page 3, and I haven't read a single thing in this thread

2/3/2006 6:46:59 PM

Sayer before:

Quote :

"Healthcare (as well as education, food, and energy generation and distrubution) should be systems fuctioning independatly of capitalism, run at an at-cost basis to keep prices low."

Sayer after:

Quote :

"I never said anything about socializing the private sector. I'm completely in favor of keeping the capitalistic system in place over everything else...I never said anything about socializing everything..."

Did you just make a complete reversal? I havn't mentioned anything more than housing, food, water, and energy production, yet you respond as if I have mentioned something you didn't intend to to "socialize", eh?

If you goal is merely to make America more like Finland or "Sweeden" then you still have my full support. Socialism sucks and makes us all poorer. As such, becoming more like these miracles of capitalist liberalism would be a step in the right direction. People will have to get used to living without a minimum wage, most price controls, eminent domain, etc.

2/3/2006 7:14:05 PM

Quote :

"I'm still waiting to hear how you can possibly defend your preference that corporations succeed over the complete ending of suffering due to disease on any grounds."

I can't believe you actually quoted yourself. When I first read that I laughed, then I laughed even harder when I realized you were serious. Disease is necessary to keep the human population in check. If there was a population we would all suffer. Even if your options below were viable, they would take FAR too long to implement. Some people always have to suffer for the benefit of others. That's the way it has always been and that's the way it will always be.

Quote :

"What happened to your unwavering belief in the ability of the private sector to solve our problems, little buddy? The point has been made repeatedly that we have enough food on Earth to feed everyone as it is, but lack the capacity to distribute it all. That represents the paramount of financial opportunity to any firm that can figure out how to solve it."

I never said the private sector could solve ALL of our problems, but it can solve a good many of them and do it better than government can. The more human beings there are the more resources needed to support them (more water, more land to grow crops, more water for these crops, more land for housing, more everything). And what is the financial incentive to distribute food to those who cannot afford it? What do these corporations get in return?

Quote :

"That doesn't change even if we drastically decrease the death rate. There is still plenty of aerable land on the Earth, and there have been tremendous advancements in increasing yields from practically every form of food production there is. The private sector can handle this."

Food is not the only thing people need to live. I'm surpised someone as intelligent as you (I assume you are pretty intelligent as you have graduated) does not realize this. People need space to live. The more people there are the more space required for living space. More water will be needed to produce food among many other things (cars, computers, everything you can think of). More land will be needed to store waste.

Quote :

"First of all, there's plenty of room left on the surface of the Earth itself. All it needs is a little development. George Carlin suggests beginning by constructing low-cost housing on all the golf courses in America. Not a bad idea, really."

First off, who is going to sell their golf course to have public housing built on it, or are you simply going to steal it for the "common good"? Second off, who is going to pay for this public housing? Are you going to raise taxes and rape WeThePeople's wallets even more than the government already does?

Quote :

"Second of all, there's plenty of room under the oceans. In fact, there's more room under them than on all the surface of the Earth that humans currently occupy. Again, all it needs is a little development."

First off, noone wants to live under the water. Second off we don't have the technology necessary to build such developments. Third, even if we did who is going to pay for them?

Quote :

"Thirdly, look up. See that? There's practically an infinite amount of space up there to stick us. All we need to do is get working on how to put colonies of people out there."

Come back to reality, Gamecat. We can barely get people into space and back without the shuttle blowing up itself. We don't have the technology to do this and even if we did, who would pay for it? Corporations sure as hell wouldn't be giving rides away for free.

2/3/2006 9:18:20 PM

Quote :

"The more human beings there are the more resources needed to support them (more water, more land to grow crops, more water for these crops, more land for housing, more everything)."

