Support NeoGAF

[ToxicAdam]

So I don't count then because I'm part of a small percentage?

No, you count. But you also must understand that you are a SMALL percentage. Which is exactly the word which we quibbled about to begin this discussion. So, for me to elect not to go with insurance becomes ... (wait for it) ... a small gamble.

Our definitions of "cheap" could not be more different.

Which is the very reason why someone that is 30 years old should have the option to take a small gamble. Not be mandated to do it.

Anecdotal is real life

If we allow anecdotals as relavent, hard evidence than no one is ever wrong. Let's just shut down the thread now.

You're ignoring that insurance companies are stealing from everyone while also dropping them from coverage.

I don't disagree that insurance companies and health care providers are stealing from everyone. My point was that Obamacare is going to do very little to alter this reality.

As far as 'dropping them from coverage'. If this were as widespread as people thought, then why did only 45,000 people sign up for the high risk pools that Obamacare set up?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72813.html

Also note that of the small amount of people that signed up for these pools .. the costs are way more than they anticipated or had planned for.

 

[codhand]

If we allow anecdotals as hard evidence, than no one is ever wrong. Let's just shut down the thread now.

Anecdotal can be proven.

 

[eznark]

Anecdotal can be proven.

Sweet, so prove it.

 

[daedalius]

If we allow anecdotals as hard evidence, than no one is ever wrong. Let's just shut down the thread now.

You can't just ignore it. I'd be fucked if I didn't have insurance last year because of a CAT scan. I can't even imagine if they actually FOUND something that HAD to be removed.

 

[codhand]

Sweet, so prove it.

You want me to prove I had kidney stones, my roommate had surgery paid for by his company or what? This is like the FnF, just show us more documents, then we will believe you! If people reeeeally want it, I can take a pic of my roommate's bill, totaled over about 1K to him, 10K without. Real Life.

 

[eznark]

You want me to prove I had kidney stones, my roommate had surgery paid for by his company or what? This is like the FnF, just show us more documents, then we will believe you!

Oh no, I imagine there must be studies that list the cost and usage associated with health care broken down by age. Just show it's a large number and you win.

 

[codhand]

You can't just ignore it.

We're talking about libertarian ideology right? I wouldn't doubt their ability to lack sympathy.

 

[empty vessel]

A body isn't a car. Just because I elect to not have insurance, doesn't mean that my broken leg has any kind of discernable effect on your pocketbook. Right? I go to the ER and then pay the bill.

Well, an inflated bill. So it affects your pocketbook. But if you like paying excessive prices for services, so be it. I happen to think it's stupid. And even stupider to revel in it.

 

[Blergmeister]

Oh no, I imagine there must be studies that list the cost and usage associated with health care broken down by age. Just show it's a large number and you win.

So what is a reasonable large enough number to expect that a 30 year old should have health insurance rather than make a calculated risk to go without since that is what we will argue about next?

 

[codhand]

Well, an inflated bill. So it affects your pocketbook. But if you like paying excessive prices for services, so be it. I happen to think it's stupid. And even stupider to revel in it.

Talk about anecdotal, "I don't need health insurance and I'm 30 and healthy."

 

[benjipwns]

Well, an inflated bill. So it affects your pocketbook. But if you like paying excessive prices for services, so be it. I happen to think it's stupid. And even stupider to revel in it.

Good thing we can just make that bill disappear and nobody ever has to pay for it.

 

[PantherLotus]

What's with the snark and sarcasm today? I get the feeling you guys are getting nervous. This is soooooo much better than talking about optics!

 

[ToxicAdam]

Well, an inflated bill. So it affects your pocketbook. But if you like paying excessive prices for services, so be it. I happen to think it's stupid. And even stupider to revel in it.

I pay excessive prices for services every time I pay federal taxes. I am used to it.

 

[codhand]

What's with the snark and sarcasm today?

Very next post...

I pay excessive prices for services every time I pay federal taxes. I am used to it.

 

[Jackson50]

I think the aggregates also showed a very slight expanded lead for Obama.

Perhaps it's increased from May. But if Obama's average lead has expanded, it is an infinitesimal increase. The margin of victory for either candidate has stayed within a small range. Regardless, the Bloomberg poll was an unmistakable outlier that's going to be distorted and misinterpreted.

 

[eznark]

What's with the snark and sarcasm today? I get the feeling you guys are getting nervous. This is soooooo much better than talking about optics!

