Do you want the government telling you how to run your business, right down to how much of your budget is allowed to be spent on specific items? At the rate we’re going, it may be coming”

—The/Our government has a long history regulating industry. This is nothing new, and certainly not terrifying. Which is what I was referring I said you were misinformed.

–Further, you stated “it may be coming.” In fact, it is already here. This is another reason I said you were misinformed. For example, in banking, the government explicitly states what are acceptable capital levels, which impact the budget in a myriad of ways.

-Finally, you never actually wrote “It’s a bad thing,” as you assert in your reply “what you think I might have meant by what I actually said.”

Dano misinformed? Maybe. Dano unclear? Definitely.

Did I ever say that this was the first instance of this type government interference? I’m pretty sure I didn’t.

What I said was that it was a bad thing. You showing me another example doesn’t negate my position at all, and it certainly doesn’t make me “misinformed”.

That’s just you making assumptions based on what you think I might have meant by what I actually said. Of course, you know what they say about assumptions….

Ever heard of 12CFR, it’s been around a looooong time. You are just misinformed, that’s all.

I’m a free market guy, and I am by no means crazy about the feds imposing restrictions like this. But let’s be honest…if Aetna can’t manage to deliver coverage at 10 times the overhead cost of the government’s own big, fat, stupid, inefficient plan, then that doesn’t say much for the argument that competition drives down the cost of services.

The U.S. health care industry is an endless smorgasbord of profit taking because it sells something no one can live without and delivers it through a marketplace that doesn’t openly compete on cost. It is a broken system and left as is, it may well bankrupt this country.

I’m a supporter of ACA primarily because it’s a minor tune-up to an engine that’s about to break down. What the engine really needs is a complete rebuild. My firm belief is that at some point in the future, we’ll have a National Health Service. It will happen because eventually the shedding of employer-sponsored healthcare will reach a tipping point — the shedding began years before Obama took office — and most American consumers will find themselves exposed to the healthcare market as I see it: a place where a perfectly healthy, non-smoking, non-drinking family pays thousands of dollars a year in premiums simply for the privilege of meeting a $10,000 annual deductible. Without an NHS type system, that’s the future for more and more Americans — most of whom are not prepared for the financial wallop that future will bring. I just read this weekend that 75 percent of Americans nearing retirement have just $30,000 in the bank. Two trips to the hospital and that nest egg is gone. Vanished.

For me, choosing which side of this debate to support has been easy. The system is broken. Obama, for all his faults, tried to do something about it. His opponents aren’t interested in his solution or any other.

There will be insurers who thrive even under these overhead restrictions. They’ll do it using the tools American enterprises are so lauded for: ingenuity, innovation, efficiency. I’m not going to lose sleep over those who don’t make it.

Do you want the government telling you how to run your business, right down to how much of your budget is allowed to be spent on specific items? At the rate we’re going, it may be coming….

Plus, how do you think the companies will react to having to refund all of these premiums? If you think the answer is anything other than “higher rates next year”, you’re probably wrong.