Liberal view of Government.

[TDPerk]

"You are contradicting yourself and you are putting yourself and your country higher than you and your country deserve."

RE contradicting myself, show where, fisk me. Higher than either I or my country deserve? The US is one of the few continuously sovereign currently nations in existence, which is a fact I claim no credit for.

"How many have it? How many? It is about numbers! Of course some have it now too. "

You seem to be writing breathlessly. Too much waving your hands?!

"You BELIEVE that they will not increase more than 10%."

Because I don't see access to any drug being meaningfully restricted now. Those who want it, get it. Those susceptible to an addiction acquire it. I see no validity to your supposition that drug prohibition is preventing any great degree of addiction to them.

"The point that you are clearly more deluded than I am."

What do you imagine the difference is? I'm thinking about the American Revolution, why do you equate that with Hitlerism? I suspect ignorance on your part is the explanation, Skipjack.

And RE a response you made to someone else:
"You are assuming that the number of people that would try heroin would stay stable even when it becomes legal."

Since in the US cocain and like drugs were available for sale to the public without restriction until just after the turn of the century, and prohibition did not help (and if anything illegality has increased) the rates of addiction seen in that time--I have every evidence that addiction will not increase greatly if prohibition were ended.

Maybe the lack of alternative ways to pursue life, liberty, and happiness made the Chinese culture then more susceptible to addiction? A failing culture can't be pleassant to be in.

[Skipjack]

Many socialist leaning countries actively subsidize various programs (like health care) in attempts to achieve the results they want.

True, but the 7.6% are including any subsidizations that are paid from tax money as well. In the end it is percentage of GDP either way.

The study went on to demonstrate that if Crimes committed by minorities were removed from the statistics,
(Resulting in a European like homogeneity) then suddenly the USA had a LOWER crime rate than Europe.)

Austria has lots of immigrants (about 10% of our current population immigrated during the last 25 years).
We still have a lower crime rate than the US.
Though I do not generally disagree with you. A large percentage of the crimes here are commited by immigrants.

In any case, the Doctors Salaries would obey the normal free market rules except for the fact that various meddlings by the Federal Government created the conditions that drove the costs upward.

Again, we have very good doctors here, but they are not earning as much as the doctors in the US do. Strangely enough, very few of them would like to emmigrate to the US, for the very reasons I mentioned earlier.

My point is, i've learned not to accept comparisons as equal, until they can in fact be demonstrated to be equal. The system here in America is more free market oriented, and to those of us that believe the free market system is beneficial, it appears that the problems in health care (and other industries as well) tend to arise in the places that the government chooses to meddle.

Well I know plenty of people that disagree with you. If the ones that see what I see are in the majority, I win, if they are the minority, you win.
Thats democracy.

The difference between these communities or home owners associations and Governments is that you voluntarily agree to the terms and conditions and likewise to the rulings of the boards and committees.

Ah really? I would definitely try to avoid living in a community with a fascist HOA, but that is not easy. Membership is usually mandatory. So much about choice!

For the last several years there has been a lot of Anger and discussion about a Supreme court ruling which allows cities to seize peoples land, and give it to someone else.

I was not aware of this. When did this come to be?

I don't know what you are talking about.

The leave your four fracking walls and actually talk to people arround you! I dont even live in the US most of the time and I know quite a few people that are VERY unhappy with the current situation. I mentioned my wifes cousins. Another example is a friend of mine who is affraid to quit his current job because that would mean he would have to switch health care plans. That might be difficult since she had cancer and generally inbetween jobs things are going to be difficult. He makes really good money, but still, even for him it would be problematic.

I know two people that's had Heart Surgery, I know a guy that broke his forearm and had pins surgically installed in his arm, I know people who have had babies delivered (several in fact) and I know people who have had Knee surgery, etc. and not a one of them paid a d@amn cent for any of it!

Well I know the opposite, also involving people that had babies in the US and some of them would have to pay for years to cover all the cost (some of them will actually) if it was not for some fondations like CHIPP.
Some people had to file bankrupthy in order to deal with the cost of their healthcare. How does that add up?

