Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

Another fun effect that I've personally noticed is that insurance companies are jacking up their rates several times since after this year they aren't allowed to do that willy-nilly since the ACA applies new regulations. So while under the ACA rates will be more stable, the fact that it doesn't apply yet but looms in the distance this year means my insurance would have gone from $60 per paycheck to $400 per paycheck if my company hadn't switched providers and if I hadn't gone down a few tiers in terms of plan services. It still went up a loving ton, just not nearly that much. And my company is actually incredibly generous and absorbs a massive amount of the cost of health insurance compared to other companies I've seen. I'm sure if you fudge the facts a bit you can make this look like the ACA is directly responsible for it and I'm sure its affected a few companies, since it wasn't just my side of the bill that went up.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

NatasDog
Feb 9, 2009

Salis posted:

He would say the real mission statement of government is "more money for us, gently caress you" and mission statement for corporations is "money for us, assuming we continue giving you a product that you enjoy and get a good value out of. If not, then I guess we go out of business."

I know, that's very idyllic but he has a very romanticized view of business and a very frustrated one of government. It's hard to switch that when there are so many bad things the government DOES do, but I suppose my view is "keep the good, essential stuff, work on getting rid of the rest" while his is "scrap it all."
It's been my experience that that attitude is all well and good for luxuries and other basic commodities that people don't need to survive in today's society; but when it comes to goods that have become necessary enough to be considered public goods, that just doesn't hold water.

Things like electricity, sewer, water, etc. end up in the hands of local monopolies when privatized and generally get poorly managed or outright predatory with their business practices because they're not accountable to the people they serve and the only option for them is to either get no electricity/running water/what have you, or suck it up and keep paying anyway. Public utilities, on the other hand, tend to be well managed with reasonable pay scales for everyone from the guys fixing power lines all the way to the guy making the big decisions at the top. Conversely, privatized utilities end up with a guy at the top making more money than he has any reason to, with a bunch of guys below him making nowhere near what public employees make in the same line of work. My experience is pretty subjective, but I've lived in areas across the country that have both, as well as mixed, ways of handling of public goods; and I've come to appreciate the publicly handled monopolies far more than private ones.

The telecommunications industry is another area where you can see just how much effect a monopoly can have on pricing in an area, as well as the collusion that happens even when people are given the illusion of having more than one option available. In my area, when FIOS first came around they were offering service at half the price Comcast was charging with more services offered. It's been 2 years now and prices have equalized with Comcast slashing their prices and upping their service. However, Verizon's raised their prices a bit as well; I'm paying 30% more than I was when I signed on, but still somewhere around 30% less than I was with Comcast for less service.

E; In essence, it's pretty obvious that they're not interested in giving me the best service they can for the lowest price possible; they're interested in soaking as much money as they can out of me for that service, and giving that money to their shareholders. Competition is the only thing keeping Comcast from jacking their rates back up, and if we went back to a single service provider in my area I'd expect to see prices rise again not because service suddenly became more expensive to provide, but because they know I have nowhere else to go.

NatasDog fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Oct 1, 2013

KernelSlanders
May 27, 2013

Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

Parallel Paraplegic posted:

Another fun effect that I've personally noticed is that insurance companies are jacking up their rates several times since after this year they aren't allowed to do that willy-nilly since the ACA applies new regulations. So while under the ACA rates will be more stable, the fact that it doesn't apply yet but looms in the distance this year means my insurance would have gone from $60 per paycheck to $400 per paycheck if my company hadn't switched providers and if I hadn't gone down a few tiers in terms of plan services. It still went up a loving ton, just not nearly that much. And my company is actually incredibly generous and absorbs a massive amount of the cost of health insurance compared to other companies I've seen. I'm sure if you fudge the facts a bit you can make this look like the ACA is directly responsible for it and I'm sure its affected a few companies, since it wasn't just my side of the bill that went up.

