News US To Convene a Constitutional Convention

[Greg Bernhardt]

Well, they wouldn't choose. Perhaps a better way of stating it is that one insurance company charges a little less to attract new customers, so the rest have to follow suit, until insurance costs are manageable but still competitive.

This process would work for something like light bulbs, but switching insurance companies is a hassle. I won't want to be switching every year just to save $10. I'd like to hear other opinions. I'm also not sure why this wouldn't be relevant now. It's not like insurance companies are barely treading water. What would be done about annual rising premiums too? I know mine has doubled in just 4-5 years. Base starting price doesn't seem so meaningful anymore.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, they wouldn't choose. Perhaps a better way of stating it is that one insurance company charges a little less to attract new customers, so the rest have to follow suit, until insurance costs are manageable but still competitive.

I've disclosed my professional participation in the insurance industry in other threads. I would not expect rates to decrease by adding even 100 million people to the insured list.

There are two primary reasons - IMPO.
1.) Many of the people in this group have pre-existing conditions and will cost the insurance companies more to cover.
2.) The insurance companies won't know their maximum exposure to claims for a number of years - given open lifetime limits.



Here's a pro-Obama link that explains these "benefits".
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201103230001

 

[Drakkith]

This process would work for something like light bulbs, but switching insurance companies is a hassle. I won't want to be switching every year just to save $10. I'd like to hear other opinions. I'm also not sure why this wouldn't be relevant now. It's not like insurance companies are barely treading water. What would be done about annual rising premiums too? I know mine has doubled in just 4-5 years. Base starting price doesn't seem so meaningful anymore.

The problem is that as you age it is almost a gurantee that you WILL require healthcare. I purchased a 30 year policy (I think it was 30 years) a year or two ago that has a set premium that will not increase. I'm only 27. But I realize that if I don't do so now, purchasing a policy 10-15 years down the road will cost me far more. (Hopefully I read all the rules correctly and didn't get screwed)

The only real way to not worry about healthcare is to simply try to stay as healthy as possible to avoid having very expensive long term healthcare for something preventable. And it won't work for everyone. Accidents happen, bad things happen, and people aren't perfect. It is each persons responsibility to plan for their own future in my opinion.

 

[edpell]

What would I choose to change? Well..

I would focus more on how the constitution gets enforced. The current scheme seems to have zero enforcement.

I would limit wealth of individuals and massively limit corporations (with more employee control, complete transparency, no speech rights, no personhood, no right to insure their board of directors and senior management against lawsuits, etc...)

I would outlaw income tax. I would outlaw standing armies. I would require a balanced budget. I would require that the states have more military power than the federal government. I would limit the federal budget to less than 10% of GNP. I would make the house elections be on a national basis so minor party candidates can get elected. I would allow recall by 30% of those who voted for the candidate. I would forbid foreign aid in the constitution.

I would strengthen the right to be secure in ones person and home and car. Signed search warrants always required. I would require the budget of any spy agency to be public record.

I would require that the use of any military force outside the country require a 2/3 vote of both houses and be valid for only 90 days when it must be reauthorized.

I would forbid anyone from contributing more than 10x the minimum wage to politics per year. That is not per candidate that is total. I would forbid anyone from owning an interest in more than one media outlet and limit that interest to less than 1% of the company. I would forbid the ownership of many things by foreigners like media outlets, land, roads, ports, buildings, fishing rights, corporations, etc...

I would limit immigration to less than 1/10 of one percent per year. That is total legal and illegal. If illegal is not controlled than the legal limit would be 1/10 of one percent - the illegal rate or zero whichever is bigger.

I would place a $20,000 tax on the birth of a third child, $60,000 on the fourth, $180,000 of the fifth, ...

 

[Drakkith]

Well, I'm glad you aren't in charge edpell lol.

 

[Proton Soup]

i'd amend the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text"

it's time we correct this and remove incentives to put more people in prison.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude[STRIKE], except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,[/STRIKE] shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWg-rLYcO7o