,
>
> T
John Williams said the following on 8/16/2009 5:08 PM:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby wrote:
>
>> It does strike me as a kludge, though. To continue
>> your example of car insurance, I don't believe that
>> anybody markets insurance against having your car
>> insurance premiums ri
Lance A. Brown wrote:
> John Williams said the following on 8/16/2009 5:08 PM:
>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby wrote:
>>
>>> It does strike me as a kludge, though. To continue
>>> your example of car insurance, I don't believe that
>>> anybody markets insurance against having your
Trent Shipley wrote:
>> Obama, yesterday, was right on target when he said there was no single
>> silver bullet for this problem. But, we do know things can be better,
>> because we are paying twice as much as the average developed country per
>> person with worse than average results.
>
> I have
John Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Trent Shipley wrote:
>> John Williams wrote:
>>> There are billions of people around the world with worse healthcare
>>> than virtually everyone in the United States. If the goal is to
>>> redistribute wealth to improve healthcare because of t
Original Message:
-
From: Trent Shipley tship...@deru.com
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:19:16 -0700
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
> Obama, yesterday, was right on target when he said there was no single
> silver bullet for
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> Either it will have a higher premium to cover pre-existing
> conditions, or it only covers things not caused by the pre-existing
> condition.
That is not how health status insurance works. It is insurance against
an increase in health insu
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Trent Shipley wrote:
> The people outside the boundary are not my responsibility. They are not
> my people. Furthermore, they don't participate in my moral economy.
> The status of the poor in my country has an immediate effect on me. I
> may be among the poor,
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Trent Shipley wrote:
> So insurance could charge someone with type II diabetes more, but not
> someone with type I diabetes. You could charge more to people who,
> smoke, are over weight, who don't exercise, or who practice un-safe sex.
>
> You couldn't charge mor
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Lance A. Brown wrote:
> The analogy between auto and health insurance fails in one regard: Most
> of the time, a 5x increase in auto insurance premiums is a direct result
> of decisions by the covered person. Many of causes for increases in
> health insurance pre
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:52 PM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
> OK, I fear this won't work, but I'm going to try.
Work? How does it "work"?
> So, you can decide that everyone else is crazy or you can decide that there
> are areas that you can learn more about.
I choose the third one.
_
40 matches
Mail list logo