You have completely ignored what more people would contribute to society. More people means more laborers and more inventors. Even if we would need twice as much housing, we would have twice as many people working construction. We would need twice as much food, but we would have twice as many farmers. Right now, about 1% of the U.S. work force is engaged in resource extraction (farming, mining, etc). Taking into account dimenishing returns, it might go up to 2% or 4% required to feed and clothe everyone (obviously fine, since it was 60% back in 1890).

This is all before you take into account increasing economies of scale and the increased quantity of brain-power available. In 20 years we launched a digital revolution with 300 million people, imagine how fast it would have gone with twice as many people working on it. And we aren't done, productivity is going up about 3-4% a year thanks to new technology and new techniques for production.

I submit that the standard of living of a society is largely independent of the land upon which it is constructed and far more influenced by the level of technological development of the society. How else can you explain it? 100 years ago life was short and miserable, today with the same land and (arguably) fewer resources (they used a bunch of it up) more of us live longer and better lives. It is technology that did it for us and the more people in a society the quicker technology advances.

Quote :

"And what is the financial incentive to distribute food to those who cannot afford it? What do these corporations get in return?"

This statement is utterly rediculous. People get from society approximately what they provide too society. Poor and uneducated? Become a laborer. Smart and witty? Comedy Central. Boring yet smart? Accountant. The only people you see walking the streets are people that have rejected society for whatever reason (most homeless suffer from mental illness). It isn't their fault, but they are unable to contribute to society.

As always, homelessness has nothing to do with a larger population. San Francisco's new mayor just managed to eliminate much of the city's homeless population by revoking their welfare checks and replacing it with payments-in-kind (free housing and food).

2/3/2006 10:46:25 PM

Quote :

"...yeah, you pretty much did."

No. As Gamecat said, lets play the reading comprehension game.

What I said eariler:

Quote :

"Including government, the sectors I listed account for (and I will round up) 25% of the economy."

25%. I'll say it again, 25%. I'll use fractions since you seem to not be able to understand what a percent is. 1/4th. A quarter. One out of four. Do you understand the words in this block of text???

Now that we've grasped the concept of the quantity, picture 25%(1/4th) the economy.

25%(1/4th) does not equal everything. If you think it does, please Jesus H Christ tell me you're not an engineering major or anything you need math for. Please don't build any bridges, except maybe the one you need to get over yourself.

Quote :

"Did you just make a complete reversal?"

*sigh* No... I just see where the wording, which I thought was pretty clear, could seem fucking off to you guys.

Allow me to edit..

Quote :

"I never said anything about socializing the rest of the private sector."

What I considered to be the private sector was the portion of the economy outside the "To Be Socialized" sectors I listed on Page 2. I can see where that was lost in translation.

Quote :

"If you goal is merely to make America more like Finland or "Sweeden" then you still have my full support."

Kinda. I think full socialism/communism sucks. The state should no own everything. Nor should the state determine or dictate production and industry. I'm with you guys 100% on that. It wouldn't hurt to move the country in their direction.

I point to Finland and Sweeden as examples of a social system here and there that is being run correctly, and to the mass benefit of said country. I think in the end, I agree with those who say the system they're working on is the next step for captialism. The hybrid social/capital system shows promise, as the Nordic countries are showing everyone. I just think that it will need to provide a few more things for the population.

Quote :

"I can't believe you actually quoted yourself. When I first read that I laughed, then I laughed even harder when I realized you were serious."

He quotes himself because you've shown that you don't understand what your opponents say the first time. As I've had to do, if I'm going to have to sit you down and explain to you what the words I type mean, then I might as well have them close by so you can follow along. I'm guessing he feels the same way. Maybe one day if we're lucky your hampser will start spinning the wheel.

Quote :

"Food is not the only thing people need to live. I'm surpised someone as intelligent as you (I assume you are pretty intelligent as you have graduated) does not realize this. People need space to live."

Yeah!!! They need stuff to live! That's right! Holy shit! He can be taught! What else could people need to live... hmm.... someone should make like... aahh... like a list! That's it! A list of stuff people need to live! I wonder if someone could write one of those down somewhere...


