5 ms·

In every case I pick the private market over government. Private markets are run by contract and have at least minimal check via the court system via lawsuits

In every case I pick the private market over government. Private markets are run by contract and have at least minimal check via the court system via lawsuits Government actors are immune from all liability, and can not be sued unless the government gives you permission to sue them So do i want insurance death panels.... no. But I would prefer them over government death panels

bobsmooth 3y ago
The government has a vested interest in my continuing to live via taxes. The insurance company would prefer you die quickly. I would prefer not having to sue while I'm dying to get an insurance company to do what I paid them to do.
- emj 3y ago
  There is more; the government has a vested interest in your whole family and friends, they are all affected if you die. They are just liabilities if you buy an insurance.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  this should not even be something i need to say in a forum of adults, but let me make this very clear... The government does not care about you, at all, not even a little. The government has no more concern for your well being than the insurance company, the government has the ability to simply create more money out of nothing. They do not need nor care about your taxes, your taxes is just a method of control and to provide some manner of legitimacy to their system on control.
  - bobsmooth 3y ago
    This should not even be something I need to say in a forum of adults, but let me make this very clear, a government without citizens is nothing. The USA is not a small island nation with a lot of natural resources that can ignore it's people. Don't let your childish hatred of rules make you think that being ruled by corporations is a better alternative.
    - mdhb 3y ago
      It’s worth pointing out that you’re dealing with a partisan libertarian who’s comments are constantly downvoted. If you’re looking for a coherent intellectual argument you won’t find it here.
crazygringo 3y ago
There are two problems with this logic: First, you're missing the point that any private company is financially incentivized to end care. Their interests are the polar opposite of yours. Whereas government programs aren't rewarded at all for saving money. (E.g. Social Security doesn't "forget" to mail you checks 10% of the time, the way private reimbursement programs intentionally will. The IRS doesn't tack on surprise extra fees each year, the way your telecoms provider does in total violation of the "fixed price guarantee" they promised.) And second, you're wrong about the ability to sue the government. There's no meaningful difference in being able to sue a company or sue the government. It's all the same court system. But in either case, if you're relying on suing them in an end-of-life situation, you'll almost surely be dead by the time a court hears the case and decides. So I wouldn't advise making that your deciding factor.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  This is laughably naive, and ignores basically all of human history. to believe that the government and worse agents with in the government has no financial incentive is crazy. It is absolutely the case that where are tons of both corrupt, and non-corrupt financial incentives with in the realm of public finance. Take a look at school funding, police funding, or the big one Military funding. This idea that medicine would be immune does not match reality even if we limit it to say medicare, or even COVID ... your view that government only acts in "the best interest of he citizen" is also ignorant of history, in reality it is often the exact opposite, The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help. Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem >>you're completely wrong about the ability to sue the government. There's no meaningful difference in being able to sue a company or sue the government. It's all the same court system. No, I am not [1][2][3]. Both the federal and state government enjoy complete immunity from liability unless they agree to be sued,it was not until 1946 that you could sue the federal government at all, with the passage ot the Federal Tort Claims Act[4] the federal government graciously allows us mere mortals the ability to sue them in rare and limited circumstances but that authorization can be removed at any time, and often has been, and I have no reason to believe that congress would allow a single payer system to be sued for denial of care generally [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit... [3] https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-11/01-state-sovereign-immunity.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-11/01-state... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act
yummypaint 3y ago
Government actors are immune from all liability, and can not be sued unless the government gives you permission to sue them You are misunderstanding and wrongly extrapolating qualified immunity. Ready any newspaper and you will encounter multiple counterexamples to your statement. Please at least read the wikipedia entry. Here's a start: "Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.[4]"
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>extrapolating qualified immunity no, I am talking about sovereign immunity, which has nothing to do with qualified immunity, and is absolute. you can not sue the government unless the government has passed a law under which they have allowed you to sue them.
  - yummypaint 3y ago
    This is also incorrect. Tort law, for example, is very broad. There is no need for thousands of laws specifically enumerating permutations of how someone can be wronged. It's true that suing the government is different than an individual, but it isn't remotely as difficult as you seem to believe. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, you can sue the federal government if: You were harmed by a federal employee The employee was acting within their official duties when the harm occurred The employee acted intentionally or negligently in a way that caused the harm You experienced actual damages as a result of the employee’s action Source and Further reading: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/can-you-sue-government/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/can-you...
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      you do understand that you just agreed with me right? the Federal Tort Claims Act is the federal government waiving their immunity under limited cases. None of the claims allowed by the Federal Tort Claims act would allow you to sue a federal single payer health system for denial of care that was part of offical policy, or procedure.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
US State (and subordinate) governments are forbidden by Constitutional law [0] from violating contractual obligations. They can be sued for any such violation without permission. For the federal government there are a variety of federal statutes that govern various contractual obligations, and provide means to sue. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  And you believe that would apply in government created single pay health situation for denial of care Press F for Doubt
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    It depends on what the contract states.

