Obamacare's Looming Premium Hikes

[GodFearinGunTotin]

They would have to violate our physical property rights to gain access to it or violate a contract.

Depends. Maybe. Maybe not. There are products that can be reversed engineered and you'd be screwed. Anything I would say about your business would be conjecture.

If he wanted to make money with his song then he should have done so. I contributed the effort and knowledge to monetize it, he did not. He lost nothing in this transaction, and I see no need for guilt.

I'm disappointed to read this.

 

[steveh_131]

Depends. Maybe. Maybe not. There are products that can be reversed engineered and you'd be screwed. Anything I would say about your business would be conjecture.

Non-disclosure agreements can solve all of this. Simple contract law.

I'm disappointed to read this.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't actually do that. But I don't equate it to theft. That is the world of business. It is aggressive and competitive.

You included a family member and that clouded the issue a bit.

 

[poptab]

The following describes actual historical examples of how ip laws had the opposite effect they are intended to have:
http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf

for anyone that wants to challenge thier worldview.

 

[Lee11b]

All I know is my monthly premium went up 84% a month, starting 01-01-2016. That's going to effect that "mad gun money" account.... I really wish that village in Kenya would call and get their IDIOT back!!!!!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Non-disclosure agreements can solve all of this. Simple contract law.

Your contract law don't mean jack when somebody reverse engineers your product.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't actually do that. But I don't equate it to theft. That is the world of business. It is aggressive and competitive.

You included a family member and that clouded the issue a bit.

If it's not theft, why would you have any remorse or reservation? Screw the stupid suckers if they weren't smart enough or wealthy enough to hire the team of lawyers to cloak themselves in non-disclosure agreements, waivers, and miscellaneous paperwork.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Your contract law don't mean jack when somebody reverse engineers your product.



If it's not theft, why would you have any remorse or reservation? Screw the stupid suckers if they weren't smart enough or wealthy enough to hire the team of lawyers to cloak themselves in non-disclosure agreements, waivers, and miscellaneous paperwork.

 

[steveh_131]

Your contract law don't mean jack when somebody reverse engineers your product.

It takes time to reverse engineer a product, if you keep it under wraps until distribution. First to market still holds its advantages. Such is life.

If it's not theft, why would you have any remorse or reservation? Screw the stupid suckers if they weren't smart enough or wealthy enough to hire the team of lawyers to cloak themselves in non-disclosure agreements, waivers, and miscellaneous paperwork.

The same could be said for all sorts of aggressive business maneuvers that are not and should not be illegal, but may be cold-blooded.

It's all good though, I don't expect many to agree with me. It requires some outside-the-box thinking. Most are so consumed with the necessity of the status quo that it's difficult to imagine a world where the government isn't controlling every aspect of our personal and business lives.

That book that poptab linked is a good one, I read through some of it a while back.

I'll stop with the threadjack lol

 

[steveh_131]

The following describes actual historical examples of how ip laws had the opposite effect they are intended to have:
http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf

for anyone that wants to challenge thier worldview.

Seriously, you guys should read this before you settle back into your IP-protectionist complacency. History, statistics, hard evidence. It answers all of these questions in more detail than I can.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The following describes actual historical examples of how ip laws had the opposite effect they are intended to have:
http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf

for anyone that wants to challenge thier worldview.

I can see a few flaws already, but I really don't feel like thinking this hard. I already felt like hell before having to rescue one of my alpacas who got stuck in the fence. Right now my mind is reduced to pablum-grade thinking. I will have to pick this up later.

 

[actaeon277]

I sincerely doubt the "single payer system" will be an insurance system.

More likely is a system modeled after the current Veteran's Administration hospitals.

All medical personnel will be government employees. All medical facilities will become government owned. (The original owners will be compensated at "fair market value." This payment will be made in installments which will start when the facilities begin making a profit under the new ownership; in other words, never.)

The quality of healthcare will be like the current V.A. system; some bright spots of competence and caring amid a sea of incompetence and neglect. All will be paid the same regardless of performance.

Davich: Veterans' new battlefield ? VA's healthcare minefield - Post-Tribune

 

[zippy23]

Steveh_131,

This notion of a "no rules" free market is pure fantasy-land. It has NEVER existed in any society, anywhere on the planet earth at ANY time.

The Code of Hammurabi had mercantile rules. The ancient Greeks, Persians, Sumerians had some rules on trade. Hell, even the Goths and Huns had cultural rules on trade that could be arbitrated by the chief/king/elder.

There will always be a need for a basic core of rules to guide and govern modern mercantilism. If nothing else, agreed upon definitions of terms, weights, and so forth.

