Quote :

"In most of the data I've seen obesity is a small cost of the whole pie in terms of American healthcare. I've seen numbers as low as 1%."

There's no way that could be true. Obesity is a condition, but it's usually a symptom of other bad behaviors and poor habits. The long-term consequences of poor fitness and nutrition are far reaching, as they lead to general deterioration of health.

Quote :

"Imagine there isn't single payer and companies can deny someone for high risk/preexisting conditions."

Sounds perfectly reasonable. Why would you insure someone that has already gotten sick? That's the equivalent of getting home owner's insurance on a home that has already burned to the ground. "But...it's not fair, I didn't know I needed insurance, and now my house is gone! You should have to cover the cost, despite the fact that I never bothered to pay premiums before!"

Removing the adverse effects of being a nitwit isn't going to improve health or society. It's just going to make things worse.

Quote :

"I imagine soon enough we will have whole family lines denied health insurance because of a particular genetic trait. Why should I or anyone have to pay for any of them?"

Insurance plans will still be available, especially if those individuals actively work to avoid risks associated with genetics. There aren't many "super humans". Everyone has a genetic predisposition to certain health problems, that's just part of being human.

The vast majority of health problems are related to behavior, though. People need to realize that there is a financial cost to their poor decisions. Pooling risk for the sake of "fairness" is a great way to incentivize bad behavior.

12/27/2011 4:42:30 PM

Quote :

"There's no way that could be true. Obesity is a condition, but it's usually a symptom of other bad behaviors and poor habits. The long-term consequences of poor fitness and nutrition are far reaching, as they lead to general deterioration of health."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=8184975&page=1#.Tvo8tmBOQQ8

This seems to say it's about 10%. Just came from a quick Google. I read TR Reids book that went around the blogosphere that claimed differently and I'm too lazy to support my argument 10% would be substantial.

Quote :

"Insurance plans will still be available, especially if those individuals actively work to avoid risks associated with genetics. There aren't many "super humans". Everyone has a genetic predisposition to certain health problems, that's just part of being human."

How is it enforced or policed? Who's to say they can't just drop you as soon as the disease actually takes hold? My step mom had this happen to her 3 years prior to medicare kicking in. She was effectively uninsurable for any amount of money and all she did was change insurance in the middle of it. Some people can't even change jobs because of this and if they do get riders put on the new insurance that make them ineligible for all sorts of treatments. Way to keep someone tied to a dead end job. It just seems like to me that you are giving the insurance companies a huge out to actually provide care.

My point is yes we are human and there are whole family lines with pretty fucking horrid genetics. I guess we could just put them all in concentration camps to keep them out of the gene pool Why give anyone insurance against cancer with a breast cancer marker in their family? Breast cancer genes increase risk of cancer in a lifetime to 65%. It's much much higher than environmental causes alone. What if someone who does nothing to help their health only has a risk factor of 20% but someone who has the gene is much higher predisposition? Are you saying the intentions matter more? Is this the Kantian model of health insurance? That seems hard to enforce and prone to all sorts of legal nastiness.

My argument is there are actual numerically determined risk factors that would make it unprofitable to unsure people just for genetic abnormalities. We have the means to test for this right now and will only increase our detection methods in the future. It's perfectly reasonable to say these people should not be insured. I personally think that's a little brutal and lacks human compassion, but that's just me.

12/27/2011 5:10:19 PM

Quote :

"How is it enforced or policed? Who's to say they can't just drop you as soon as the disease actually takes hold? My step mom had this happen to her 3 years prior to medicare kicking in. She was effectively uninsurable for any amount of money and all she did was change insurance in the middle of it. Some people can't even change jobs because of this and if they do get riders put on the new insurance that make them ineligible for all sorts of treatments. Way to keep someone tied to a dead end job. It just seems like to me that you are giving the insurance companies a huge out to actually provide care. "

The government enforces contracts, and in the absence of government, private rating agencies would calculate rescission rates into their projections.

Make no mistake, though - rescission is bullshit. If you pay the premiums, and then the insurance company decides not to pay out when the time comes, that's completely unacceptable.