I prefer snark and sarcasm to your hateful anger from yesterday.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Perhaps it's increased from May. But if Obama's average lead has expanded, it is an infinitesimal increase. The margin of victory for either candidate has stayed within a small range. Regardless, the Bloomberg poll was an unmistakable outlier that's going to be distorted and misinterpreted.

Well, yes, it was an incredibly small increase, but far from a 10 point drop. I was just pointing out how PD likes to cherry pick things.

 

[Blergmeister]

I pay excessive prices for services every time I pay federal taxes. I am used to it.

You should do your own taxes then. Much cheaper than having them prepared for you!

 

[benjipwns]

You should do your own taxes then. Much cheaper than having them prepared for you!

Best part is how small businesses can just do this for free, they don't have to throw money away at their local H&R Block.

 

[Black Republican]

well folks, the last gop primary state Utah is June 26th


Hope everyone had fun!

 

[empty vessel]

I pay excessive prices for services every time I pay federal taxes. I am used to it.

No, you don't. Your federal taxes don't pay for any services! Nor do anybody else's. The federal government pays for everything with money it creates out of thin air.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Are we seriously debating the utility of anecdotal evidence with respect to assessing trends?

 

[eznark]

Are we seriously debating the utility of anecdotal evidence with respect to assessing trends?

I wish we were. I had awesome private insurance for my family and was able to get it super cheap. Who needs mandates, why don't you all just emulate me?

 

[ToxicAdam]

No, you don't. Your federal taxes don't pay for any services! Nor do anybody else's. The federal government pays for everything with money it creates out of thin air.

I think this should be the standard punctuation point on all Poli-GAF discussion, since it always comes back to it.

Thank you.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obama up 4 in Florida

In the presidential race, Obama's lead reflects the coalition that elected him four years ago. He carries women 49 - 39 percent, African-Americans 91 - 5 percent and voters 18 to 34 years old 55 - 28 percent. Obama also leads 48 - 41 percent among voters 35 to 54 years old. Men split 44 - 45 percent. Romney carries white voters 50 - 37 percent and voters over 55 years old 48 - 43 percent.

Independent voters shift from 44 - 36 percent for Romney in a May 23 Quinnipiac University poll, showing Romney ahead 47 - 41 percent overall, to 46 - 37 percent for Obama today. In today's results, Obama carries Democrats 88 - 4 percent, while Romney takes Republicans 91 - 5 percent.

While Florida voters say 48 - 44 percent that Romney would do a better job on the economy, they split 45 - 45 percent on who would create more jobs and say 49 - 44 percent that Obama would do more "to advance the economic interests of middle class Americans."

"The president is doing better among independent voters," said Brown. "It also is worth noting that the last Quinnipiac University Florida poll was on the heels of the president's backing of gay marriage, which might have hurt him at that time.

"At this point, Romney is not well-defined in the minds of many voters, especially those in the middle. This movement reflects that uncertainty among voters who are up for grabs."

From June 12 - 18, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,697 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones. The survey includes 698 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percent.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/21/1101837/-Breaking-Poll-Qunnipiac-Florida-is-Blue-Blue-Blue

If Romney is only up 5 with voters over 55yo in Florida, something is wrong. Very interesting

 

[kehs]

No, you don't. Your federal taxes don't pay for any services! Nor do anybody else's. The federal government pays for everything with money it creates out of thin air.

Is there any literature you can link to that goes into more detail on this?

 

[ToxicAdam]

Obama up 4 in Florida

Spoiler

psst .. google search Mitchell Research and Michigan

If Romney is only up 5 with voters over 55yo in Florida, something is wrong. Very interesting

Lots of Jewish voters in South Florida.

 

[Chichikov]

Is there any literature you can link to that goes into more detail on this?

That's a pretty good start.

 

[PantherLotus]

Are we seriously debating the utility of anecdotal evidence with respect to assessing trends?

What would you like to talk about? Yesterday you didn't like the optics conversation and today you don't like the meta about how to approach a healthcare conversation. I feel like you're expecting something out of this thread that you're not willing to give yourself...

 

[Jackson50]

Well, yes, it was an incredibly small increase, but far from a 10 point drop. I was just pointing out how PD likes to cherry pick things.

Oh, I couldn't agree more.

 

[PantherLotus]

How Lucky is Obama in His Opponent?