...


oh wait... I already did. See page 2.

Quote :

"You have completely ignored what more people would contribute to society."

Yeah, it's a really good point. The more educated healthy people we have, the faster people can further the development of technology and society. LoneSnark hit the nail on the head.

Quote :

"This statement is utterly rediculous. People get from society approximately what they provide too society. Poor and uneducated? Become a laborer. Smart and witty? Comedy Central. Boring yet smart? Accountant. The only people you see walking the streets are people that have rejected society for whatever reason (most homeless suffer from mental illness). It isn't their fault, but they are unable to contribute to society. As always, homelessness has nothing to do with a larger population. San Francisco's new mayor just managed to eliminate much of the city's homeless population by revoking their welfare checks and replacing it with payments-in-kind (free housing and food)."

Exactly. This hits the bone on the stance I'm taking. Without help, those at the bottom will likely stay at the bottom. As the population continues to grow, so will the number of those at the bottom not contributing to society. The reason you set up well functioning systems to help them is because when you do, they can start contributing to society as well(it'll be slow at first but it will pick up over time), or be taken care of out of the way (in the case of mental illness).

Protostar, would you rather have a ton homeless people laying around contributing nothing except their soiled existance, or would you rather have those people with real jobs helping to contribute to society? Sadly, I think I know what your answer is going to be.

Side Note: If you think we'll never live under the oceans, you're a fucking idiot. As population density increases, people will look to new places for a place to call home. Example: People used to be appalled at the idea of living in a highrise building. Why live so high up? You've got no yard! The building will fall down and you'll die! Yeah, they got over that one real quick. Damnit I've gotta use fractions again.... shit... 2/3rds of the earth is covered in water. There are more resources under the ocean than we've got above. Food, minerals, lots of wide open space. As industry moves in to utilize, so will people to colonize. I mean really, who wants to take a 2 day boatride out to Bubba's Kelp and Tubeworm Emporium when you can just drop a summer home down the block?

[Edited on February 4, 2006 at 10:29 AM. Reason : tags]

2/4/2006 10:28:07 AM

Socialized medicine is not in the public's interest. There's a reason why the best doctors in places like Breat Britain come here to the United States to work...

Besides, taxes are high enough as they are and the health care that I choose to receive is exclusively between me and the insurance company. I do not need some government bureaucrat telling me what is best for my health.

[Edited on February 4, 2006 at 10:50 AM. Reason : more]

2/4/2006 10:50:02 AM

Furthermore, the marginalized of society are already protected via medicare and medicaid. Children, the elderly and the disabled do get the care they need and the latest changes in the medicare system are geared to make it more cost effective for seniors and for the government in the way it delivers its service.

2/4/2006 11:13:13 AM

Sayer said:

Quote :

"Healthcare (as well as education, food, and energy generation and distrubution) should be systems fuctioning independatly of capitalism, run at an at-cost basis to keep prices low...Why do I bring up Sweeden, Finland, and for shits and giggles lets throw in Norway in there too? Ahh, they have well developed social systems like the one I have described already."

I said:

Quote :

"Ha ha! Not one of them has nationalized their housing, food, or even water industries. In many respects, our water industry is more "government run" than theirs!"

Then you said:

Quote :

"I never said anything about socializing the private sector. I'm completely in favor of keeping the capitalistic system in place over everything else."

How is that a response? I have not ONCE mentioned anything outside the four sectors you mentioned. I am talking about nationalizing the housing, food, and water industries. None of the societies you are a "fan" off have done so. As I pointed out, they have less "socialized" stuff than we do!

Quote :

"I point to Finland and Sweeden as examples of a social system here and there that is being run correctly, and to the mass benefit of said country. I think in the end, I agree with those who say the system they're working on is the next step for captialism. The hybrid social/capital system shows promise, as the Nordic countries are showing everyone. I just think that it will need to provide a few more things for the population."

