On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:51:02 -0500, bknight at (no spam) conramp.net wrote:

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:27:41 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper at (no spam) aol.com
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:15:52 -0700, "gray asphalt"
dontwrite at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Didn't you say that your wife works in the health care
industry? And you are willing to state that there is no
anti-trust exemption for health care, along with major
league baseball, the only two exemptions in the entire
US?

The insurance industry are subject to state anti-trust laws.

Columbia? English major I presume. :-)

BK


No, I majored in Ebonics, so any form of the verb "to be" is correct.

Besides, Ivy League Scholars are well beyond the conventions of
everyday grammar.

I do not think there is a true free market system in healthcare. In fact
I believe it's irrational to think such a thing is even possible in this
day and age. As has happended with the banking industry, reducing
regulation in the healthcare industry would just bring more bad more
quickly.

When you have lobbyists and special interest
legislation there will be no free market. Libertarian
ideas are just that, ideas. Not pragmatic. Perfection
that gets in the way of the doable. Escapism, imo.
They do need to be heard,though, but not treated as
a realistic possibility, imo.

On 19-Oct-2009, Carbon <nobrac at (no spam) nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

I do not think there is a true free market system in healthcare. In
fact I believe it's irrational to think such a thing is even possible
in this day and age. As has happended with the banking industry,
reducing regulation in the healthcare industry would just bring more
bad more quickly.

I believe you are in error here. First of all, there has been very
little de-regulation in the banking industry; it is still the most
regulated industry in the US & secondly, the healthcare industry is
not different by nature, it is different because we have made it so;
it is also dysfunctional because we have made it so:
http://tinyurl.com/lquswk

On 19-Oct-2009, "gray asphalt" <dontwrite at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

When you have lobbyists and special interest
legislation there will be no free market. Libertarian
ideas are just that, ideas. Not pragmatic. Perfection
that gets in the way of the doable. Escapism, imo.
They do need to be heard,though, but not treated as
a realistic possibility, imo.

Like any ideals, they are goals to strive for. But you are right, man
will never have totally free markets.

On 19-Oct-2009, "gray asphalt" <dontwrite at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

When you have lobbyists and special interest
legislation there will be no free market. Libertarian
ideas are just that, ideas. Not pragmatic. Perfection
that gets in the way of the doable. Escapism, imo.
They do need to be heard,though, but not treated as
a realistic possibility, imo.

Like any ideals, they are goals to strive for. But you are right, man will
never have totally free markets.

--
bill-o

On 19-Oct-2009, Carbon <nobrac at (no spam) nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

I do not think there is a true free market system in healthcare. In fact
I believe it's irrational to think such a thing is even possible in this
day and age. As has happended with the banking industry, reducing
regulation in the healthcare industry would just bring more bad more
quickly.

I believe you are in error here. First of all, there has been very little
de-regulation in the banking industry; it is still the most regulated
industry in the US & secondly, the healthcare industry is not different by
nature, it is different because we have made it so; it is also
dysfunctional
because we have made it so: http://tinyurl.com/lquswk

--
bill-o

Good points, at least IMHO. One of the benefits of democracy is that
you can get rid of govts if they get too corrupt. Not perfect, but
better than any alternative.

If you want to know where to start, try this: think about it. How to
get an honest legislature and executive elected?

On 19-Oct-2009, "gray asphalt" <dontwrite at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

When you have lobbyists and special interest legislation there will
be no free market. Libertarian ideas are just that, ideas. Not
pragmatic. Perfection that gets in the way of the doable. Escapism,
imo. They do need to be heard,though, but not treated as a realistic
possibility, imo.

Like any ideals, they are goals to strive for.

Glass-Steagall is the scapegoat that the pols hide behind hoping no
one will notice what they've done.

You claimed there was very little deregulation in the banking industry.
This is wrong. Repealing Glass_Steagall in 1999 did indeed deregulate
the banking industry, enabling the financial shenanigans that led to the
recent banking crisis.

Like any ideals, they are goals to strive for.

May I ask why, since you yourself concede that free markets are
impossible?

You will never be a success in life so you might as well terminate it
now.

On 21-Oct-2009, Carbon <nobrac at (no spam) nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

Glass-Steagall is the scapegoat that the pols hide behind hoping no
one will notice what they've done.

You claimed there was very little deregulation in the banking
industry. This is wrong. Repealing Glass_Steagall in 1999 did indeed
deregulate the banking industry, enabling the financial shenanigans
that led to the recent banking crisis.

what do you know about banking regulation? Calling the repeal of
Glass-Steagall deregulation may be technically correct as it removed a
small burden from some banks, but substantively it was nothing.

what do you know about banking regulation? Calling the repeal of
Glass-Steagall deregulation may be technically correct as it removed a
small burden from some banks, but substantively it was nothing.

Wrong again. http://tinyurl.com/6nedcs