They have rung up what to anyone else would be soul crushing bills, but they simply didn't care, and have no intention of paying for any of it.

Sure of course some people dont give a darn and somehow manage to get out of all this. I dont know how they do it though. It is definitely in the legal grey zone, if not worse.
The question is: Is that the way you want your system to be? Wouldnt it be better of these people HAD to pay for their health care? I mean the doctors and hospitals after all do deserve to get paid.

My recollection is that they solved the opium addiction problem by offering a period of amnesty for users, then after that period expired, they killed everyone that had anything to do with opium.
People may say that's a horrific solution, but you cannot argue that it didn't work pretty well.

How about avoiding this situation in the first place?

The point of all this is, The closer the government is to the citizen, the less onerous and the more useful it is, as well as the least costly. (or if not, at least you are getting something for what you pay. )

Well here they all suck pretty much equally.
So you want to break the US up in little city countries, like Athens was in ancient greece? I mean, what is your solution? Some things have to be regulated. You do e.g. need a military.

Oh I do hate taxes as much as you, but I do not mind paying for my healthcare (well it does hurt but I know what I pay it for). That is a big difference.

I have every evidence that addiction will not increase greatly if prohibition were ended.

Where is it?
Again, you want to bet your life, the life of your fellow country men and the lives of your children (if you have any) on that?
I would not.

Maybe the lack of alternative ways to pursue life, liberty, and happiness made the Chinese culture then more susceptible to addiction? A failing culture can't be pleassant to be in.

In contrast to you guys, at least they had some!

[alexjrgreen]

Maybe the lack of alternative ways to pursue life, liberty, and happiness made the Chinese culture then more susceptible to addiction? A failing culture can't be pleassant to be in.

In contrast to you guys, at least they had some!

China has a long history of sophisticated culture. That didn't stop them from trying to get rid of it in the Cultural Revolution.

EDIT: On reflection, I'm struggling to get my head round someone whose country's culture dates plausibly from the time of Maximilian I (1459 – 1519) deriding a country whose European culture dates from 1492, and whose indigenous culture goes back millennia.

[Skipjack]

China has a long history of sophisticated culture. That didn't stop them from trying to get rid of it in the Cultural Revolution.

Yes, a country that has much of its population giving in to opium, 10 percent benefitting from that, gives way to the other 40% blindly following anyone who promises change...
And in a situation like this, it is easy for those 40% to take over. The others pose much resistance and those 10% are easily dealt with.
Mao showed how to do it. In the process much of Chinas once great culture was destroyed.

[KitemanSA]

I do agree with you that quacks (and gee dont even get me started on those) should not be doctors. BUT, most cases in the US are not about that. If they were, you would have to have A LOT more quacks than we do.
But dont get yourself fooled, doctors are only human too and they will make mistakes, like everyone. Especially if they are overworked after over hours in the operation room, mistakes can happen and they will happen. You will have very, very few doctors left, if you kick every doctor that made a mistake ever.

Do you know the difference between COMPENSATORY and PUNITIVE damages? I made a statement regarding punitive damages, and you seem to be rambling on about how bad it would be if compensatory damages weren't allowed. PLEASE, think! I have made no statement about compensatory damages except that they should be limited to REAL, DEMONSTRABLE damages. How does this jibe with your statement above? It doesn't! If you want to make rediculous statements, please don't quote me.

The insurance company has to make a certain amount of money each year to please their share holders.

Yeah not the kind of people I want to make decisions regarding my health.

Then don't get insurance.

They may get away with charging premiums of $500M given a profit margin of 10%. But then along comes the knee jerker and says "they make too much profit margin. We will limit them to 5% maximum". So what happens? They arrange to have expenditures that cause the premiums to raise to $1000M to get the same job done (can you say lawsuit?), and the premium payer (me, and you if you lived here) pays twice as much as they need to for the same service. REAL beneficial there dude.

I cant follow your logic here.