How does that work exactly? The 85% rule is already in place, so they can't just quadruple their premium unless they quadruple their expenses also.

Caros
May 14, 2008

KernelSlanders posted:

How does that work exactly? The 85% rule is already in place, so they can't just quadruple their premium unless they quadruple their expenses also.

Pay raise for the CEO is qualified as an expense?

KernelSlanders
May 27, 2013

Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

Caros posted:

Pay raise for the CEO is qualified as an expense?

No.

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

KernelSlanders posted:

How does that work exactly? The 85% rule is already in place, so they can't just quadruple their premium unless they quadruple their expenses also.

Who knows, maybe it was entirely illegal. This is just what my HR lady told me and the numbers I was seeing before we changed providers, so I could be completely wrong as to what was causing it, but it most definitely went from around $60 to $400 before we changed providers for no apparent reason other than "obamacare is next year"

Pierat
Mar 29, 2008
ASK ME ABOUT HOW MUCH I LOVE THE BNP

Caros posted:

Pay raise for the CEO is qualified as an expense?

The loss ratio (insurance payouts / premiums) can't be below 85%

KernelSlanders
May 27, 2013

Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.
They might also just be trying to revamp their entire set of policies. If for whatever reason they can't just cancel a particular plan they can jack the price up on it to make people drop and go to one of the new plans. Yes, the insurance company would still have to refund much of that money at the end of next year, but in the mean time they've chased people off the plans they want to close.

Shimrra Jamaane
Aug 10, 2007

Obscure to all except those well-versed in Yuuzhan Vong lore.
Does someone have the nice effort post writeup on why the government budget cannot be compared to a household budget? I should really save these things.

Quantum Mechanic
Apr 25, 2010

Just another fuckwit who thrives on fake moral outrage.
:derp:Waaaah the Christians are out to get me:derp:

lol abbottsgonnawin

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Does someone have the nice effort post writeup on why the government budget cannot be compared to a household budget? I should really save these things.

There are three major reasons why the government budget can't be compared to a household budget - a) governments can print their own money, b) governments can borrow money for absurdly low interest rates and c) government spending is effectively a closed system.

a) is fairly straightforward. In the case of the US, its debts are issued in US dollars. Since it controls the supply of US dollars, it by definition cannot go bankrupt assuming regular function of Congress. Obviously it can if Congress resoundingly poops itself like it is currently, but that's a separate issue. There is no structural means by which the US can go bankrupt. The US also controls its revenues. Households, on the other hand, cannot print their own money and have very limited means of deciding to bring more money in.

b) is a little more abstract. Bond rates on US debt fluctuate, but recently have been hovering around 2.5%. That means when the US borrows money, it pays 2.5% interest.

There is nearly nothing, aside from tax cuts on the very rich and changes in corporate tax rates, that does not generate a greater economic return than 2.5%. The US could practically use money borrowed at 2.5% to pay people to dig holes and fill them up and still come out ahead. Obviously it's far better if it's used on substantial investment like infrastructure, or jobseeker benefits that get people back into paid work faster, but nearly anything short of burning it for warmth will have better returns than 2.5%.

Imagine if your household had a managed fund with 5% returns, and a credit card with a 2.5% rate and million-dollar limit. You'd be absolutely mad not to max out the card and stick it in the fund, because even after paying the interest on the card you're STILL making 25 grand a year for absolutely nothing.

Obviously that's very simplistic and there are certainly things the government can do that either don't generate returns or ruin their ability to borrow at such low rates, but that's the broad sketch explanation. There's also a limitation to this paradigm (it assumes infinite growth from finite resources) but that's not the problem conservatives have with it.

c) is sort of related to b. When governments spend money, it doesn't "disappear." It isn't "wasted." Every single dollar the government spends domestically stays within the system and is spent. When the government, for example, buys muffins from a local bakery for its meetings, that money stays within the local area. The bakery owners spend it on, say, gas money. The guy running the gas station spends it on a new TV from a local outlet. The lady who owns the department store spends it on her membership to the local country club, and so on until it rises back up and is taxed again by the government. When a household spends money, it leaves the household system entirely and goes off to somewhere else. The money is "gone."

