3 ms·
"It is the very definition of a healthy capitalist market." I didn't realize heavy handed, unnecessary regulation bound to cause massive market distortions was
by aneth4 14y ago
"It is the very definition of a healthy capitalist market."
I didn't realize heavy handed, unnecessary regulation bound to cause massive market distortions was "healthy" for capitalism.
Employer health insurance is the current method of distributing risk among a larger group, and any prohibition would simply be circumvented by other types of group health insurance and reimbursements.
Making discounts illegal is a ridiculous restraint on capitalism. Imagine if wholesalers and retails could not discount for marketing, loyalty, or quantity. Ridiculous.
The only thing that should be regulated is the transparency of pricing and services. Consumers simply won't accept paying 5 times the price if they are aware, but they may be willing to pay 20% more to avoid the hassle of insurance. That's "healthy capitalism" - not your complex regulatory scheme. The thought of enforcement of what you suggest is mind-boggling. Illegal to provide your employees with health insurance? Bonkers.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago> I didn't realize heavy handed, unnecessary regulation bound to cause massive market distortions was "healthy" for capitalism. So the current market where two or three insurers basically control an entire state is healthier? > Employer health insurance is the current method of distributing risk among a larger group, and any prohibition would simply be circumvented by other types of group health insurance and reimbursements. In English? > Making discounts illegal is a ridiculous restraint on capitalism. So when businesses subvert capitalism that is a-ok because they are part of the system. But when the government subverts capitalism to actually make the market more competitive that is wrong? > Imagine if wholesalers and retails could not discount for marketing, loyalty, or quantity. A lot of wholesalers don't. They sell at a set price. Doesn't matter if you buy 50 or 5,000. They still seem to be in business. > The only thing that should be regulated is the transparency of pricing and services. What's the point in that when you have no choice in insurance provider? > That's "healthy capitalism" - not your complex regulatory scheme. A "scheme" I can describe in two lines is "complex?" Obama care was how many thousands of pages, remind me... If you cannot understand what I am suggesting then I propose that the issue isn't with my "complex" scheme but with your comprehension. > Illegal to provide your employees with health insurance? Bonkers. ... Just like it is "bonkers" to imagine not providing them with auto-insurance, right? And I don't mean auto-insurance for their company car. I mean auto-insurance for their private car. It makes about as much logical sense as insuring someone's private body/person.
- aneth4 14y agoI'd take these points on one by one if that weren't just a rat hole. Based on your responses, I think you need to spend some time gaining a basic understanding of the meaning of "free market," "market distortion," and how markets develop and adapt to their environment. You seem to imply you want capitalism and free markets, yet your suggestions and reasoning is ideologically incompatible with that goal, and nothing I say or do in this forum is going to bring you to a better understanding.