Only a communist thinks this way.

I'm moving on from Sebby to Burger. Sorry balt.

Were you joking about including more strict labor and environmental provisions in CAFTA. That is telling other countrys to adopt our values isn't it? You whole idea of parallel regulations means making third world countries adopting our rules (and values) as far as labor and the environment are concered.

I promise I will never post about CAFTA again. Hard habit to break.

I think wonk has already explained that if you go to the emergency room, you get a bill. The health-care system has many problems, 't'is true, but I remain unconvinced that people getting free care by going to ERs and then skipping out on their bills is a big problem. Maybe RT will tell me otherwise.

My point about Las Vegas was only that people might be acting rationally in declining insurance, in the same way that it might be rational for you or I to decline to buy earthquake insurance. I agree that it becomes a problem for the rest of us when those people lose their bets.

I think the bigger health care problems can be seen in the fact that wonk, who I suspect is about as informed and rational a health-care consumer as there is, can be whacked $5000 for the trip to his ER doctor. The complexity of the contractual arrangements necessary to purchase health-care defies the efforts of any reasonable consumer to act rationally. The transactions costs are massive, and the benefits enjoyed by repeat players are overwhelming.

I was joking that the combination of CAFTA and the details of health-care requirements would be even more scintillating than either topic alone.

Under my plan everyone has health insurance (if you drive it is provided by private insurance, if you don't drive it is still provided by private insurance but the government pays for it, and if no private plan covers you, you get government insurance). So no one gets wacked with a big ER bill. And people that avoid going to the doctor because they can't pay for it will now go because they have insurance.

So where is the problem?

Oh - realize that was a joke. I was also using it as a chance to compare your position on trade to the Neo-cons. A stretch - but what the hell.

Wonk had/has health insurance and still got whacked with a big ER bill.

Valid point. But it is not in our interest that they don't get insurance. So we force them to get it if they drive. And if they don't drive we pay for it because it is in our interest that they get it.

14:30, 14:31....... and counting
 

I'm in a position where I am somewhat managerial. Much of my day is spent listening to younger lawyers explain things and then agreeing or focusing their proposed course of action. I also spend a good deal of time client hand holding. I do work, but only about half the time. When I'm on vacation much of the managerial stuff continues.

A president would have all his office time be the managerial type. People would come explain stuff then he'd decide things. Why can't he do that in Texas? I bet the main difference is that he can go outside in Texas.

See Ty, your vacations aren't necessarially what a President or a sucessful lawyer experiences.

He's mine. Back the fuck off, bitch.

And it was a joke, slave. I don't use hyperbole like that. That's you and penske.

You don[t force people to get any old insurance. Obviously, you force people to get plans that cover Emergency situations. Wonk got screwed by the small print. And just further evidence the current system sucks and needs to be changed to mine.

Maybe what Wonk thought was an emergency wasn't really an emergency. What result then?

Since you're new I'll give you a bit more slack. We NEVER engage the internet trolls and you keep engaging the worst- if we all ignore this Ty sock it'll go away, but you responding to it keeps it here and it creeps most of us out.