Health Care Thread

I think it's awesome that the Anthem customer service line just hangs up on me with "Thank you for calling, goodbye" every time I have tried to call it in the last three months. (and too many times to count over the last week) Large private corporations do things so much better than the federal government. Especially when there are no other alternatives except for other mega corps with equally shitty customer service ratings and just as many angry rants from irate customers online.

Chanur_sl said:

I would be willing to pay an additional 5-10% in taxes if it meant comprehensive universal healthcare. This would be good for businesses and pretty much everyone not rich.

Click to expand...

We are going to pay a lot more than 5-10% in extra taxes, and we won't even get universal healthcare out of it. People have no conception of how fucked we are.

Here is my evidence. So far, no one has even attempted to counter it.

IMF report: "Who Will Pay and How"
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp1172.pdf

The United States is facing an untenable fiscal situation due to the combination of high fiscal deficits, an aging population and rapid growth in government-provided healthcare benefits. (pg4) ... closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to over 15 percent of U.S. GDP. (pg.5) ... The fiscal gap measures, as a present value, a country's excessof total expenditures(including those arising from its commitments tospend in the future)over available current and future resources.(pg.6) the U.S. fiscal structure is not equitable across generations: future generationsare expected to subsidize the entirety ofcurrent generations' huge fiscal shortfall.(pg.24) ...

the federal government can restore fiscal balance byraising all taxes and cutting all transfer payments immediately and for the indefinite future by 35 percent....
and were the IPAB to succeed in curbing healthcare spending growth as provided in the IPAB mandate, reining in the fiscal gap would still require animmediate and permanent increase in all taxes and cut in all transfers of 26 percent.

Click to expand...

frqkjt_sl said:

People have no conception of how fucked we are.

Click to expand...

Will we at least make it until the end of this season of Game of Thrones? Cause I'd be really bummed if not.

Vaclav_sl said:

Which you again repeat while ignoring the fact that there's only two places that fund the ACA subsidies:
a) The insurance companies which are using a portion of their profits to apply that way, which will of course scale with the number of clients. So your hypothetical "running out of people" scenario can never happen - the only thing is that can possibly happen is insurance rates slip upwards in scale with the subsidy increase. But then again, if they start getting too oppressive or off, the numbers can be easily revised to change the top and bottom rates for subsidy or the portion of subsidy that is given

Click to expand...

Of course middle class is difficult to define, especially if you're going by income, as you have shown here. That's specifically why I don't define middle class by income, but rather lifestyle (as determined by purchasing power). Are you seriously disagreeing that the American middle class is shrinking from the bottom up. (due to wage stagnation, inflation, and job losses).

You note that you seem to have a different lifestyle than your poor clients with $32k disability and $30k investment income. No fucking shit? You mean you live better with healthy savings than $10/hr wage earners? Who would ever have thought? Not me, for sure. Your counter-examples are a farce. Your comments about your upper middle class relatives don't mean shit in shit context - we're talking about the bottom falling out of middle class, not whether those at the top are doing well.

You have some bullshit poorly written paragraph. I have evidence from a trusted source. Median income earners are struggling to maintain middle class lifestyles.
America??Ts Sinking Middle Class - NYTimes.com

Let me get this straight. You claim to come from a business background. You claim that insurance co's are going to pay subsidies out of their profits without passing that cost on to the consumer? There is no further conversation possible between us, I think. This is like busness 101 shit.

Further, you think, if insurance rates go too high, we can simple rearrange how the subsidies are handed out and everything will be fine. In any such case, there will be winners and losers. Some will lose subsidies, some will gain. Who will lose subsidies? - some of those median income people, who today are already struggling and need the subsidies to make ends meet. This is your solution? Wow.

How do you personally define middle class? What would you consider your basic middle class lifestyle and income?

Disp_sl said:

Will we at least make it until the end of this season of Game of Thrones? Cause I'd be really bummed if not.

Click to expand...

Government's financial condition
https://www.khanacademy.org/humaniti...cial-condition
Social security intro
https://www.khanacademy.org/humaniti...security-intro

Yes.

Disp_sl said:

How do you personally define middle class? What would you consider your basic middle class lifestyle and income?

Click to expand...