What is so hard?
The insurance companies need X dollars to keep their shareholders happy. They can:
Make 10% of 10X or
make 5% of 20X to get that amount.

The premium payers pay either 10X or 5X dollars for the same service. Which is better for the payers? Obviously the 10 rather than 20. So, higher profit margin = lower rate. Clear?

[alexjrgreen]

China has a long history of sophisticated culture. That didn't stop them from trying to get rid of it in the Cultural Revolution.

Yes, a country that has much of its population giving in to opium, 10 percent benefitting from that, gives way to the other 40% blindly following anyone who promises change...
And in a situation like this, it is easy for those 40% to take over. The others pose much resistance and those 10% are easily dealt with.

Since the Cultural Revolution was from 1966 to 1976, you seem to have skipped a few pages...

Mao showed how to do it. In the process much of Chinas once great culture was destroyed.

Fortunately, most of the culture survived.

[Skipjack]

EDIT: On reflection, I'm struggling to get my head round someone whose country's culture dates plausibly from the time of Maximilian I (1459 – 1519) deriding a country whose European culture dates from 1492, and whose indigenous culture goes back millennia.

My country dates back to Maximilian, at which time your country did not exist yet. My CULTURE however is German and dates back millenia as well. My family name was first mentioned in a document in the 12th century, btw.
That was however not my point. I was simply argueing that the Chinese did have quite a lot of culture and a very old one at that. It is unfair to deny them that.

Fortunately, most of the culture survived.

For a long time the only way they were able to live their culture was through their food.

Do you know the difference between COMPENSATORY and PUNITIVE damages? I made a statement regarding punitive damages, and you seem to be rambling on about how bad it would be if compensatory damages weren't allowed.

I think you are missunderstanding me. Must be a language barrier problem.

What is so hard?

Understanding why this would benefit me as someone who needs health insurance.

Since the Cultural Revolution was from 1966 to 1976, you seem to have skipped a few pages...

The process started much earlier. It was interrupted by the japanese occupation during WW2 and took a while to get going again, but Mao was already at work long before WW2.

[Diogenes]

Many socialist leaning countries actively subsidize various programs (like health care) in attempts to achieve the results they want.

True, but the 7.6% are including any subsidizations that are paid from tax money as well. In the end it is percentage of GDP either way.

Are you familiar with the word Fungible ? When I wrote this I was thinking that the Austrian perspective may overlook the fact that money is fungible. What you don't spend on defense, you might spend on Health care. We, might have the opposite problem. Without looking into it deeply, I cannot assert anything with certainty. H*ll, perhaps the Austrian system DOES work better. I just don't know enough of all the factors involved to espouse an informed judgment.

The study went on to demonstrate that if Crimes committed by minorities were removed from the statistics,
(Resulting in a European like homogeneity) then suddenly the USA had a LOWER crime rate than Europe.)

Austria has lots of immigrants (about 10% of our current population immigrated during the last 25 years).
We still have a lower crime rate than the US.
Though I do not generally disagree with you. A large percentage of the crimes here are commited by immigrants.

Off the top of my head, I think Minorities in the USA comprise somewhere around 40% of the population. Certain minorities are far less likely to commit crimes than others. Asians and Jews are very law abiding. Others, not so much. Wait till your country has 40% immigrants.

My point is, i've learned not to accept comparisons as equal, until they can in fact be demonstrated to be equal. The system here in America is more free market oriented, and to those of us that believe the free market system is beneficial, it appears that the problems in health care (and other industries as well) tend to arise in the places that the government chooses to meddle.

Well I know plenty of people that disagree with you. If the ones that see what I see are in the majority, I win, if they are the minority, you win.
Thats democracy.

I don't believe facts can be established by consensus (except perhaps for the definitions of words.) and while one side might be able to claim the victory of majority, that won't make them in fact right. The people who are correct are the one's that have a better grasp of what is actually happening, even if the Majority think they are wrong.

The difference between these communities or home owners associations and Governments is that you voluntarily agree to the terms and conditions and likewise to the rulings of the boards and committees.