Strudel Man
May 19, 2003
ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Quantum Mechanic posted:

There is nearly nothing, aside from tax cuts on the very rich and changes in corporate tax rates, that does not generate a greater economic return than 2.5%. The US could practically use money borrowed at 2.5% to pay people to dig holes and fill them up and still come out ahead. Obviously it's far better if it's used on substantial investment like infrastructure, or jobseeker benefits that get people back into paid work faster, but nearly anything short of burning it for warmth will have better returns than 2.5%.
On what basis are you asserting this? Keep in mind that 'returns' in this sense refer not to the effect on national GDP, but the effect on tax revenues. I am extremely dubious that "nearly anything" the government spends money on will see a net benefit of 2.5% by this estimation, or indeed break even.

KernelSlanders
May 27, 2013

Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Does someone have the nice effort post writeup on why the government budget cannot be compared to a household budget? I should really save these things.

I'm partial to my post from a few pages back, which also has links to articles by smarter people than I.

Also the Washington post recently had an article on how the U.S. budget is just like the budget of the average family that owns tanks and aircraft carriers, is immortal, and can legally print its own money.

Quantum Mechanic
Apr 25, 2010

Just another fuckwit who thrives on fake moral outrage.
:derp:Waaaah the Christians are out to get me:derp:

lol abbottsgonnawin

Strudel Man posted:

On what basis are you asserting this? Keep in mind that 'returns' in this sense refer not to the effect on national GDP, but the effect on tax revenues. I am extremely dubious that "nearly anything" the government spends money on will see a net benefit of 2.5% by this estimation, or indeed break even.

Assuming you're analysing this from a neoliberal perspective, GDP is what matters. The tax revenues don't matter ultimately, because the higher the GDP, the more money there is available to borrow and hence the lower their rates.

The government's purpose isn't to make money, from this perspective. Again, this isn't inherently my perspective (I think governments should exercise considerably more public ownership than they do and that their purpose is to guarantee prosperity, not necessarily GDP) but it's the accepted paradigm.

KernelSlanders
May 27, 2013

Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

Quantum Mechanic posted:

Assuming you're analysing this from a neoliberal perspective, GDP is what matters. The tax revenues don't matter ultimately, because the higher the GDP, the more money there is available to borrow and hence the lower their rates.

The government's purpose isn't to make money, from this perspective. Again, this isn't inherently my perspective (I think governments should exercise considerably more public ownership than they do and that their purpose is to guarantee prosperity, not necessarily GDP) but it's the accepted paradigm.

Also, the FOMC sets the interest rate on short term government debt. Post Nixon-shock, without any gold reserves to protect there isn't any need to maintain long-term debt at all.

Strudel Man
May 19, 2003
ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Quantum Mechanic posted:

Assuming you're analysing this from a neoliberal perspective, GDP is what matters. The tax revenues don't matter ultimately, because the higher the GDP, the more money there is available to borrow and hence the lower their rates.
This directly goes against the argument you were making, which is that the government can borrow money at those low rates and make a greater return on it than the interest they are paying. They cannot, in fact, do that, because most government expenditures do not see a return to the government even at parity. Your whole analogy with the 2.5% credit card and the 5% return managed fund is inapplicable.

A more substantive response is that when the interest rate on government debt is lower than the rate of inflation, they essentially have vanishing debt that inches towards zero without ever having to be technically repaid. Depending on the difference between those rates, the government can theoretically operate at a perpetual deficit without increasing its debt as a percentage of GDP, since the real value of the debt it owes decreases every year. It's all a bit voodoo-ey, but it does work - as long as interest rates stay low and inflation stays relatively high. You can think of it as siphoning off the value of those who invest in government bonds. It doesn't clearly analogize to the household situation, though.

Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Oct 4, 2013

Pierat
Mar 29, 2008
ASK ME ABOUT HOW MUCH I LOVE THE BNP

KernelSlanders posted:

Also, the FOMC sets the interest rate on short term government debt.

Uh, no it doesn't. It sets the federal funds rate, which is the overnight interest rate between banks.

Blowdryer
Jan 25, 2008
Does anyone have the old "why the us unambiguously needs UHC" thread downloaded? The link in the OP is dead.

darthbob88
Oct 13, 2011

YOSPOS
Anybody got a good effortpost against the LIBERAL MEDIA meme? I've tried this story from Daily Kos and The Nation, but would like better sources.

KernelSlanders
May 27, 2013

Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

Pierat posted:

Uh, no it doesn't. It sets the federal funds rate, which is the overnight interest rate between banks.

It sets the fed funds target, which it attempts to hit by setting the discount rate and by buying and selling short term bonds to control their yield.

OwlBot 2000
Jun 1, 2009

darthbob88 posted:

Anybody got a good effortpost against the LIBERAL MEDIA meme? I've tried this story from Daily Kos and The Nation, but would like better sources.

No sources, though it is true that most journalists (being somewhat educated and informed :smug:) are not on the American political right. But the journalists aren't the ones who decide what to cover, how to present it, talking points, phrases to use, and what to emphasize. The editors and the bosses of the networks are. And the owners of the networks are typically millionaires or billionaires running multi-billion dollars businesses who make their money selling advertisements to other large corporations, and rarely present real left-wing views or display liberal bias -- after all, they don't want higher taxes or more regulations, risk offending their advertisers. If anything, American media errs on the side of being too "fair" to the point of being inaccurate. There are often very clearly correct sides to issues (like climate change, food stamps, deficit spending, national healthcare), but the media makes it seem that there are two equally valid sides. German and British media are (compared to American media) less afraid to accuse politicians of lying, perform fact-checking, and be clear about where the evidence leads.

OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Oct 8, 2013

Pierat
Mar 29, 2008
ASK ME ABOUT HOW MUCH I LOVE THE BNP

KernelSlanders posted:

It sets the fed funds target, which it attempts to hit by setting the discount rate and by buying and selling short term bonds to control their yield.

Yes, but that is not setting the rate on government debt any more than it is setting the rate for any other asset in the economy. The fed sets the fed funds rate, which is used as a benchmark for other interest rates. They could actually buy or sell any asset to achieve the target, the reason government debt is used is that it's the least distortionary option.

I guess the fed could technically could set any rate, including short term government debt, if they were so inclined. But that would be bad central banking.

CheeseSpawn
Sep 15, 2004
Doctor Rope

OwlBot 2000 posted:

No sources, though it is true that most journalists (being somewhat educated and informed :smug:) are not on the American political right. But the journalists aren't the ones who decide what to cover, how to present it, talking points, phrases to use, and what to emphasize. The editors and the bosses of the networks are. And the owners of the networks are typically millionaires or billionaires running multi-billion dollars businesses who make their money selling advertisements to other large corporations, and rarely present real left-wing views or display liberal bias -- after all, they don't want higher taxes or more regulations, or offend their advertisers. If anything, American media errs on the side of being too "fair" to the point of being inaccurate. There are often very clearly correct sides to issues (like climate change, food stamps, deficit spending, national healthcare), but the media makes it seem that there are two equally valid sides. German and British media are (compared to American media) less afraid to accuse politicians of lying, perform fact-checking, and be clear about where the evidence leads.

There's a left and right side version of the propaganda model of the news.

Reed Irvine of AIM (Accuracy in Media) takes the media is spewing out socialist propaganda, similar to those "liberals in Hollywood".

Noam Chomsky talks about the control structures who run media are the conservative elites. Someone hosted the documentary The Myth of the Liberal Media The Propaganda Model of News which discusses Chomsky's filters viewpoint in the media. FAIR(Fairness and accuracy in reporting) and mediamatters are the left viewpoint.