I also agree that there's something deeply flawed with the insurance model where your insurance is connected to your job. This is a result of the tax code allowing employers to write off health benefits. Insurance should be on a private, individual basis; employers should not be paying for insurance any more than they should be paying rent or mortgages.

Quote :

"My point is yes we are human and there are whole family lines with pretty fucking horrid genetics. I guess we could just put them all in concentration camps to keep them out of the gene pool Why give anyone insurance against cancer with a breast cancer marker in their family? Breast cancer genes increase risk of cancer in a lifetime to 65%. It's much much higher than environmental causes alone. What if someone who does nothing to help their health only has a risk factor of 20% but someone who has the gene is much higher predisposition? Are you saying the intentions matter more? Is this the Kantian model of health insurance? That seems hard to enforce and prone to all sorts of legal nastiness."

100% of humans are going to die. It's the insurance company's job to figure out how much of a risk you are and charge a premium accordingly. If your family is prone to breast cancer, they might charge you a slightly higher premium and require that you undergo regular testing. It would still be profitable to insure these people.

Another thing we should consider is that there's really no reason for cancer treatment to be so expensive. Yet again, our current model has driven up prices, but high prices are not inevitable.

Quote :

"My argument is there are actual numerically determined risk factors that would make it unprofitable to unsure people just for genetic abnormalities. We have the means to test for this right now and will only increase our detection methods in the future. It's perfectly reasonable to say these people should not be insured. I personally think that's a little brutal and lacks human compassion, but that's just me."

Put simply, there's nothing compassionate about holding a gun to the entire population of the U.S. and telling them that they must pay for other sick people.

If you want to be compassionate, then you'll be compassionate. Perhaps others will join you. If not, then oh well, we're fucked as a species. Government is an ineffective way to administer "compassion", though, and it does more harm than good.

[Edited on December 27, 2011 at 5:21 PM. Reason : ]

12/27/2011 5:20:45 PM

Quote :

"100% of humans are going to die. It's the insurance company's job to figure out how much of a risk you are and charge a premium accordingly. If your family is prone to breast cancer, they might charge you a slightly higher premium and require that you undergo regular testing. It would still be profitable to insure these people. Another thing we should consider is that there's really no reason for cancer treatment to be so expensive. Yet again, our current model has driven up prices, but high prices are not inevitable."

There are some conditions that exist for which no average family could pay a premium. My point has been do you not treat them? Is this a case of YES THEY DESERVE TO DIE AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL! That's fine, I know people clapped when the one guy with a tooth infection died during the GOP debates.

Quote :

"Put simply, there's nothing compassionate about holding a gun to the entire population of the U.S. and telling them that they must pay for other sick people."

I guess we also don't need good samaritan laws. If that baby is drowning in the lake, why get your shoes dirty?

Quote :

"Government is an ineffective way to administer "compassion""

I generally agree, and also think it's bureaucracy in general that is the problem. We have 5 different payment systems for medical care: VA, Medicare, Private Insurance, Job Insurance, Cash. We have the worst of all worlds. It's argued that most of the issues in our health care have to do with that, more than just the fact the government has it's hands in it.

His main argument:
http://www.amazon.com/Healing-America-Global-Better-Cheaper/dp/1594202346

12/28/2011 12:22:51 PM

Quote :

"There are some conditions that exist for which no average family could pay a premium. My point has been do you not treat them? Is this a case of YES THEY DESERVE TO DIE AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL! That's fine, I know people clapped when the one guy with a tooth infection died during the GOP debates. "

If you recall, the people cheered "Yes", and Ron Paul said "No".

The main point I'd like to make here is that there is a big difference between "society" and "government". "We" (society) should not let someone die. It is our responsibility to make sure these things don't happen in our communities. However, the government is not "us". The government has not represented us in a very long time, if it ever did.

Quote :

"I guess we also don't need good samaritan laws. If that baby is drowning in the lake, why get your shoes dirty?"