This is what I don't get. These countries which you expose as the future of us all, aren't that different from the United States. Best I can get from research, all that makes them different is their all encumpasing welfare states. That's it! There is no "hybrid" system to see. The government doesn't own anything special. Yes, Healthcare is socialized, just like in every other industrialized country outside the US. This feature is not new, it is almost 100 years old.

So, please go further in depth with what country you want to live in. Finland in particular has very little government involvement in the economy, particularly the sectors you said you wanted to nationalize (housing, food, energy). No price controls, no government siezures, etc. You want a house/food/gasoline? You've got to negotiate a price for it.

unlike the U.S., Finland has: no minimum wage, no price floors, no anti-gauging laws, no eminent domain, half the corporate tax rate, the government consumes less than half as much of the GDP

Do you still want to nationalize another 25% of the US economy (so you say, {housing, food, energy}? The Finish managed to build an enviable society without doing so. Why would we have to?

[Edited on February 4, 2006 at 11:46 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/4/2006 11:44:32 AM

Quote :

"Then you said: Quote : "I never said anything about socializing the private sector. I'm completely in favor of keeping the capitalistic system in place over everything else." How is that a response? I have not ONCE mentioned anything outside the four sectors you mentioned. I am talking about nationalizing the housing, food, and water industries. None of the societies you are a "fan" off have done so. As I pointed out, they have less "socialized" stuff than we do!"

I get the feeling you are interpreting "well developed social systems" as: Their system is socialized and it's well developed. It was meant as: They have well developed systems in place, of which some are social in nature.

What I said:

Quote :

"I point to Finland and Sweeden as examples of a social system here and there that is being run correctly, and to the mass benefit of said country."

Key words in this statement being example, here and there. Implied is that I'm using a few systems in these countries which are social in nature to make the point that they are working the way they should, and working very well. Obviously the system of education they've got is social in nature, and it's providing them with a hell of an educated population. Another example is the healthcare system, which again, social in nature, is working very well.

I felt like by making this statement:

Quote :

"I just think that it will need to provide a few more things for the population."

..that I was acknoweldging that they DON'T provide housing/food/energy. I thought that those should be the next steps, they just haven't gotten that far yet.

And before anyone starts down the Housing path I think I shall clarify my "definition" of that as well. By saying housing, provided as a social system, it sounds like I'm saying that the Government should own all housing, period. I want to be clear and make sure everyone understands that this is in fact NOT what I'm saying. By Housing, I mean that the government should provide something more effective and helpful than homeless shelters and projects we've currently got. It a system for the poverty stricken and homeless... not for everyone.


I'll get to the rest after I finish this nap.

[Edited on February 4, 2006 at 12:52 PM. Reason : .]

2/4/2006 12:50:28 PM

Quote :

"Socialized medicine is not in the public's interest. There's a reason why the best doctors in places like Breat Britain come here to the United States to work... Besides, taxes are high enough as they are and the health care that I choose to receive is exclusively between me and the insurance company. I do not need some government bureaucrat telling me what is best for my health."

Exactly!!! Completely agree.

2/4/2006 6:41:12 PM

Does anybody have hard numbers on the migration of doctors from England to America and vice versa?

2/4/2006 7:40:18 PM

Quote :

"Protostar: Disease is necessary to keep the human population in check."

Would you argue the same for genocide? How about car crashes? I mean, why do we even have traffic laws if there's such a problem with keeping the human population in check?

The problem here is that you have a totally unfounded belief that an increased population necessarily dooms us to abject poverty. It's like you're unaware that there are more people on Earth than there have ever been before and that our standard of living per capita is exponentially better than it was when there were fewer of us and we lived in caves and tents.

Quote :

"Protostar: If there was a population we would all suffer."

Curious. There's a population right now, and I'm not suffering. And yet you laugh at my comments.

Quote :

"Protostar: Some people always have to suffer for the benefit of others. That's the way it has always been and that's the way it will always be."