My grandfather, born in th 30's, worked his way into the middle class from a poor background. He has owned a house, 1-2 cars, raised a large family, and saved a healthy retirement fund; he has never needed government assistance for his own healthcare. He took vacations, eventually owned a boat, etc. This is American middle class since the 1950's, when he began working. He is not wealthy to do any of this - he started at an entry level job, with no college education, and worked his way up.

Median income families today cannot meet that standard.

**edit:
My father, born in the late 50's was able to work his way through college while supporting a wife and 1-2 children. He did not amass high debt doing so. After graduation, he was able to support a large family, purchase a 4 bedroom house, etc. We did not need governement assistance to pay for healthcare.

Compare this experience to college graduates today.

Trollface_sl said:

vaclav is a rich homo who got spoonfed with silverspoon.

Click to expand...

No homo or at least that's what I tell myself while banging the wife. And technically wasn't silver spooned, my money all showed up around 26 when my grandfather passed and the other half around 30 with grandmom passing. Before the it was all bootstrapping and personal investment.

[Edits because autocorrect is a pain in the ass... "No home" and apparently my "grandson" died when I was 30 leaving me the rest of my big money - what the hell autocorrect...]

frqkjt_sl said:

We are going to pay a lot more than 5-10% in extra taxes, and we won't even get universal healthcare out of it. People have no conception of how fucked we are.

Here is my evidence. So far, no one has even attempted to counter it.

IMF report: "Who Will Pay and How"
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp1172.pdf

Click to expand...

It's the IM-fucking-F - look at their history for doomcrying about the same things and come back to me. (And of course note how many nations in the past have taken their advice to belt-tighten and ended up depressing their economy drastically...)

They're considered "out of touch" by many, and quite often they skip to making a judgment by wide abstracts while ignoring specific details. (Hmm - actually seems like a good fit for you...)

You have some bullshit poorly written paragraph. I have evidence from a trusted source. Median income earners are struggling to maintain middle class lifestyles.

Click to expand...

First of all Eduardo Porter is quite often hyperbolic and wrong - even the first page of Google results has a pretty big faux pas regarding the veracity of his editorializing:What Eduardo Porter gets wrong about corporate money and the GOP - Sunlight Foundation Blog

Secondly, QOL coming down is not the same as not being middle class - it's middle class having a lower QOL than it did previously, which is a normal thing in economic ebb and flow if you knew anything about economics. (In fact, back in the days before fiat it was almost a 4-5 year cycle, now the cycles are much slower - I'm not sure I'm comfortable attributing it to fiat, however many economists do - but the time certainly correlates regardless) And frankly it's not an indication of anything other than the middle class was riding really damn high in this nation, absurdly so, for quite a long while - and honestly thanks to costs on so many things coming down barring notables like healthcare, thus the importance of reform, it's really not THAT different from a single generation standpoint - just largely there's not going to be middle class workers leaving million dollar investment accounts to their kids as often. The middle class in Rome was of a much higher QOL than the middle class in England that those people fell into after the edges of the Roman empire fell, it's not that they weren't middle class anymore, just the QOL of it changed.

This sums up how stupid it is to talk to you on the subject - you think you know the answer in advance (for things with nebulous answers at best) and you go and find things that support only your answer and toss anything else aside, even parsing out PORTIONS of something else to continue to reinforce your argument that you decided the answer for in advance. That's bad science - that's closer to conspiracy theory nonsense than science in fact. I'm not about to say there's not potential downside to things, but your doomcrying about everything would require a confluence of every single thing ending up the worst possible way. Especially since you then ignore things like economists that say that trimming our budget drastically would bring on a full fledged depression within just a few years.

Conceptually I love the idea of a balanced budget - but a) as stated before you work on trimming big items first, small items later (especially ones that might actually be positives once they've been running long enough to get a real evaluation in the wild vs. estimates) and b) you do it a piece at a time so you can evaluate the change to each without too many other factors in play at the same time to allow easy analysis of what's helping and hurting from other standpoints - if you cut 200 programs to half their budget to fix the budget in a single go and the economy goes haywire you're grasping at straws to find the right one - whereas if there's only 5 or so at a time you're cutting back on you have a very narrow range to look at and figure out where the problems arose. (or a very limited number that have to be refunded if it can't be figured out)

Don't get me wrong - you are definitely covering the worst case scenarios - but they're absolutely far barely on the reaches of possible edges - yet you expect response to them as if they're the most likely outcome. When the most likely outcome from projections is pretty much neutral. (And a chance, although slightly less likely than a negative result, of CREATING REVENUE)

