Liberals for wealth redistribution

[rightwinger]

It's funny to see someone defend a situation which mandates that insurers all offer the same "one size fits all plan" which is further restricted via price controls as "competition".

There is no requirement for "one size fits all" Insurance companise can offer a wide range of coverages.

What they can't do is refuse coverage for a pre-existing condition, put a lifetime cap on what they will pay

 

[MaggieMae]

Wowzers... Yet another a stunning and fact-pact post by Naggie.

Which one? Are you also too lazy to copy the post you refer to? Figures...

 

[MaggieMae]

The idea is to make private insurance so prohibitively expensive that it drives everyone to Big Daddy Big Gubmint for their coverage....From that point, a takeover of the entire industry is only inevitable, under the phony rubric of "See?...The market just doesn't work."

Wanna buy a bridge?

The bill forces private insurance companies to be more competitive. Isn't that what capitalism is all about?

Economically speaking, competition and force are mutually exclusive terms, you ignorant fifth columnist hack.

Oh my, I must really get under your skin, Jeffie. Good.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's funny to see someone defend a situation which mandates that insurers all offer the same "one size fits all plan" which is further restricted via price controls as "competition".

First of all, the insurers are not obligated to a one-size fits all package. I guess you still haven't bothered to read the high points. But the irony is that INSURANCE MANDATES FOR ALL has been proposed by REPUBLICANS going all the way back to Nixon.

Obama health insurance requirement taken from GOP

 

[MaggieMae]

Yeah, well old Naggie is as gullible as the day is long and dumber than a bag of hammers.

Par for the course.

Uh huh. Really bothers you that I'm none of that, doesn't it... But if ad hominem insults is all you got, then knock yourself out. It really says a whole lot about the level of your own intelligence, not mine.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yeah. The government "Forcing" economic activity is the antithesis of Capitalism and Free Markets - a fact lost on those who refuse to see how Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the FHA are at ground zero of the financial crisis. And now the Obamanoids want to ruin health care the way they have the housing sector.

You always manage to turn entire threads into your same allegations, proven to be untrue a gazillion times over. If you can prove your allegations, then you could receive $100,000 from Barry Ritholtz who wrote "Bailout Nation."

Consider this attempt at rewriting the causes of the credit crisis by Kevin Hassett:

“The worst financial crisis in generations was set off by a massive government effort, led by the two mortgage giants, to make loans to homebuyers no matter whether they could make the payments. Lenders were willing to lend money to just about all comers, no matter how low their income. Why? Because the lenders knew Fannie and Freddie would purchase the loans from them for a high price before bundling them into securities to sell to investors.”

Now, this makes for a fascinating narrative that plays into a number of different ideological beliefs. It exonerates the radical free market deregulators, it ignores what the private sector did, and it somehow ignores the fact that Congress was controlled by a very conservative GOP from 1994 to 2006 — the prime period of time covered leading up to and including the beginning of the crisis.

But worse than all of that, the data supporting Hassett’s position simply isn’t there.

Over the past 2 years, I have repeatedly asked the people who push this narrative to provide some evidence for their positions. I have offered a $100,000 if they could prove their case.

Specifically, I have requested some data or evidence that DISPROVED the following facts:

-The origination of subprime loans came primarily from non bank lenders not covered by the CRA;

-The majority of the underwriting, at least for the first few years of the boom, were by these same non-bank lenders

-When the big banks began chasing subprime, it was due to the profit motive, not any mandate from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw.

-Prior to 2005, nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street — NOT Fannie & Freddie

-In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages.

-After 2005, Fannie & Freddie changed their own rules to start buying these non-conforming mortgages — in order to maintain market share and compete with Wall Street for profits.

-The change in FNM/FRE conforming mortgage purchases in 2005 was not due to any legislation or marching orders from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled). It was the profit motive that led them to this action.

These are data supported facts I pounded on in BN.

Get Me ReWrite! | The Big Picture

 

[MaggieMae]

Premiums are skyrocketing in anticipation of extremely high risks being forced into the risk pool....As was all too predictable.

So much for authoritarian central control "controlling costs"....Well controlling them in a manner that brings them down , anyways.

Bull. Healthcare costs in the United States, including premiums, have been OUT OF control for years.

http://www.fl-counties.com/Docs/Enterprise Programs/HealthInsurancePremium.pdf

 

[Chris]

The economic collapse and the Gulf oil spil are the result of capitalism run amuk.

We need to take back our country from the Unholy Trinity of corporate greedheads, the Republican Party, and Fox Lies.

 

[Oddball]

Wow...You think that one up all by yourself?