Never thought I'd have to tell an avowed Libertarian to put down the Marx, but seriously, "put down the Marx." This is sophomoric pseudophilosophy at best, and simple parroting at worst.

Give this a read: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html

Quote :

"Protostar: I never said the private sector could solve ALL of our problems, but it can solve a good many of them and do it better than government can."

But it can't keep people fed or housed should the population increase? That's a pretty serious failure on a fundamental level if ever there was one.

If you honestly don't believe the private sector can solve those two problems, how can you possibly contend that the private sector should play the predominant role in any social structure?

Quote :

"Protostar: The more human beings there are the more resources needed to support them (more water, more land to grow crops, more water for these crops, more land for housing, more everything)."

And the more human beings there are, the more human beings there are to provide the resources needed to support them. LoneSnark covered this.

You should check into an economics course sometime. You'd learn a lot.

Quote :

"Protostar: And what is the financial incentive to distribute food to those who cannot afford it?"

They live longer, enabling them to make more money and purchase more goods and services than if they had starved to death.

Quote :

"Protostar: Food is not the only thing people need to live. I'm surpised someone as intelligent as you (I assume you are pretty intelligent as you have graduated) does not realize this."

Frankly, I'm not surprised someone as unskilled at debate (and reading comprehension in general) as yourself would conclude that I didn't know that based upon anything I've posted here or otherwise.

Feel free to enlighten me and the rest of us as to where you got that impression.

Quote :

"Protostar: People need space to live."

Funny, I thought I addressed this. Something like 90% of the surface of the Earth is unoccupied, and something like 99.9999999...% of outer space is unoccupied. All a corporation has to do in either case is construct a habitat and charge rent to occupy it.

Problem solved.

Now before you go off on how far we are from space habitats, go ahead and assure yourself that I'm aware of that. I made my list in the order that they would be developed.

By the time we're finished filling up the land above water, we'll be able to construct habitats under it. By the time we're finished filling up the habitats below the oceans, we'll be able to construct habitats in orbit.

Quote :

"Protostar: More water will be needed to produce food among many other things (cars, computers, everything you can think of)."

Have you looked at a globe lately? Our planet is literally covered with the stuff. And desalinization is a pretty well-developed technology.

If I were using your debate tactics, I'd wonder aloud how someone as smart as you didn't know that. Or how the water cycle works.

Quote :

"Protostar: More land will be needed to store waste."

Unless we turn waste into energy.

Repeat after me: Technology does not rest in a vacuum.

Quote :

"Protostar: First off, who is going to sell their golf course to have public housing built on it, or are you simply going to steal it for the "common good"?"

Ok. The golf course remark was tongue in cheek, but I do agree with Carlin's sentiments about golf.

Regardless, there is plenty of unoccupied room left on the surface of the Earth to construct housing for people. But, don't take my word for it.

Download Google Earth and see for yourself.

Quote :

"Protostar: First off, noone wants to live under the water."

No one wants to live near landfills, highways, or power lines either, but guess what? People do.

Quote :

"Protostar: Second off we don't have the technology necessary to build such developments. Third, even if we did who is going to pay for them?"

Quote :

"Gamecat: What happened to your unwavering belief in the ability of the private sector to solve our problems, little buddy?"

Quote :

"Protostar: We can barely get people into space and back without the shuttle blowing up itself."

Barely? We put men on the moon. Almost forty years ago.

Yet, you want to tell me that we're barely able to get into space and back without a shuttle exploding. Seems we're not that bad at it. A shuttle blows up now and then due to incompetent management just like a plane blows up now and then due to faulty wiring. Seems like a senseless reason to say we can barely get people into the air and back without an airplane exploding.

Quote :

"Protostar: We don't have the technology to do this and even if we did, who would pay for it? Corporations sure as hell wouldn't be giving rides away for free."