Additionally on them "passing off costs to the customers" - yes and no - they'll pass it off to the higher ticket ones, trying to charge the subsidized people more just to then cover more of their bill is shooting themselves in the foot. (And of course with their profits being capped as well as how much they spend on administrative costs there's more and more savings that are likely to crop up as those go into full effect - they start scaling in starting in 2016 I think over 5 years [profit is already in, admin is the one scaling in soon])

Vaclav_sl said:

It's the IM-fucking-F

First of all Eduardo Porter is quite often hyperbolic and wrong

And frankly it's not an indication of anything other than the middle class was riding really damn high in this nation, absurdly so, for quite a long while - and honestly thanks to costs on so many things coming down barring notables like healthcare, thus the importance of reform, it's really not THAT different from a single generation standpoint - just largely there's not going to be middle class workers leaving million dollar investment accounts to their kids as often.

This sums up how stupid it is to talk to you on the subject - you think you know the answer in advance (for things with nebulous answers at best)

Click to expand...

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Click to expand...

That's all you've got.

American middle class is shrinking, although there will always be people with median incomes, no matter how low the purchasing power of those incomes. That you seem to deny this - well, who has their head in the sand? Do any amount of research on this at all. Any amount.

indication of anything other than the middle class was riding really damn high in this nation

Click to expand...

Now we see what kind of asshole you really are. Fuck you, sir.

I agree with you on balanced budget issues. Have you seen an analysis of how long it will take to pay down our debt to more sustainable levels, without fucking the economy? (Think grandchildren)

I'm stating a) it's an editorial which should be taken with a grain of salt and b) presenting direct evidence of him over editorializing in the past - if you understood ad hom, you'd realize you're applying it wrong. (frankly it's closer to reductio ad absurdum - but I am a debate hobbyist at best)

And QOL is a different way of saying "buying power"... Quality of Life... and economies ebb, there's nothing assholish about stating that, it's fact - we've been riding high on a series of bubbles for quite a while, and the middle class is what benefits most by them and is hurt the most by them when they go away. Everyone knew the series of bubbling would eventually come to a close which would result in pain largely focused on the middle class and the lower upper class (Which I do fall into with a net income of $60kish, I do have the benefit of being content on a budget of a third of my income though with my home already paid off and such though [for now though - moving soon, so probably won't have the new home paid off instantly although it's not impossible I will - just gotta run the math once we're finalizing things])

It would frankly be more assholish to continue to perpetuate the notion that constant explosive growth is sustainable - but it's not - and when it ends, the market corrects which leads to pain - again focused largest around the middle class because the wealthiest insulate themselves from year to year fluctuations and few middle class folks can do the same. [A huge benefit I have over most since I live modestly and have so much invested in "blue chips" and similar long game investments rather than trying to turn 20% a year with a risk of backfire, I'm reaping just a few percent consistently and living a lifestyle I enjoy off that]

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not an economist, but I do try to at least understand it at a layman's level from Austrian, Neoclassical and Keynesian standpoints - but my knowledge is that of a hobbyist. (Sidenote: I have a similar interest in religion, although much more in depth although I'm not personally religious - I just find intellectual topics where there's no real "right answer" like economics and religion fascinating - although I do find it quite frustrating when people refuse to understand that in such fields outcomes are very nebulous - as I believe you've started to note)

fail post - not done writing. will put back when done.

frqkjt_sl said:

This is true. You can consider things like debt as percent of GDP, and how quickly total debt is increasing, etc.

Click to expand...

This is his pre-edit quote (he was responding to wormie) - I think he caught what he ended up saying not realizing that we've been reducing things the last few years... (except 2012 I think? Or was it 2011?)

Our current administration clearly has that in mind since they've been motioning that direction bringing things down more and more at a steady, but safe, pace.

wormie_sl said:

Who gives a flying fuck about debt levels as long as interest payments are easily managed? Retards, thats who.

Click to expand...

You can consider things like debt as percent of GDP, and how quickly total debt is increasing, etc.

Only retards are concerned about things like debt to GDP ratio, and
SP: Why we downgraded the U.S. - YouTube
(reasons S&P downgrade US credit rating, skip to 30 seconds in or so.)