Ah really? I would definitely try to avoid living in a community with a fascist HOA, but that is not easy. Membership is usually mandatory. So much about choice!

Membership is mandatory if you choose to live in one of those communities. Unless you are born into it, you will only encounter this problem if you are seeking to buy property which is tied up with one of these covenants. At that point, you will have the voluntary ability to choose to live elsewhere. Again, that freedom is preserved unless it is voluntarily surrendered. If the cage is gilded enough, some people will live in it willingly.

For the last several years there has been a lot of Anger and discussion about a Supreme court ruling which allows cities to seize peoples land, and give it to someone else.

I was not aware of this. When did this come to be?

2005. The Decision was Kelo v. City of New London.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London

It so angered some people that they formed a group in the Connecticut township in which Justice David Souter lives, with the sole purpose of using Imminent Domain to seize Justice Souter's house, and to turn it into what they were going to call "Freedom Hotel." Unfortunately, they couldn't persuade a sufficient number of officials to do this.

I don't know what you are talking about.

The leave your four fracking walls and actually talk to people arround you! I dont even live in the US most of the time and I know quite a few people that are VERY unhappy with the current situation. I mentioned my wifes cousins. Another example is a friend of mine who is affraid to quit his current job because that would mean he would have to switch health care plans. That might be difficult since she had cancer and generally inbetween jobs things are going to be difficult. He makes really good money, but still, even for him it would be problematic.

My not knowing what you are talking about has nothing to do with me not getting out enough. It is simply a manner of asserting that my experiences were very different from yours. You are talking about the lower working class with ethics. I am referring to the poor class without the slightest inhibition of ethics.

That being said *I* am unhappy with the medical system. I have personal knowledge and first hand experience. First of all, there is a lot of incompetence in medicine. Secondly, there is a lot of lying going on. Thirdly, there is much fraud. If normal buisness engaged in the billing practices that the Medical organizations used routinely, they would be prosecuted for fraud. Fourth, there is massive built in inflation for the cost of everything they do. (e.g. $25.00 for aspirin.) Fifth, they are so full of themselves that they are completely disconnected from the reality of what they are doing.

An example. Why does it cost $1,000.00 per day to lie in a bed in a room ? Why does a 30 minute procedure costing $800.00 require an $11,000.00 operating room ?
Yeah, things are pretty screwed up.

I know two people that's had Heart Surgery, I know a guy that broke his forearm and had pins surgically installed in his arm, I know people who have had babies delivered (several in fact) and I know people who have had Knee surgery, etc. and not a one of them paid a d@amn cent for any of it!

Well I know the opposite, also involving people that had babies in the US and some of them would have to pay for years to cover all the cost (some of them will actually) if it was not for some fondations like CHIPP.
Some people had to file bankrupthy in order to deal with the cost of their healthcare. How does that add up?

Since I don't know the specifics, I can only speculate. I have had numerous run-ins with medical institutions and people, and first of all, I don't let them lie to me. I scrutinize their bill and question them about dubious charges. I've had two different hospitals try to play hardball with me, and I convinced them that that was not a good approach. (Neither case was for me personally. I haven't been under hospital care since I was a child in 1966, and they screwed that up too! ) It has been my observation that the typical hospital bill contains a lot of B.S. in it that doesn't survive scrutiny.

At this point, I speculate that your friends were possibly cheated.

They have rung up what to anyone else would be soul crushing bills, but they simply didn't care, and have no intention of paying for any of it.

Sure of course some people dont give a darn and somehow manage to get out of all this. I dont know how they do it though. It is definitely in the legal grey zone, if not worse.
The question is: Is that the way you want your system to be? Wouldnt it be better of these people HAD to pay for their health care? I mean the doctors and hospitals after all do deserve to get paid.

Yes, Doctors and Hospitals do deserve to get paid. But they deserve to get paid a reasonable amount for the services they render, not 10 times an excessive amount.

Lying in a bed in a hospital should not cost $1,000.00 per day. Half that much is too much. One of the problems with health is that people have become disconnected from reality. The prices don't reflect reality due to a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that people don't pay their own bills anymore. If they did, the medical community would immediately discover thrift.

