You might think that if there are so many people who think they know how an insurance company should be run, they could pool their own money and start a good one. Their rates and service would easily capture major market share immediately. They could be great bankers also.Very telling when govt regulation force a company out of a market the Left blames the company.
Thanks for the suggestion, but actually they couldn’t. Well, they could start an “insurance company”, but that would be under the same obligations and cost factors as the current ones. What Obamacare outlawed were new “co-ops” which operate under more cost effective guidelines. The ones with a long history got grandfathered into Obamacare, but you can’t start one now. They tend to be about 1/3 the cost of Obamacare insurance, going up to about 1/2 the cost thanks to our friends in Washington.You might think that** if there are so many people who think they know how an insurance company should be run, they could pool their own money and start a good one. ** Their rates and service would easily capture major market share immediately. They could be great bankers also.
Or maybe they are all talk and no action.
Do you feel the same outrage toward the VA system which is allowing thousands of vets to needlessly die? That’s big, bad, bloated *government" for you, the all-powerful entity which never seems to provoke the ire of liberals like private firms do. Rob :doh2:You are right, money should never be an issue for caring for the sick.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield, at least where I live, are among the most expensive companies out there, and the worst for what they will and will not cover. And no one needs to tell me about their losses. They don’t operate on any real loss. Never have. It is just in how you manipulate the numbers and who they want to make rich.
The only people I feel sorry for are the sick and poor, who seem to be “bottom of the barrel” concerns for companies like this one. As far as I am concerned we should get rid of all insurance companies. They have been ripping the people off for years. And I don’t just mean medical insurance. I mean car, house, all of it. It is the biggest rip off going in this country.
There are other ways to insure people’s cars and homes. Private insurance companies are not it, because all they care about is their bottom line. And no I am not a Socialist. There are just some things that need to be provided for all people, and at reasonable prices. Insurance and health care are among those things.
Uh, no. Fascism is a political system, not an economic one, and it is most assuredly on the far right.Uh, not so much.
Fascism involves a directed economy. Although much of the means of production are retained by private owners, that production (such as, what is produced, how much is produced, how much is charged) is directed by the State.
Fascism is corporatist, but it’s a deal with the devil, as the State provides a controlling function on those corporations – essentially, they operate in a dirigiste environment.
Why in the world would a corporation support such a thing? Regular, predictable revenue at a regular, reliable profit. Those who can wield more influence in the government can get regulations adjusted to benefit them…and harm any potential competitors who may want to disrupt that stability.
While I recognize that most political scientists place fascism on the right side of the political spectrum, I, honestly, don’t see it. It makes no sense to think that Benito Mussolini would go from being a socialist to a fascist, if fascism was on the exact opposite end of the political spectrum. It DOES make sense if it was a more incremental change.
What I would see on the far right is a laissez-faire economy with a government that supports that type of situation (think about the “Golden 90s” Industrial Revolution era in the US).
(What does this have to do with the original subject of the thread? Obamacare applies this type of economic structure to the health care industry through its national regulation of insurance)
Fascism is a political system that has particular ideas about economics.Uh, no. Fascism is a political system, not an economic one, and it is most assuredly on the far right.
It is still a political system.Fascism is a political system that has particular ideas about economics.
And it is most assuredly leftist.
Hitler was a leftist.
Mussolini was a leftist.
It is only socialist political scientists who classify it as “far right” because it is farther to the right than their Marxist utopias.
What are the marks of a fascist country?It is still a political system.
It is most assuredly far right.
Hitler was a far rightest.
Mussolini was a far rightest.
Both the right and the left can be authoritarian, totalitarian, and nationalistic.
What are you comparing fascism and socialism? One is a political system, the other an economic system. They have nothing to with each other.What are the marks of a fascist country?
What are the marks of a socialist country?
(BTW, “far right” is classical liberalism)
I edited my post above. Sorry that we appear to have cross-posted.What are you comparing fascism and socialism? One is a political system, the other an economic system. They have nothing to with each other.
How is classical liberalism on the far right? I think you have a different definition of far right then I do.
No, they weren’t. That’s a nonsense political spectrum created out of thin air to hide the fact that the left is the totalitarian side. They placed Hitler on the right so people would think as you do. But it’s simply not true.It is still a political system.
It is most assuredly far right.
Hitler was a far rightest.
Mussolini was a far rightest.
Both the right and the left can be authoritarian, totalitarian, and nationalistic.