Ask yourself: if the other side had settled on a truly generic Republican—that is, a moderately conservative fellow, a senator or governor or former governor who came without the trappings of Bain Capital and car elevators and dressage tax deductions and Romneycare and the serial flip-flopping and “America the Beautiful,” how would that candidate be faring right now?

I say, purely on gut instinct, that he’d be up two, three, four points. Who do I have in mind? Gosh, just about anybody: John Thune, Mitch Daniels, heck, even poor Tim Pawlenty.

Even though I was saying this same thing yesterday, I disagree that Romney could be a more generic conservative candidate. It's just that through circumstance he's the worst possible generic conservative.

 

[empty vessel]

I think this should be the standard punctuation point on all Poli-GAF discussion, since it always comes back to it.

Thank you.

It does put an abrupt end to your line of argument.

Is there any literature you can link to that goes into more detail on this?

Sure. Describing the federal government's taxing and spending operations as money destruction/creation is rooted in the government's exclusive power to create money, either by making paper money or (almost always) by electronically crediting/debiting accounts. (For example, if the federal government buys a jet from a private company, it pays for it by crediting the company's bank account. Voila! When you pay your taxes, it debits your bank account. Poof! All of the stuff in between (e.g., interactions between the Treasury and Federal Reserve are mere accounting mechanisms, unnecessary except by instruction of law).

Note that this doesn't apply to State governments, which are financially constrained because they lack the power to create money.

For more, see: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html

For something a bit pithier: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=9281

 

[kehs]

That's a pretty good start.

It does put an abrupt end to your line of argument.



Sure. Describing the federal government's taxing and spending operations as money destruction/creation is rooted in the government's exclusive power to create money, either by making paper money or (almost always) by electronically crediting/debiting accounts. (For example, if the federal government buys a jet from a private company, it pays for it by crediting the company's bank account. Voila! When you pay your taxes, it debits your bank account. Poof! All of the stuff in between (e.g., interactions between the Treasury and Federal Reserve are mere accounting mechanisms, unnecessary except by instruction of law).

Note that this doesn't apply to State governments, which are financially constrained because they lack the power to create money.

For more, see: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html

For something a bit pithier: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=9281

Much obliged.

 

[empty vessel]

Much obliged.

Just so you are aware, there is literature published in academic journals on this stuff, too. What I have linked you to is some of these economists' sites that talk about and try to explain the subject in more layman's terms.

 

[PantherLotus]

We should do a PoliGAF political compass heat map.

 

[ToxicAdam]

It does put an abrupt end to your line of argument.

It's actually very effective at putting an end to all discussions that are politically viable. Only libertarians and socialists bother arguing about hypotheticals.

 

[The Technomancer]

Is there any literature you can link to that goes into more detail on this?

empty vessel's entire posting history

 

[codhand]

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer posed this question to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul: “A healthy young, 30-year-old man has a good job, makes a good living but decides, ‘You know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month on health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it.’ But something terrible happens, all the sudden he needs it. What’s going to happen if he goes into a coma? Who pays for that?”

“What he should do is whatever he wants to do,” Paul replied. “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody…”

“Are you saying society should just let him die?” Blitzer asked.

The audience responded with shouts of “Yes!”

“We’ve given up on this concept that we might take care of ourselves, assume responsibility for ourselves, our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it,” Paul explained.

Paul thinks Health Care Fairies will take care of us all. And many here seem to agree with him. I don't.

 

[PantherLotus]

It's actually very effective at putting an end to all discussions that are politically viable. Only libertarians and socialists bother arguing about hypotheticals.

My real problem with the theory is that it's not how the rest of the world operates. I hide behind me ignorance on this, but it seems to me that if currency is based on something imaginary and worthless, then work and service would be imaginary and worthless as well. It sounds like it disregards reality and the human experience. I could be wrong.

 

[eznark]

I'm with the audience. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

 

[PantherLotus]

Rubio was on Andrea Mitchell this morning, saying essentially nothing.

Don't you think "Are you ready to be President?" would be a fantastic question to every projected VP pick?

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm with the audience. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

So people shouldn't have the safety net to learn from their mistakes? Screw up once and too bad for you, you're crippled or dead?

 

[empty vessel]

It's actually very effective at putting an end to all discussions that are politically viable. Only libertarians and socialists bother arguing about hypotheticals.