My recollection is that they solved the opium addiction problem by offering a period of amnesty for users, then after that period expired, they killed everyone that had anything to do with opium.
People may say that's a horrific solution, but you cannot argue that it didn't work pretty well.

How about avoiding this situation in the first place?

You'll get no argument from me. I am not an advocate of legalizing drugs. While I might be somewhat tolerant on the idea of de-criminalizing marijuana, I like the idea of keeping drugs like crack, meth, heroine, etc. illegal.

The point of all this is, The closer the government is to the citizen, the less onerous and the more useful it is, as well as the least costly. (or if not, at least you are getting something for what you pay. )

Well here they all suck pretty much equally.
So you want to break the US up in little city countries, like Athens was in ancient greece? I mean, what is your solution? Some things have to be regulated. You do e.g. need a military.

Absolutely. What we don't need is a Department of Education, A Department of Energy, an Endowment for the arts, A Department of health and human services, etc.
As far as i'm concerned, if the Dept didn't exist in the First hundred years of this country's existence, then it isn't a necessary dept.

Oh I do hate taxes as much as you, but I do not mind paying for my healthcare (well it does hurt but I know what I pay it for). That is a big difference.

This is not just about taxes. It is about allowing idiots who have demonstrated themselves to be incompetent at everything they have ever attempted (my personal theory is that people in Government are generally idiots, or they would be in better jobs elsewhere.) will now be running health care.

We have seen so many colossal failures by wrong headed bureaucrats in Government that we are adamantly against them spreading this disease any further into our lives and livelihood.

It's not just the fact that we will have to pay more, it's the fact that adding idiots to the system will make the system worse.

[Diogenes]

Maybe the lack of alternative ways to pursue life, liberty, and happiness made the Chinese culture then more susceptible to addiction? A failing culture can't be pleassant to be in.

In contrast to you guys, at least they had some!

China has a long history of sophisticated culture. That didn't stop them from trying to get rid of it in the Cultural Revolution.

EDIT: On reflection, I'm struggling to get my head round someone whose country's culture dates plausibly from the time of Maximilian I (1459 – 1519) deriding a country whose European culture dates from 1492, and whose indigenous culture goes back millennia.

As I used to point out to various adults who used to claim superior (but wrong) experience to me when I was a young man, "Some people learn faster than others."

China was once (for something like 5000 years) the leader of civilization. Early in their history, their professional bureaucracy stifled any further development. ( it was detrimental to good public order.)

As i'm also fond of pointing out, if Christianity is so detrimental to science, why did science flourish only in the Christian nations for the last 500 years or so ?

Since the other nations were shown the way (@ 100 years ago) they have wasted no time in catching up to what the Christianized nations developed initially.

China being the obvious example.

[alexjrgreen]

EDIT: On reflection, I'm struggling to get my head round someone whose country's culture dates plausibly from the time of Maximilian I (1459 – 1519) deriding a country whose European culture dates from 1492, and whose indigenous culture goes back millennia.

My country dates back to Maximilian, at which time your country did not exist yet.

Since I'm British, you're rather wide of the mark.

[Skipjack]

Are you familiar with the word Fungible ? When I wrote this I was thinking that the Austrian perspective may overlook the fact that money is fungible. What you don't spend on defense, you might spend on Health care. We, might have the opposite problem. Without looking into it deeply, I cannot assert anything with certainty. H*ll, perhaps the Austrian system DOES work better. I just don't know enough of all the factors involved to espouse an informed judgment.

Nope, not even my wife is, who is an american.
Well our defense and our health care cost are lower than yours. But then, in return, I have to say that we do not have much of military here in Austria.
We do spend a lot of money ond social stuff, like pensions unemployment, etc. This is getting harder and harder to sustain. The "new" Austrians are abusing the system to much, while the "old" Austrians dont have enough children.
But, it is still working.