This is where I do differ from the "pure" Libertarian. For you see, I want to see progress that can work, not some fantasy land never before achieved perfect society living in harmony. I'll save those dead experiments for the history books where each and every one fell apart.

If you are so free market you have the choice to exercise it in many ways. Try this one: The next time you and a loved one are in a major car accident, and you loved one is seriously injured with probable internal bleeding, tell the ambulance to wait while you call every ER within a 50 mile radius and find out what the cheapest rate is, OK? Tell them you're willing to wait on the phone while they look up costs for everything, including X-rays, 'cause in a bad accident you just know your loved one will need X-rays. Heck, you may even need to take a day or two to get a really good deal. That is a free market, right?

Now if that ^^^ sounds stupid, it is because it is! It isn't just the need for a product like food or shelter, but TIME is critical when it comes to certain medical treatments, and the time pressure is external and uncontrollable. Not all medical care can wait, which is why I say the "free market" doesn't apply to all of it, due to the simple nature of the time need.

The free market, is for me, the least amount of government intrusion with the most amount of trade and productivity. It is NOT an "on or off" switch, but rather near the intersection of two (2) lines on a graph, neither of which is a zero (0). That includes regulations.

I have never claimed Libertarian "purity." I want to move the needle down on government regulations and intrusions, but not to "off."

Regards,

Doug

Your examples doesnt make sense. In a free market i would do my shopping for the cheapest health care with good coverage. This company would have a network and charge the same rates at nearby hospitals for an emergency. I would take the time to shop around BEFORE the accident. Thats why you shop for life insurane right? of course no one says wait a minute to the ambulance driver, thats why you shop around for a health insurance company that works for you BEFORE the accident....but you CANT do that in a gov't over regulated market like insurance has right now. ideally you would have competition with no employer tax incentive which is wrecking health care and making it so expensive. Given a freer market than right now, companies all over the country would compete for your dollar and offer you plans that enabled you to maybe go to any ER in the country for a given price. You would review it and compare it to others. The time need is taken care of before. Just like life insurance. No more catastrophic plans, all kinds of regulation and ridiculousness. I would argue that in a freer market, the costs would be so much lower that the whole notion of wondering which ER would be least expensive would not even matter. I would argue that doing the research on the companies cost before buying the insurance is effectively you calling around to each ER, but doing that before you get into the accident. Just a thought. I'm not advocating for no regulation. Of course there needs to be regulation on some things, like fraud, etc. The market is by no means free especially in the health insurance area. Check out anti trust laws and insurance companies, they effectively are allowed to price fix.

 

[spencer rifle]

Good luck with research as the system is now. When my wife wanted her foot operation and tried to determine what provider had the best deal, she was frustrated. The PROVIDERS THEMSELVES literally COULD NOT tell her how much the procedure would cost. Would you really buy a car or washer or tax prep from someone who didn't know how much you would ultimately be charged?

 

[steveh_131]

Good luck with research as the system is now. When my wife wanted her foot operation and tried to determine what provider had the best deal, she was frustrated. The PROVIDERS THEMSELVES literally COULD NOT tell her how much the procedure would cost. Would you really buy a car or washer or tax prep from someone who didn't know how much you would ultimately be charged?

You're right, it's impossible. This is because health care does not exist within a free market. Get rid of the cronies and regulations and you'll be pricing out hourly rates just like a mechanic shop.

 

[actaeon277]

More news from the train wreck

Arnold Ahlert: More ObamaCare Abominations ? The Patriot Post

 

[ArcadiaGP]

All according to plan

Insurers warn losses from ObamaCare are unsustainable | TheHill

 

[actaeon277]

All according to plan

Insurers warn losses from ObamaCare are unsustainable | TheHill

8 out of 11 insurers are looking at backing out.
So much for "opening the market up", "providing more choices", and "bending the cost curve"

 

[rhino]

Which leads us to the conclusion that laws should not be named ironically. "Affordable Care Act" indeed.

 

[actaeon277]

Which leads us to the conclusion that laws should not be named ironically. "Affordable Care Act" indeed.

If they correctly labeled laws, 90 percent would probably disappear.

 

[OakRiver]

8 out of 11 insurers are looking at backing out.
So much for "opening the market up", "providing more choices", and "bending the cost curve"

Words designed to sell the concept to the ignorant to poison the well so that more comprehensive reform could take place.

 

[JollyMon]

Largest Health Insurer Pulls Out Of Most Obamacare Exchanges | The Daily Caller

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unitedhealth-to-trim-aca-exchanges-to-handful-of-states/