With what each side professes, you’d think it would be that way, but it’s not. The ends of both sides are totalitarian, just in different ways. Anarchy (total freedom to do whatever you want without rules) is actually a far left on the political scale. Democracy is also left on the political scale. Dictatorship/monarchy are far right. I think it would be better represented as a circle with fascism being where left & right meet because it has all of the bad things of both.No, they weren’t. That’s a nonsense political spectrum created out of thin air to hide the fact that the left is the totalitarian side. They placed Hitler on the right so people would think as you do. But it’s simply not true.
**The political and economic spectrums go from total govt control on the left, to total freedom on the right. ** So it runs from communism/socialism/fascism on the left, to anarchy on the right. In the middle left you have democracy, and in the middle right you have constitutional republic.
No, the far right can be, and is, totalitarian. Fascism is far right, plain and simple. Both the right and left can be totalitarian.No, they weren’t. That’s a nonsense political spectrum created out of thin air to hide the fact that the left is the totalitarian side. They placed Hitler on the right so people would think as you do. But it’s simply not true.
The political and economic spectrums go from total govt control on the left, to total freedom on the right. So it runs from communism/socialism/fascism on the left, to anarchy on the right. In the middle left you have democracy, and in the middle right you have constitutional republic.
You have to take more than a one-dimensional view to express political and economic positions. Left-right is only one dimension. Libertarians fare better in showing multi-dimension types of grid.The political and economic spectrums go from total govt control on the left, to total freedom on the right. So it runs from communism/socialism/fascism on the left, to anarchy on the right. In the middle left you have democracy, and in the middle right you have constitutional republic.
Yes, you can. The fact that you cannot doesn’t mean that they cannot be separated. They are two very different things.You cannot truly separate a political system from an economic system.
Doesn’t make your definition right. It is based on your interpretation and opinion.You are absolutely right that I probably do have a different definition of left and right than you do
Calling a circle a square doesn’t make it a square. Explain the differentiation on your spectrum where one system is measured against another. On one extreme of the spectrum, we will see a large quantity of this measured item, and on the other we will see very little or none of this measure item. And in the middle we will see moderate amounts. So tell me what you are measuring and basing this on.No, the far right can be, and is, totalitarian. Fascism is far right, plain and simple. Both the right and left can be totalitarian.
And no, the far right is not total freedom.
Hitler was placed on the right because he is on the right, plain and simple.
And, again, Communism and Socialism are not even on the political spectrum, they are economic systems. Stop equating political and economic systems, they are not the same.
It seems you are the one pulling things out of thin air, based on your own interpretation and opinion.
Same as yours. But his is at least based upon a logical progression that systems are measured against. Please enlighten us on the measurement used for your axis.Doesn’t make your definition right. It is based on your interpretation and opinion.
Making a distinction without a difference. Libertarianism is similar to conservatism on many facets and near to it on the spectrum. They are both close to constitutional republics. They are similar to the varying flavors of totalitarianism (socialism/fascism/communism) where there are differences in how they are implemented, but govt control is still extreme. Libertarian, conservatism, and constitutional republics are on the opposite end where govt power is much more limited and freedom is greater.You have to take more than a one-dimensional view to express political and economic positions. Left-right is only one dimension. Libertarians fare better in showing multi-dimension types of grid.
See, there you go confusing political and economic systems.To your point about economic and political systems, they are highly related. Free markets can’t exist in totalitarian/command economies. They only exist when govt power is reduced. The freer the political system, the more free markets you have. Pretending to separate them is just that, pretending.
google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Wg2zVeawTHg/TIsARocyB-I/AAAAAAAAADM/SRsrNiRA1kA/s1600/New%252BPolitical%252BSpectrum.png&imgrefurl=http://artificialartifice.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-political-spectrum-redefining-right.html&h=480&w=768&tbnid=5E1sxcLntL7_0M:&zoom=1&docid=rd5uhtPhRNBVaM&ei=o2TYU_avGe7esATn8IKgBw&tbm=ischCalling a circle a square doesn’t make it a square. Explain the differentiation on your spectrum where one system is measured against another. On one extreme of the spectrum, we will see a large quantity of this measured item, and on the other we will see very little or none of this measure item. And in the middle we will see moderate amounts. So tell me what you are measuring and basing this on.
That link is just a hot mess of wrong. Simply made up silliness. Claiming that there was economic freedom under Mao or Lenin is delusional. And the classifications of Hayek, Friedman and Smith are just laughable.