I'm not talking about a policy I want to see happen. I'm talking about how it actually works now. Right now, as you and I speak, your taxes don't pay for anything. There is simply an illusion that they do. So when I say that your taxes don't pay for any services, I am not saying that in my ideal world they wouldn't. I am saying right now they don't, i.e., your statement that you pay excessive prices for services every time you pay federal taxes is false in fact. It is not an accurate description of the world, even if the government overpays for services (which it, by and large, doesn't due to its immense purchasing power).

My real problem with the theory is that it's not how the rest of the world operates. I hide behind me ignorance on this, but it seems to me that if currency is based on something imaginary and worthless, then work and service would be imaginary and worthless as well. It sounds like it disregards reality and the human experience. I could be wrong.

But you already know that currency is based on something imaginary, right? That's not really at issue because you understand a $1 bill to just be a piece of paper. Its value (aside from its utility as actual paper) is socially constructed, and in large part what gives it value to a member of society is the government's demand that you pay taxes in those dollars (or risk adverse personal consequences--hello Wesley Snipes). Anyway, I think you have this backwards, goods and services are the ultimate goal of an economy and do have intrinsic value (well, not literally intrinsic, but value widely recognized by other human beings). Money is just the grease that helps the creation and distribution of these intrinsically valuable things along.

 

[eznark]

So people shouldn't have the safety net to learn from their mistakes? Screw up once and too bad for you, you're crippled or dead?

Correct, though if you're going to be crippled insurance isn't all that likely to save you from that fate is it? My totally uneducated guess is that most paralysis happens as a result of irreversible degenerative diseases or trauma. It's not the role of government to cover for (thus enabling and encouraging) your risks, in my view.

"Screw up once and you are crippled or dead" is probably a more effective form of coercing people to buy insurance than a mandate and penalty.

 

[codhand]

So people shouldn't have the safety net to learn from their mistakes? Screw up once and too bad for you, you're crippled or dead?

I believe yes, that is exactly what he just said. Again don't hold your breath for sympathy. Apparently if toxicadam gets sick, ez has two tears in a bucket for him.

 

[eznark]

I believe yes, that is exactly what he just said. Again don't hold your breath for sympathy. Apparently if toxicadam gets sick, ez has two tears in a bucket for him.

Toxicadam has insurance now. However I was the same though at an earlier age. I took the money I would have paid in insurance and invested my portion and had my company take the portion they would have paid and invest it in the same fund. Worked out great for me. Obviously everyone can't pull that off but if you can and you don't have anyone else depending on you, it's a sweet option!

 

[The Technomancer]

Correct, though if you're going to be crippled insurance isn't all that likely to save you from that fate is it? My totally uneducated guess is that most paralysis happens as a result of irreversible degenerative diseases or trauma.

Not if we're talking about injuries where expensive physical therapy can help a person recover and lack of it can leave them with pain and motion issues for the rest of their life

It's not the role of government to cover for (thus enabling and encouraging) your risks, in my view.

"Screw up once and you are crippled or dead" is probably a more effective form of coercing people to buy insurance than a mandate and penalty.

You believe that people make rational and lucid assessments of risk and risk mitigation cost. I don't particularly think that's true.

 

[daedalius]

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer posed this question to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul: “A healthy young, 30-year-old man has a good job, makes a good living but decides, ‘You know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month on health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it.’ But something terrible happens, all the sudden he needs it. What’s going to happen if he goes into a coma? Who pays for that?”

“What he should do is whatever he wants to do,” Paul replied. “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody…”

“Are you saying society should just let him die?” Blitzer asked.

The audience responded with shouts of “Yes!”

“We’ve given up on this concept that we might take care of ourselves, assume responsibility for ourselves, our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it,” Paul explained.

Paul thinks Health Care Fairies will take care of us all. And many here seem to agree with him. I don't.

The audience response really made me sad that day.

 

[eznark]

Not if we're talking about injuries where expensive physical therapy can help a person recover and lack of it can leave them with pain and motion issues for the rest of their life

Sure, I said the majority though I think. Either way it's here nor there. Not like it would change my or your mind one way of the other.

You believe that people make rational and lucid assessments of risk and risk mitigation cost. I don't particularly think that's true.

Once people start being denied care they will.

It's not a health care issue, it's a role of society/government issue. That's why I don't tend to post on the topic. It's not political, not really.

 

[AlteredBeast]

We should do a PoliGAF political compass heat map.

The political compass is broken.