FISHMANPET
Mar 3, 2007

Sweet 'N Sour
Can't
Melt
Steel Beams
Why is it a bad idea for the Democrats to "negotiate" with the Republicanss? I had an argument with a coworker and his point was that they're all politicians they should figure it out and he wouldn't accept any reasoning that it's the Republicans that need to figure their poo poo out, nor could he understand why "negotiating" on whether or not the government should run and pay it's bills wasn't negotiating at all.

Accretionist
Nov 7, 2012
I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

FISHMANPET posted:

Why is it a bad idea for the Democrats to "negotiate" with the Republicanss? I had an argument with a coworker and his point was that they're all politicians they should figure it out and he wouldn't accept any reasoning that it's the Republicans that need to figure their poo poo out, nor could he understand why "negotiating" on whether or not the government should run and pay it's bills wasn't negotiating at all.
In a nutshell, since the Republicans don't have the votes, they're using threats against the American economy to try and force passage of all kinds of poo poo. If Obama gives an inch, their tactics are legitimized and become precedent.

nachos
Jun 27, 2004

Wario Chalmers! WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

FISHMANPET posted:

Why is it a bad idea for the Democrats to "negotiate" with the Republicanss? I had an argument with a coworker and his point was that they're all politicians they should figure it out and he wouldn't accept any reasoning that it's the Republicans that need to figure their poo poo out, nor could he understand why "negotiating" on whether or not the government should run and pay it's bills wasn't negotiating at all.


Can I burn down your house?

No

Just the 2nd floor?

No

Garage?

No

Let's talk about what I can burn down.

No

YOU AREN'T COMPROMISING!

falcon2424
May 2, 2005

FISHMANPET posted:

Why is it a bad idea for the Democrats to "negotiate" with the Republicanss? I had an argument with a coworker and his point was that they're all politicians they should figure it out and he wouldn't accept any reasoning that it's the Republicans that need to figure their poo poo out, nor could he understand why "negotiating" on whether or not the government should run and pay it's bills wasn't negotiating at all.

The answer is that the Democrats did negotiate with the Republicans. The two got together, negotiated, and passed a list of laws like "The president can tax $X and must spend $Y on project Z."

Now the republicans are trying to cheat their way out of their deal. They'll get to keep their tax-reductions, but won't pay for the projects that they already agreed to fund.

Worse, the Republicans say that default is bad. So, their whole position amounts to, "Let us break our deal, or we'll intentionally hurt the country."

The only way this threat gives them leverage is if they honestly believe that the Democrats care more about the country than the Republicans do.

eviltastic
Feb 8, 2004

Fan of Britches

Blowdryer posted:

Does anyone have the old "why the us unambiguously needs UHC" thread downloaded? The link in the OP is dead.

Here is the thread itself, archives required.

I went ahead and reformatted the post so it could be quoted directly including URLs from a live thread if needed. If anyone does that please bear in mind that Gul Banana gets the credit for it rather than me, and there might be a few formatting screwups from me that crept in. Also if anybody knows a quick way to pull a quote from an archived thread including embedded URLs and so on, let me know. Swapping vbcode for html was annoying.

-----------------------


There have been a lot of debates and discussions recently, both on this forum and in other venues, about the state of healthcare. Looking at the rising costs of health insurance, and at the growing numbers of the uninsured, many are calling for government intervention, and the institution of a system where care is guaranteed to all - usually described as "universal" healthcare. It's a fascinating topic - the issues involved include humanitarian, financial and ideological ones. Unfortunately, debate on the subject is characterised by a startling phenomenon: one side is right, and the other is completely wrong.

Given the importance of medicine, I feel that it would be useful to clarify this issue. I will explain clearly, and with evidence, why it is that universal healthcare of any sort would be better than the current system in every significant way. If you find yourself disagreeing with this assertion, I ask that you read on before replying, as all conceivable objections will be addressed and resolved.