bobsmooth 3y ago

The government has a vested interest in my continuing to live via taxes. The insurance company would prefer you die quickly. I would prefer not having to sue while I'm dying to get an insurance company to do what I paid them to do.

emj 3y ago
There is more; the government has a vested interest in your whole family and friends, they are all affected if you die. They are just liabilities if you buy an insurance.
phpisthebest 3y ago
this should not even be something i need to say in a forum of adults, but let me make this very clear... The government does not care about you, at all, not even a little. The government has no more concern for your well being than the insurance company, the government has the ability to simply create more money out of nothing. They do not need nor care about your taxes, your taxes is just a method of control and to provide some manner of legitimacy to their system on control.
- bobsmooth 3y ago
  This should not even be something I need to say in a forum of adults, but let me make this very clear, a government without citizens is nothing. The USA is not a small island nation with a lot of natural resources that can ignore it's people. Don't let your childish hatred of rules make you think that being ruled by corporations is a better alternative.
  - mdhb 3y ago
    It’s worth pointing out that you’re dealing with a partisan libertarian who’s comments are constantly downvoted. If you’re looking for a coherent intellectual argument you won’t find it here.

crazygringo 3y ago

There are two problems with this logic: First, you're missing the point that any private company is financially incentivized to end care. Their interests are the polar opposite of yours. Whereas government programs aren't rewarded at all for saving money. (E.g. Social Security doesn't "forget" to mail you checks 10% of the time, the way private reimbursement programs intentionally will. The IRS doesn't tack on surprise extra fees each year, the way your telecoms provider does in total violation of the "fixed price guarantee" they promised.) And second, you're wrong about the ability to sue the government. There's no meaningful difference in being able to sue a company or sue the government. It's all the same court system. But in either case, if you're relying on suing them in an end-of-life situation, you'll almost surely be dead by the time a court hears the case and decides. So I wouldn't advise making that your deciding factor.

phpisthebest 3y ago
This is laughably naive, and ignores basically all of human history. to believe that the government and worse agents with in the government has no financial incentive is crazy. It is absolutely the case that where are tons of both corrupt, and non-corrupt financial incentives with in the realm of public finance. Take a look at school funding, police funding, or the big one Military funding. This idea that medicine would be immune does not match reality even if we limit it to say medicare, or even COVID ... your view that government only acts in "the best interest of he citizen" is also ignorant of history, in reality it is often the exact opposite, The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help. Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem >>you're completely wrong about the ability to sue the government. There's no meaningful difference in being able to sue a company or sue the government. It's all the same court system. No, I am not [1][2][3]. Both the federal and state government enjoy complete immunity from liability unless they agree to be sued,it was not until 1946 that you could sue the federal government at all, with the passage ot the Federal Tort Claims Act[4] the federal government graciously allows us mere mortals the ability to sue them in rare and limited circumstances but that authorization can be removed at any time, and often has been, and I have no reason to believe that congress would allow a single payer system to be sued for denial of care generally [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit... [3] https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-11/01-state-sovereign-immunity.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-11/01-state... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

yummypaint 3y ago

Government actors are immune from all liability, and can not be sued unless the government gives you permission to sue them You are misunderstanding and wrongly extrapolating qualified immunity. Ready any newspaper and you will encounter multiple counterexamples to your statement. Please at least read the wikipedia entry. Here's a start: "Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.[4]"

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>extrapolating qualified immunity no, I am talking about sovereign immunity, which has nothing to do with qualified immunity, and is absolute. you can not sue the government unless the government has passed a law under which they have allowed you to sue them.
- yummypaint 3y ago
  This is also incorrect. Tort law, for example, is very broad. There is no need for thousands of laws specifically enumerating permutations of how someone can be wronged. It's true that suing the government is different than an individual, but it isn't remotely as difficult as you seem to believe. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, you can sue the federal government if: You were harmed by a federal employee The employee was acting within their official duties when the harm occurred The employee acted intentionally or negligently in a way that caused the harm You experienced actual damages as a result of the employee’s action Source and Further reading: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/can-you-sue-government/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/can-you...
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    you do understand that you just agreed with me right? the Federal Tort Claims Act is the federal government waiving their immunity under limited cases. None of the claims allowed by the Federal Tort Claims act would allow you to sue a federal single payer health system for denial of care that was part of offical policy, or procedure.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

US State (and subordinate) governments are forbidden by Constitutional law [0] from violating contractual obligations. They can be sued for any such violation without permission. For the federal government there are a variety of federal statutes that govern various contractual obligations, and provide means to sue. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause

phpisthebest 3y ago
And you believe that would apply in government created single pay health situation for denial of care Press F for Doubt
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  It depends on what the contract states.