Whitelightning1161
New Member
I would appreciate you comments,
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
busting propagandabuster
- Thread starter Whitelightning1161
- Start date
I would appreciate you comments,
obsidianavenger
New Member
i will say, that guy sounds crazy and kind of dumb >.>
however, i think your view of economics is a little flawed.
you say that the gov't needs to limit corporations to prevent them from failing. this is inimical to the workings of the free market because corporations which are not run efficiently are SUPPOSED TO FAIL. corporations that do not manage to turn a profit from their business, or who give executives such huge bonuses that they can no longer afford to keep up their operating costs should go out of business; it is the natural consequence of their ineffective or irrational behaviors. to divorce consequences from actions is to sanction inefficient or irrational use of resources, tying them up in business ventures that do not produce wealth and do not benefit the economy as a whole. it is the continued production of value that keeps our society running. to attempt to obtain some value from a business that denies basic facts of reality, such as the fact that actions have consequences, is futile and ultimately hopeless. its like trying to wish your fridge full of food.
whats one of the main problems with the insurance companies as you see it? that they are "greedy"? that they put profit ahead of people's health?
i contend it is not the drive for profits that is harmful but the drive for the unearned. the insurance companies agree to provide a given service but balk when it comes to actually providing it. thus they FAIL as insurance companies and people should be free to move their business elsewhere, or be able to take the company to court and sue them for breach of contract. either way, its not in the company's interest to screw its customers.
people think that they need to control the companies that exist, and force them to comply with certain ideals they hold, when in fact, left to their own devices, unsuccessful companies go under and new ones arise to take their place. no force required.
the process of getting insurance through work makes this a lot more difficult, seriously restricting choice, as does the serious web of regulations already placed on insurance companies, since they are NOT ALLOWED to offer cheaper plans that only cover dire emergencies. all sorts of treatments are required for coverage, up to and including acupuncture and chiropractics. if the government didn't make it so difficult to turn a profit in the insurance business, they wouldn't feel the need to be such penny pinchers and try to screw people out of the coverage they have paid for.
i agree that insurance companies are to be held accountable to their customers; this is why the government takes on the role of contract enforcement. by paying your premiums, you are paying for a list of services that you may or may not need in the future. but as it stands, you are not even allowed to choose the list of services.
the role of government is most emphatically NOT to protect stupid corporations from going under. such corporations have already proven they do not know how to manage things; how is it logical to enable them to keep doing so despite their failing?
also we are a republic not a democracy
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
however, i think your view of economics is a little flawed.
you say that the gov't needs to limit corporations to prevent them from failing. this is inimical to the workings of the free market because corporations which are not run efficiently are SUPPOSED TO FAIL. corporations that do not manage to turn a profit from their business, or who give executives such huge bonuses that they can no longer afford to keep up their operating costs should go out of business; it is the natural consequence of their ineffective or irrational behaviors. to divorce consequences from actions is to sanction inefficient or irrational use of resources, tying them up in business ventures that do not produce wealth and do not benefit the economy as a whole. it is the continued production of value that keeps our society running. to attempt to obtain some value from a business that denies basic facts of reality, such as the fact that actions have consequences, is futile and ultimately hopeless. its like trying to wish your fridge full of food.
whats one of the main problems with the insurance companies as you see it? that they are "greedy"? that they put profit ahead of people's health?
i contend it is not the drive for profits that is harmful but the drive for the unearned. the insurance companies agree to provide a given service but balk when it comes to actually providing it. thus they FAIL as insurance companies and people should be free to move their business elsewhere, or be able to take the company to court and sue them for breach of contract. either way, its not in the company's interest to screw its customers.
people think that they need to control the companies that exist, and force them to comply with certain ideals they hold, when in fact, left to their own devices, unsuccessful companies go under and new ones arise to take their place. no force required.
