Gov's Certificate of Need stops Dr. from offering cheap MRI scans

[kpitcher]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...rolina-lawsuit

Certificate-of-need laws were in vogue 40 years ago. But lawmakers quickly discovered that, in practice, they often served to protect hospitals from competition. Forty-nine states had such a statute at one time, but in the decades since, 14 states have repealed theirs.

Singh wants to make North Carolina the next one. He says if he prevails, and he’s able to purchase a permanent MRI, he hopes it will bring in more money for his center — and then, he says, he can lower prices more.


Under North Carolina’s law, a medical provider must obtain a government permit (a “certificate of need”) if they want to offer certain new services or buy new equipment. But first, every year, state officials will make a determination about whether certain services are needed in different places.

Gov mandated monopolies, part of our wondrous health care system.

[Brian4Liberty]

Somebody listened to a recent Liberty Report...

[nikcers]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...rolina-lawsuit


Gov mandated monopolies, part of our wondrous health care system.

Now we just need to get government to regulate social media. We need to get Bill Gates to take a look at this...

[kpitcher]

Now we just need to get government to regulate social media. We need to get Bill Gates to take a look at this...

Gov has already passed the crowns of social media to the existing ones. With no net neutrality the chances of a new social media company being formed to challenge the likes of FB or Twitter is far more expensive and less likely.

As our internet backbones have been built by hundreds of billions of tax payer money net neutrality should exist. Until companies pay back the money they received from the gov for broken contracts over the past few decades they should be deemed public utilities which can't be used to support crony capitalism.

[nikcers]

Gov has already passed the crowns of social media to the existing ones. With no net neutrality the chances of a new social media company being formed to challenge the likes of FB or Twitter is far more expensive and less likely.

As our internet backbones have been built by hundreds of billions of tax payer money net neutrality should exist. Until companies pay back the money they received from the gov for broken contracts over the past few decades they should be deemed public utilities which can't be used to support crony capitalism.

The government isn't capable of legislating morality, regulation can never achieve freedom of speech unless its regulation of government. Next you are going to say that the RPF admin can't ban people just because he doesn't like what they say, regulation will slow innovation and make companies afraid to invest in their infrastructure. I remember when it was Hillary Clinton that wanted to regulate the internet, I remember when the government tried to make a website and spent a $#@! ton on it and the website still $#@! the bed over and over again. I think the government should stay away from the internet backbone.

[kpitcher]

The government isn't capable of legislating morality, regulation can never achieve freedom of speech unless its regulation of government. Next you are going to say that the RPF admin can't ban people just because he doesn't like what they say, regulation will slow innovation and make companies afraid to invest in their infrastructure. I remember when it was Hillary Clinton that wanted to regulate the internet, I remember when the government tried to make a website and spent a $#@! ton on it and the website still $#@! the bed over and over again. I think the government should stay away from the internet backbone.

You missed the point of my comment.

I'm against crony capitalism, which is how our Internet in the USA now works. It will be harder for a competitor to Facebook or Twitter to come about.

We citizens have paid over 1/2 a Trillion in money to the internet backbone providers via tax breaks, grants, and limits on competition, so that everyone could get fiber to the home. (It varies some by state, but it's country wide) The key companies did some work, didn't finish their contracts, reaped the benefits. No one in the federal or state level held them accountable. A few years go by and they do the same thing again, this has been going on for decades. This has been one giant handout to the politically connected telecommunication companies.

Up until recently we had in essence Net Neutrality, a backbone provider couldn't block or slow down your Internet based on websites you were visiting. The FCC removing net neutrality means that you as a consumer can now start being blocked or slowed down, your internet changes based on where you want to go. A large rich company wants to ensure they're the fastest social media company you can access, they can. Since this advantage exists on tax payer paid for utilities I have a problem with this.

Individual companies should be allowed to do as they please. RPF wants to ban away, sure thing, go ahead. If spaceX launches a new low orbit satellite based Internet service that didn't get any taxpayer funding, sure they can block speeds as they see fit, it's a private company. If my connection to the internet, paid for by taxpayer money, slows down a new competitor to facebook - that's where I have a problem but it's entirely legal for that to happen now.

[nikcers]

You missed the point of my comment.

I'm against crony capitalism, which is how our Internet in the USA now works. It will be harder for a competitor to Facebook or Twitter to come about.

We citizens have paid over 1/2 a Trillion in money to the internet backbone providers via tax breaks, grants, and limits on competition, so that everyone could get fiber to the home. (It varies some by state, but it's country wide) The key companies did some work, didn't finish their contracts, reaped the benefits. No one in the federal or state level held them accountable. A few years go by and they do the same thing again, this has been going on for decades. This has been one giant handout to the politically connected telecommunication companies.

Up until recently we had in essence Net Neutrality, a backbone provider couldn't block or slow down your Internet based on websites you were visiting. The FCC removing net neutrality means that you as a consumer can now start being blocked or slowed down, your internet changes based on where you want to go. A large rich company wants to ensure they're the fastest social media company you can access, they can. Since this advantage exists on tax payer paid for utilities I have a problem with this.

Individual companies should be allowed to do as they please. RPF wants to ban away, sure thing, go ahead. If spaceX launches a new low orbit satellite based Internet service that didn't get any taxpayer funding, sure they can block speeds as they see fit, it's a private company. If my connection to the internet, paid for by taxpayer money, slows down a new competitor to facebook - that's where I have a problem but it's entirely legal for that to happen now.

well yeah, at the time the government was the only one who really used the internet, they paid private companies to do it, I am not opposed to that, I prefer that over government, it would of cost a lot more. The bulk of it was to pay companies to build networks where there is nobody even there to serve, building houses where no one wants to buy them.

You could say that is a boondoggle but if the private industry didn't do it then the government would of done it, they would of done it for government defense and communications which that was what it was designed for. You are also conflating the backbone service providers and last mile providers though, which is a common misconception.

It would cost over 140 billion dollars to put fiber to every bodies home, not even google could build that, and it wouldn't even be very marketable, especially because so many people have access to gigabit connections. The internet has only gotten faster after net neutrality was repealed, and there are wireless options that prevent companies from gaining monopolistic control and censoring or throttling data. If my ISP blocked me from watching Netflix I would just switch to another provider, they have no incentive to do that.

[kpitcher]

https://newnetworks.com/
They provide an in depth, and free, PDF explaining how we all got ripped off with nothing to show. If anyone in congress had any balls they'd take this up as a cause. Who doesn't want faster Internet, especially since we've already paid for it?

Backbone and last mile are often one and the same nowadays because of government policies that made it impossible for major telco's to lose leading to the demise of CLECs. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint are backbone and to the home. While some backbone only providers exist the delineation isn't like it used to be.

I'd take the 140 billion cost to have fiber to the home, it's far less than we've already paid out! Oh and in most cases that's the exact promise that was given for the money. Telcos promised that by 2000 fiber would be to everyone's home and the government paid up over and over.

I'm way off on a tangent from the OP although we're both basically saying the same thing - allowing the government to pick winners and losers leads to consumers losing be it MRIs or Internet.