The funny thing is that we do pay about the same amount of taxes you do, maybe a few percent more. Only those US citizens that make more than 70k a year or so pay less than we do. So most pay about the same.
However, from my perspective we get more.
Schools universities, health care, maternity leave, retirement, unemployment money, etc. It is all paid for by the government.
For the same money most americans pay. I looked it up and did the math. It comes out the same, or almost the same (2 percent different or so, but in return you have to pay property taxes for your house that we do not have).
My wife has seen both worlds. She grew up in the US, but she does see the benefits of our system too.
I dont want to say that your system is inferior to ours, but it is at least not THAT superior either and that comes at a price.

An example. Why does it cost $1,000.00 per day to lie in a bed in a room ? Why does a 30 minute procedure costing $800.00 require an $11,000.00 operating room ?
Yeah, things are pretty screwed up.

I agree, they are. IMHO the reasons for this lie in the fact that there are not enough doctors, there are not enough beds. That means a lack of competition. Further hospitals end up not always getting ther money (as you pointed out) and they have to compensate.
Then they have to compensate for lawsuits and so on.
And last but not least some star surgeons collect way to much money for their services.

An operating room is very expensive to maintain.
Just keeping everything sterile is not cheap.
It is not just the room that costs, but the equipment in it.
Many things are use once, throw away items. They have to be. Still the price seems a bit high to me too. I could check the prices here, if you want to (might take me a while though).

e.g. $25.00 for aspirin

Last time I checked (a few years ago), a bottle of 100 aspirin pills cost a few dollars. It was way cheaper than here. Austrians were stocking up and taking the pills home with them. Did prices explode like that?

Membership is mandatory if you choose to live in one of those communities.

True, but your selection is not that big. Sometimes you have the choice not to choose, if you understand what I mean.
I am always window- shopping for real estate in the US. It is a hobby of mine.
But true, you do somewhat have the choice here. But then I can somewhat choose where I want to live too.

Wait till your country has 40% immigrants

Uhm you have 40% minorities, we have 10% immigrants. Big difference...
I dont think that you have 40% immigrants (as in first generation).
I might be wrong though. Lots of Mexicans lately.
But then I brought that up myself, hu? I guess you are right probably.
The 40% minorities wont take us that long anymore though, at the rate the muslims here procreate.

2005. The Decision was Kelo v. City of New London.

Now that would probably not happen here in Austria. I have never heard of that. People are already making no end of a fuzz when there is a new autobahn going through someones property (for which he is also very generously compensated).

My not knowing what you are talking about has nothing to do with me not getting out enough. It is simply a manner of asserting that my experiences were very different from yours. You are talking about the lower working class with ethics. I am referring to the poor class without the slightest inhibition of ethics.

I am sorry, was a missinterpretation on my side then.

In any case, there are many of said lower working class with ethics in your country. They used to be your lower middle class. That one has been going away in your country though. It is actually tought in economics classes here as an example (sadly a bad one).

As i'm also fond of pointing out, if Christianity is so detrimental to science, why did science flourish only in the Christian nations for the last 500 years or so ?

Because those scientists did not give a darn about Christianity? Many of them were jews too, actually...

Since I'm British,

Ach, that explains it all, ggggg

[TDPerk]

"Because those scientists did not give a darn about Christianity? Many of them were jews too, actually... "

Because Christianity developed a society where it was permitted to not--relatively--to give a darn about Christianity. The other major religions were far more repressive, and persists in that to this day--holding their societies back.

So Skipjack, how are coming on finding my contradictions?

[KitemanSA]

Do you know the difference between COMPENSATORY and PUNITIVE damages? I made a statement regarding punitive damages, and you seem to be rambling on about how bad it would be if compensatory damages weren't allowed.

I think you are missunderstanding me. Must be a language barrier problem.

Since it was my statement you dismissed with a negative tone, it behooves YOU to understand me, not the other way around. In the future, ASK rather than belittle. Honey rather than vinegar, ok?

What is so hard?

Understanding why this would benefit me as someone who needs health insurance.