the process of getting insurance through work makes this a lot more difficult, seriously restricting choice, as does the serious web of regulations already placed on insurance companies, since they are NOT ALLOWED to offer cheaper plans that only cover dire emergencies. all sorts of treatments are required for coverage, up to and including acupuncture and chiropractics. if the government didn't make it so difficult to turn a profit in the insurance business, they wouldn't feel the need to be such penny pinchers and try to screw people out of the coverage they have paid for.
i agree that insurance companies are to be held accountable to their customers; this is why the government takes on the role of contract enforcement. by paying your premiums, you are paying for a list of services that you may or may not need in the future. but as it stands, you are not even allowed to choose the list of services.
the role of government is most emphatically NOT to protect stupid corporations from going under. such corporations have already proven they do not know how to manage things; how is it logical to enable them to keep doing so despite their failing?
also we are a republic not a democracy
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
Whitelightning1161
New Member
obsidianavenger said:i will say, that guy sounds crazy and kind of dumb >.>
however, i think your view of economics is a little flawed.
you say that the gov't needs to limit corporations to prevent them from failing. this is inimical to the workings of the free market because corporations which are not run efficiently are SUPPOSED TO FAIL. corporations that do not manage to turn a profit from their business, or who give executives such huge bonuses that they can no longer afford to keep up their operating costs should go out of business; it is the natural consequence of their ineffective or irrational behaviors. to divorce consequences from actions is to sanction inefficient or irrational use of resources, tying them up in business ventures that do not produce wealth and do not benefit the economy as a whole. it is the continued production of value that keeps our society running. to attempt to obtain some value from a business that denies basic facts of reality, such as the fact that actions have consequences, is futile and ultimately hopeless. its like trying to wish your fridge full of food.
whats one of the main problems with the insurance companies as you see it? that they are "greedy"? that they put profit ahead of people's health?
i contend it is not the drive for profits that is harmful but the drive for the unearned. the insurance companies agree to provide a given service but balk when it comes to actually providing it. thus they FAIL as insurance companies and people should be free to move their business elsewhere, or be able to take the company to court and sue them for breach of contract. either way, its not in the company's interest to screw its customers.
people think that they need to control the companies that exist, and force them to comply with certain ideals they hold, when in fact, left to their own devices, unsuccessful companies go under and new ones arise to take their place. no force required.
the process of getting insurance through work makes this a lot more difficult, seriously restricting choice, as does the serious web of regulations already placed on insurance companies, since they are NOT ALLOWED to offer cheaper plans that only cover dire emergencies. all sorts of treatments are required for coverage, up to and including acupuncture and chiropractics. if the government didn't make it so difficult to turn a profit in the insurance business, they wouldn't feel the need to be such penny pinchers and try to screw people out of the coverage they have paid for.
i agree that insurance companies are to be held accountable to their customers; this is why the government takes on the role of contract enforcement. by paying your premiums, you are paying for a list of services that you may or may not need in the future. but as it stands, you are not even allowed to choose the list of services.
the role of government is most emphatically NOT to protect stupid corporations from going under. such corporations have already proven they do not know how to manage things; how is it logical to enable them to keep doing so despite their failing?
also we are a republic not a democracy
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
Well you learn something everyday. :ugeek:
but when it comes to health insurance being out for profit, from my perspective, it cooks like the heath insurance companies, are failing to do there job, because of greed, because, they deny so many claims, and I think that it is because if they didn't, well there would be a lot less money in their pockets, but I see your point.
when it comes to AIG and all that good stuff, i agree a busness should fai, but i hate to agree with Larry summers on this, but if aig were to fail, a lot of people would be screwed. I personally think we should prevent corporations from getting to the point were they are to big to fail, but I see your point, we shouldn't encourage bad behavior, but at the same time, how many people had insurance, or had were their mortgage or had a lot of money in their savings account with AIG. I agree with you, but I feel we should try and do as much damage control, as possible. I mean if we didn't do anything, do you think we would have been better off?