We don't need good samaritan laws, we need good samaritans. The law cannot make people good; that is a first and foremost a problem of culture. Our only way of improving culture is improving ourselves.

12/28/2011 12:54:27 PM

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-19/farmers-say-trump-s-28-billion-bailout-isn-t-a-solution

Quote :

"At $28 billion so far, the farm rescue is more than twice as expensive as the 2009 bailout of Detroit’s Big Three automakers, which cost taxpayers $12 billion. And farmers expect the money to keep flowing: In an August survey by Purdue University and the CME Group, 58% said they anticipate another round of trade aid next year."

9/23/2019 1:05:29 PM

FYI the shortages during socialist crises are after the inventory has been distributed somewhat evenly based on need.

Empty shelves during the capitalist crises are after a few people have hoarded more than they can ever use.

3/15/2020 2:05:51 PM

^ Bullshit. Just check Venezuela: The Army distributes to high ranking officials first, followed by military personnel, followed by party loyalists, and finally what is left over gets dumped at the distribution centers. Which isn't much, because being socialist, the agricultural sector has collapsed, meaning there is not enough for the elites to get what they want, nevermind those below them.

Back in mother Russia the elites were granted the privilege of shopping at special stores that the plebeians were not allowed to set foot into, regardless of how much money they might cobble together.

Meanwhile, in capitalist countries, the government imposes price ceilings which guarantee goods are distributed on a first come then no-one-else basis. But, the shortages won't last forever, because being capitalist, production is vast and there is only so much that can be hoarded.

3/17/2020 12:45:16 AM

Just like I constantly have to remind my mom, Venezuela is not the sole example of "socialism"

3/17/2020 11:21:55 AM

Quote :

"The Army distributes to high ranking officials first, followed by military personnel, followed by party loyalists, and finally what is left over gets dumped at the distribution centers."

so.....you're describing a military dictatorship not socialism.

3/17/2020 11:49:02 AM

Mnuchin is a socialist.
Trump too.

3/17/2020 12:10:47 PM

^^
Not really a fair representation either. Every country on earth allocates resources to the government and military before average citizens.

[Edited on March 17, 2020 at 12:12 PM. Reason : .]

3/17/2020 12:12:15 PM

the utah jazz tested their entire team for coronavirus the same time the cdc was only able to test 77, so our method of distribution is clearly perfect

3/17/2020 12:14:45 PM

"government doing stuff" is not socialism especially not when theres a small group of "winners"

[Edited on March 17, 2020 at 12:18 PM. Reason : Mnuchin and Trump are NOT ]

3/17/2020 12:18:30 PM

That is what most people think though and it's not going to change, so might as well play into it

3/17/2020 12:22:55 PM

The bump in the airline stocks faded 10 minutes after Mnuchin's announcement. Trash.

3/17/2020 12:27:44 PM

Thanks for the correction.

I really thought Steve Mnuchin was a socialist until you clarified.

[Edited on March 17, 2020 at 12:46 PM. Reason : On a serious not, jfc, twitter misunderstands UBI completely for a one-time small pmt]

3/17/2020 12:45:25 PM

https://twitter.com/camilatelesur/status/1241844388428492811?s=21

52 doctors from Cuba arriving in Italy

[Edited on March 23, 2020 at 12:54 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2020 12:53:08 AM

[Edited on March 24, 2020 at 11:58 AM. Reason : .]

3/24/2020 11:58:26 AM

https://twitter.com/jessekellydc/status/1242440826317344768?s=21

Lol

3/24/2020 12:04:12 PM

really need to start making a list of people who have waived their ventilator rights

3/24/2020 12:07:38 PM

pretty cool suicide pact they got going

3/24/2020 12:10:37 PM

Hey guys remember socialist death panels?

3/24/2020 1:42:21 PM

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1242852543513821185?s=21

Has it always been... this explicit?