Since 2008, US national debt up to 17.5 trillion, from 10 trillion; debt to GDP ratio from 65% to 101%.

United States Government Debt To GDP | Actual Data | Forecasts

Nothing to be concerned about here. Nope, not at all.

Vaclav_sl said:

I'm stating a) it's an editorial which should be taken with a grain of salt ..

.. there's nothing assholish about stating that, it's fact - we've been riding high on a series of bubbles for quite a while, and the middle class is what benefits most by them and is hurt the most by them when they go away. Everyone knew the series of bubbling would eventually come to a close which would result in pain largely focused on the middle class and the lower upper class

It would frankly be more assholish to continue to perpetuate the notion that constant explosive growth is sustainable

Click to expand...

Let me google that for you:
Can the Middle Class Be Saved? - Don Peck - The Atlantic
Galston: The Eroding American Middle Class - WSJ.com
Shrinking Middle Class
RIP, the middle class: 1946-2013 - Salon.com

I consider the primary cause of the fall of American middle class to be globalization and a worsening environment for business in the U.S. - these are not parts of normal business cycles, but rather structural changes in the distribution of the world's wealth. East asian middle class is booming. The world has not yet reached the end of it's resources, we're just getting ever smaller pieces of what's available.

American consumers and the American government have worked together to create this situation by purchasing cheap goods manufactured by effective slaves in developing countries (e.g. 1980's China), and creation of a welfare state. It need not have happened.

Having a healthy middle class is not just about who gets more flat screen TVs, asian guys or Americans. It's about self-sufficiency and maint. of free society.

You claim to have business background, and even to be well read in economic theory, yet you think insurance co's will pay for subsidies without passing those costs on to those who purchase their services.

**late addition:

Vaclav: Additionally on them "passing off costs to the customers" - yes and no - they'll pass it off to the higher ticket ones, trying to charge the subsidized people more just to then cover more of their bill is shooting themselves in the foot.

Click to expand...

Maybe you're starting to get it - now tell me what happens, as the middle class erodes and more and more need subsidies? Less and less 'higher ticket ones' to take from. Of course, by your logic, taking more from remaining middle class and entrepreneurs has nothing to do with decline of said groups. As if people don't get poorer when more of their wealth is confiscated.

Vaclav_sl said:

Our current administration clearly has that in mind since they've been motioning that direction bringing things down more and more at a steady, but safe, pace.

Click to expand...

With this adminstration, I will believe it when I see it, based on the history of misinformation and outright lies. GWB was no miser with other people's money, he blew up our debt wonderfully. But since 2008 the Obama adminstration puts him to shame.

Maybe you're starting to get it - now tell me what happens, as the middle class erodes and more and more need subsidies? Less and less 'higher ticket ones' to take from.

Click to expand...

They adjust it to take more and more from the high ticket people, it's not really rocket science - considering the average CEO pays close to $200k/year for their insurance policy, there's a ton of wiggle room to either charge them more, or offer them less services that their boku bucks insurance packages cover. Amongst other examples. And maybe normal taxation will step in eventually - it will need future legislation to do so however, right now as the ACA is setup it receives no subsidy funding from the general tax pool - at which point other things can be revised as well.

With this adminstration, I will believe it when I see it, based on the history of misinformation and outright lies. GWB was no miser with other people's money, he blew up our debt wonderfully. But since 2008 the Obama adminstration puts him to shame.

Click to expand...

Deficit by the year:
2005: $318b
2006: $248b (-$70b)
2007: $161b (-$87b)
2008: $458b (+$283b)
2009: $1413b (+$955b - Bush leaves office)
2010: $1294b (-$119b)
2011: $1300b (+$6b)
2012: $1087b (-$213b)
2013: $680b (-$407b)
2014*: $649b (-$31b projected)
2015*: $564b (-$75b projected)

*Current projections

So for net across his years, he's had one year that added $6b to the annual deficit and all the rest have been quite positive, $407b this past year was shaved off the annual deficit. GET A FUCKING CLUE.

(And before you go "Derp, derp - he was President in 2009" - yes, but Presidents enact their budget for the year following, so the 2009 budget was based on the proposal Bush made in 2008 - similarly 2017 will be Obama's good or bad, 2001 was Clinton's, 1993 was Bush Sr., etc.)

I heard Michelle obamas vacations cost a thousand billion.