If history or the news, both of which you really ought to read more often, give us any indication, it'll be the rich. As it usually is. The middle class will follow when the prices come down (after R&D is recouped).

I don't think it's out of the question that corporations would eventually give rides away for free, or at least practically free. Competition's a bitch, and it'll be no different in space transportation than in any other industry. I could easily see a situation where a company will offer a free first ride.

2/5/2006 1:28:04 AM

Quote :

"Socialized medicine is not in the public's interest. There's a reason why the best doctors in places like Breat Britain come here to the United States to work... Besides, taxes are high enough as they are and the health care that I choose to receive is exclusively between me and the insurance company. I do not need some government bureaucrat telling me what is best for my health."

random bullshit coming from someone who is completely ideologically opposed to socialized medicare. You have no real reason to not like it.

2/5/2006 1:53:10 PM

protostar needs to stop calling himself a Libertarian. Based on everything he's said, he sounds to me like a Reagan-ite Republican. I guess Libertarian sounds more "cool" when compared to being a "square", dude.

^yes he does, its pretty simple. theres nothing in it for him.

watch out, hes going to call you a funny name now!

[Edited on February 5, 2006 at 7:43 PM. Reason : .]

2/5/2006 7:42:44 PM

What? Reagan-ish? What the heck...

He is a fascist, pure and simple. He actually believes that a portion of society is incapable of fending for itself (Reagan would strongly object, as would any libertarian, but for different reasons). He also has no qualms about forcibly eliminating negative aspects of a society (Reagan would not directly object to this, as long as it was a last-resort, a libertarian would try to raise up an army against him).

So, while he is more like Reagan than a libertarian, I conclude he is a national socialist akin to the Nazis. Ultimately not much like Reagan, definitely not a libertarian.

[Edited on February 5, 2006 at 8:11 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/5/2006 8:09:40 PM

well, he did say he supported maintaining high military spending while reducing social spending drastically, thats what i was going by.

ive never known a libetarian that supported massive military spending.

2/5/2006 8:13:53 PM

Before I respond to earlier posts I'm going to lay out where I stand on things. Perhaps I should not have supported Pinochet with such gusto, as people now think that I support exterminating those who donot agree with my beliefs. I donot support what Pinochet did in regards to the socialists/communists/leftists, I simply commented on its effectiveness. The primary reason I support him for his economic policy.

I believe:

-there should be as few taxes as possible. People should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor without worry of the government raping their wallets to pay for utopian social programs. I support the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which would force the federal government to be accountable to the states instead of the other way around. I also support the abolition of the Federal Reserve.

-I donot agree with any social programs for any reason. People should not be made to pay for other people's living expenses.

-there should be no regulations on businesses for any reason. Regulations are PRO-socialist and ANTI-capitalist, and government should not intervene in the economy for any reason

-I believe in a strong military because it is necessary to secure and protect the nation from foreign threats. I DONOT support the current wasteful spending that is rampant in the DOD today. I think we should be raising the salaries of the guys who are out on the front line protecting the country, instead of the worthless ass Senators who sit on their asses and do nothing but concoct more and more ways to interject the federal government into WeThePeople's lives even more than they already do.

-I donot support or buy into the fearmongoring that has gripped the Republican party today. Many Republicans today are willing to allow Bush and Congress to do anything it wishes so long as they have the "illusion" of security (domestic wiretapping, Patriot Act, Real ID act, etc). I donot support the expansion of the federal government because I feel that is one of reasons 9/11 occurred.

-I support the repeal of ALL drug laws, as they prohibit any individual from exercising full control over their body. If I want to shoot up heroin all day, that's my business, and I should be able to without fear of being hassled by the police.

I may be many things, but I am NOT a fascist or national socialist. I am for unimpeded, unregulated capitalism and see many programs/ideas presented in this thread as in stark opposition to that. You present to me a way everyone can have healthcare without higher taxes, more government intrusion, and without destroying industries and I'll support it.