I would think that you, as someone who wants insurance, would like to pay the lowest possible amount to get it. Therefore, anything that RAISES the premiums for the same service would be a BAD thing, no? Well, limiting the profit margin of the insurance companies, any regulated company in fact, RAISES the rates that must be paid for their service and is a BAD thing. Get it now?

[Skipjack]

Because Christianity developed a society where it was permitted to not--relatively--to give a darn about Christianity.

Oh really? I must have missed that. All I can remember is people burning at the stake and having to denounce their own teachings...
Gallileo, Kepler and co will happily tell you about it.
If it was not for some brave people facing up to the church and therefore reducing its power, we would still be burning "witches" and "heretics" at the stake. Kinda reminds me of the "infidels" of the muslim world. Same difference.

Since it was my statement you dismissed with a negative tone

That is the language barrier I was talking about. Besides, I still dont see how that would change anything.

On the topic the way I see it:
Punitive damages are a risk. The higher the risk I have to take, the more return I want for it. It is the same at any business. So I think it would just make things more expensive if they could not insure for those.

Well, limiting the profit margin of the insurance companies, any regulated company in fact, RAISES the rates that must be paid for their service and is a BAD thing.

This is the part where I can not follow.
Ok, maybe I am slowly getting you, though it sounds more like insurance company lobbyist talk than anything else:
Are you saying the the insurance companies make everything they do twice as expensive and twice as inefficient so their self cost is twice as high, but also so ultmately their 5% margins are twice as high?
Geee, I wonder why the people working at insurance companies make such crappy salaries then.

[KitemanSA]

Since it was my statement you dismissed with a negative tone

That is the language barrier I was talking about. Besides, I still dont see how that would change anything.

On the topic the way I see it:
Punitive damages are a risk. The higher the risk I have to take, the more return I want for it. It is the same at any business. So I think it would just make things more expensive if they could not insure for those.

"Punitive" damages are to PUNISH the person found guilty, as in for doing something morally reprehensible, not just to compensate for losses suffered by the patient when the doctor makes a human error. Punitive damages should PUNISH the individual being punished, not everyone else who pays for the premiums to cover such awards. However, lawyers go for the punitive damages because they are the big awards, not because they really think the doctor needs punishing. Remove that "big award" incentive, and only those that TRULY need punishing will be hit with punitive damages.

Well, limiting the profit margin of the insurance companies, any regulated company in fact, RAISES the rates that must be paid for their service and is a BAD thing.

This is the part where I can not follow.
Ok, maybe I am slowly getting you, though it sounds more like insurance company lobbyist talk than anything else:
Are you saying the the insurance companies make everything they do twice as expensive and twice as inefficient so their self cost is twice as high, but also so ultmately their 5% margins are twice as high?
Geee, I wonder why the people working at insurance companies make such crappy salaries then.

Now you see? There you go again. You finally ask a question seeking understanding and then you ruin your progress with the nastiness at the end. Next time, perhaps you should try a closing statement more like. "But I am still not convinced. How does your thesis jibe with the fact that insurance companies pay their employees so poorly. Your thesis would seem to suggest that they would be paid over-well."

Giving you one more benefit of the doubt, I will answer your implied question rather than your nasty taunt.

High court costs/damage awards are coverable under that type of limitation, high salaries would be seen as "excessive" and limited too. However, you would find that it takes twice as many low paid people to do the job that needs to be done, or more and more needless tests are being done while pretending to work (at great expense) to limit the number done. That type of thing. The company would and does find many coverable expenses to increase the needed premiums.

Profit margin limitation leads to excess costs in ALL such regulated businesses. Poor maintenance leads to the need to expend more money to keep power lines, and TV cables, and phone lines, etc. in service. Those expenses can be passed to the user, and a profit margin taken on all of it. These companies could do good, low cost, PREVENTIVE maintenance; or poor, high cost repair. Profit limited companies do the latter, open market companies do the former.

One final request of you skipjack. If you quote multiple sources in your missives, please try to indicate who you are quoting. Otherwise, it can easily be missconstrued by your readers and it is tantemount to bearing false witness against the quoted.