3/25/2020 12:37:21 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/mar/25/comrade-britney-spears-star-calls-for-strike-and-wealth-redistribution

3/25/2020 2:31:33 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/opinion/us-denmark-economy.html

yes, plz

[Edited on May 9, 2020 at 12:45 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2020 12:44:58 PM

^After reading that, some of the interesting points are they have less buying power, higher taxes, there are issues with racism because of immigrants, they have no minimum wage, and they seem to have different cultural values. Also, Denmark population 5.806 million. US Population 328.2 million. We have cities and states with larger populations and geographic foot prints than the entire nation of Denmark. It's sort of an apples to oranges comparison. You can write an article putting a positive spin on Denmark, but you can also write one putting a negative spin on Denmark. You can do the same for the US. A lot of these programs would be unsustainable in the US because of our large population.

5/10/2020 12:07:41 PM

TGL3 wont be praising denmark in 10 years

5/10/2020 12:24:01 PM

Income certainly isn't everything. Denmark is a smaller country, so it necessarily is less productive. It is also a far more conservative form of capitalism, with investors more eager to invest in safe reliable production rather than risky startups, this results in lower over-all returns that are returned more evenly among investors.

But I think the biggest impact is that the workforce has a culture of working less. They retire earlier and work fewer hours when given the choice. Even the richest Americans instead choose to retire later and work longer hours while working. All that extra effort has resulted in increased incomes.

5/10/2020 1:21:28 PM

GDP per capita US: 62,794.59 USD (2018)
GDP per capita Denmark: 61,350.35 USD (2018)

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-01-20/why-danes-happily-pay-high-rates-of-taxes

5/10/2020 2:05:59 PM

You can put a negative spin on anything that doesn't change the facts that suggest Denmark is doing very well and Danes are far better-off than Americans in almost every way.

I never understood the small country excuse. As a big country, we have advantages like more access to resources, economies of scale, and bargaining power.

Also, if having a large population was the thing keeping us from common decency, then whats the point? Why would you be arguing against Denmark instead of saying we should just split up and be 50 decent countries instead of one big shitty one?

5/11/2020 2:53:07 AM

Quote :

"instead of saying we should just split up and be 50 decent countries instead of one big shitty one?"

There is certainly a strong argument that America's size has rendered it needlessly difficult to govern. We would, I believe, on average be better off if state government was much larger and the federal government shrank commensurately.

Quote :

"that doesn't change the facts that suggest Denmark is doing very well and Danes are far better-off than Americans in almost every way."

Well, statistics disagree. Denmark is a wonderful country, enjoying all the benefits one could hope for in a free country (capitalist democracy). But, far better off? This is just not accurate. The differences in life between there and most of the industrialized world are marginal at best.

5/12/2020 2:25:53 AM

Quote :

" We would, I believe, on average be better off if state government was much larger and the federal government shrank commensurately. "

This would screw the less populated states over. They don’t have the tax base to remain advanced developing economies without the federal government redistributing money from wealthier more populated areas.

5/12/2020 3:00:45 PM

returning to the articles of confederation, to own the libs

5/12/2020 3:05:37 PM

you nerds talking about this yet?

https://tinkzorg.wordpress.com/

Quote :

"It is time for the ”socialism” of the professional and managerial classes and the socialism of the working classes to part ways. The former is moribund and a historical dead-end. The latter, I think, still has a case to be made for it. More importantly – and personal experience from outside the left bears this out – it still has an audience that is willing to listen to it."

5/12/2020 4:46:47 PM

^^^ that is simply not how economies work. Being an advanced economy is determined by worker productivity, which has many influences, but a few hundred million dollars less to New Mexico's medicare recipients and pork-barrel projects is not one of them.

But, let us put that aside. I believe New Mexico would be better off taxing its own citizens and spending the money well, rather than the money being sent to Washington and a larger amount being returned to spend poorly in New Mexico. For example, Federal projects tend to pay wages far higher than state projects do for the same work. I believe these cost savings alone would far exceed the current diversion of resources from net-pay states to New Mexico.

[Edited on May 12, 2020 at 4:49 PM. Reason : ^]

5/12/2020 4:49:16 PM

is this where we talk about the new spending bill

5/13/2020 8:50:23 AM

this is where we talk about the BOOGIEMAN

5/13/2020 9:24:04 AM