Gamecat: I'm not going to respond right now as I'm going to google some things to improve upon my argument. I also have shitload of work to do for classes. You have not won.

2/5/2006 9:53:08 PM

nice try, hitler

2/5/2006 10:04:16 PM

Quote :

"nice try, hitler"

You're not going to let that Pinochet thing go are you? I'm beginning to think that voicing my support for him was a mistake, as people now believe that I support extermination of opposing political groups and such WHICH I DON'T AND NEVER SAID I DID!! So step off.

2/5/2006 10:07:35 PM

"we must eradicate this threat of leftist thinking"

[Edited on February 5, 2006 at 10:09 PM. Reason : .]

2/5/2006 10:08:56 PM

Ok ok, for the sake of argument, I'm going to accept your retraction fo support for pinochet.
As such, I suspect if given the chance you would vote libertarian but I feel it is not an apt description of your particular beliefs. I suspect you would best be described as a anarcho-capitalist. I too for a short time described myself as one (about five days) but I couldn't ignore the just how unstable such a system would be. "men must be governed" as a founding father said, and he was right. Without a government in place, people will organize one eventually.

The only hope is to construct a government capable of restraining itself, as the founding fathers attempted. It worked for 150 years, a good track-run given history. This is a feat I feel we could repeat with a well placed constitutional-amendment or two stating something to the effect "everything in this constitution is to be interpreted as it was when written and any subsequent interpretations not in this line were/are unconstitutional. Expect future amendments whenever anything needs to 'evolve' with society."

Is this you, or was I correct with the anarcho-capitalist label?

2/5/2006 10:43:32 PM

still, with all the great capitalist heroes out there...he chose a bloody dictator out of nowhere

2/5/2006 11:02:07 PM

Quote :

"Protostar: You have not won."

I'm well aware of the idiocy of the "he who posts last, wins the debate" rule. No flag on the play here.

2/5/2006 11:02:47 PM

*Final Jeopardy theme music*

[Edited on February 11, 2006 at 5:40 AM. Reason : still there Protostar?]

2/11/2006 5:40:11 AM

Quote :

"I also support the abolition of the Federal Reserve."

Quote :

"I donot agree with any social programs for any reason."

Quote :

"there should be no regulations on businesses for any reason"

You know nothing about macroeconomics.

2/11/2006 11:40:50 AM

Maybe he believes in microeconomics, but not macroeconomics.

2/13/2006 1:48:38 PM

Well, this is one way to do part of it. Not my preferred way but I guess it works. Now, if only we could deregulate the patient insurers we might see more benefits.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0918.htm

Quote :

"In 1999, 17 companies wrote medical malpractice insurance in Texas. By 2002, the number dropped to four. Since liability limits were imposed in September 2003, 15 new companies have emerged and four companies have expanded or plan to expand upon their current medical malpractice writing in the state, according to the Texas Department of Insurance. Texas Medical Liability Trust (TMLT) is the largest writer of medical malpractice insurance in Texas with $ 189,000,000 in written premiums. After the liability caps became effective, TMLT reduced its medical malpractice rates by 12% effective January 1, 2004. It has announced that it will further reduce rates by 5% effective January 1, 2005. Health Care Indemnity, the largest writer of hospital liability insurance in Texas with $ 129,500,000 in written premiums, reduced its rates by 15% effective January 1, 2004. Since the passage of Texas HB 4, including the medical malpractice liability limits, physician ranks have increased. From May 2003 to September 2004, the total number of physicians in Texas increased by 5%, including a 62% increase in obstetricians. This compares to a 1% increase from May 2002 to May 2003, including a 13% decrease in obstetricians. Since September 2003, fewer doctors are leaving remote areas, the state is experiencing an increase in key specialties (e. g. , obstetrics, gynecology), and hospitals are having an easier time recruiting new doctors, according to the Texas Department of Insurance. "

[Edited on February 18, 2006 at 11:00 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/18/2006 10:58:40 PM