Why The Current Situation Is Bad

At the moment, healthcare in America is provided mostly by private entities, who charge high fees. These fees can be attributed largely due to the difficulty and expense of the medical profession, and although they are significantly higher than those of similar nations this difference is only a small portion of healthcare costs. There then exists the health insurance industry, a loose network of corporations that charge individuals or organisations premiums and will pay for their health costs if any are incurred.

Unfortunately, this system has enormous problems. As of 2006, 44.8 million people in America do not have health insurance. Many are unable to afford it, many are denied coverage by insurers who believe that as customers they will not be economical, and others choose not to purchase it. Without health insurance, the up-front costs of health care are impossible for most people to afford. In fact, 50.35% of all bankruptcies were caused, at least in part, by medical fees. In 2001, this was 2,038,549 bankruptcies.

Furthermore, health insurance does not fully cover medical expenses. Different insurers and different plans have many exemptions, co-pays, threshholds and other expense-minimising devices. As a result, 62% of those two million bankruptcies occurred despite the debtors having health insurance coverage for the duration of their illness.

As well as failing to provide care, and driving individuals into bankruptcy, the existing system is also exorbitantly expensive. Health care spending is now 15% of U.S. GDP - the highest in the world. The costs to businesses, who commonly pay premiums for their employees in lieu of salary, rose by 13.9% in 2003. The annual cost increase has been above inflation since at least 1981. Paying more doesn't result in more value, either - obesity, diabetes, and similar disorders are more common in the United States than anywhere else in the developed world, the U.S. is ranked 72nd in overall health, and life expectancy is below that of 41 other countries.

What Is Universal Health Care?

Universal Health Care, or UHC, refers to a wide range of different systems, the common characteristic of which is that a nation's government guarantees all its citizens access to healthcare. Every developed nation (OECD member) in the world, apart from the United States, has a UHC system. There are three main types:

In a fully public system, there is no or little private healthcare, and the health insurance industry is not a significant one. Medical service providers are government employees, and the education of doctors is also subsidised. The most well known example of a fully public system is the original English NHS, although a private sector is now developing in the U.K. as well.

In an optional public, the government provides the same services, but a private health services industry also exists (generally regulated), and . Sometimes health insurers exist, used by people who prefer private services. This is the most common, and examples include Australia and Sweden.

In a subsidised private system, the government pays for health care, but it is provided by private entities. Either the government acts as a health insurer for the populace, or it pays the fees for private health insurers to do so. This is done in Canada.

For the purposes of discussion, I will be assuming the characteristics of an optional public system, like those used in most of Europe. However, the benefits of UHC apply to all of the above types of organisation.

How UHC Will Improve Things

The single largest problem with healthcare in America is that many people don't have it. It's obvious how UHC solves this: by providing it to all citizens directly (or paying for it to be done). By definition, this is no longer a problem under UHC. All developed nations other than the United States make this guarantee to their citizens, and have so far been able to uphold it. The two reasons which make a person uninsurable - insurer decisions and lack of money - will no longer exist.

The second major problem with the current system is its high cost. This can be divided into two parts: individual cost, and government cost - which to the individual shows up as taxation. UHC is inherently cheaper - far cheaper - due to economies of scale, the bargaining position of monopolies with regard to drugs and salaries, reduced administrative costs, and the lack of a profit motive. When it comes to individual health care costs:

According to the World Health Organisation, average American individual spending on healthcare is $3371 per year. Since this includes the uninsured and those covered by their employers, actual costs are higher. For comparison:

Australia: $1017
Canada: $916
Sweden: $532
United Kingdom: $397

The first of those is the second-highest in the world - meaning that Americans pay, not including taxes, more than three times as much as citizens of any other nation. This would be somewhat justifiable if they received better healthcare, but again - 28% have no care at all, life expectancy is below all other developed nations, and general health rating is below all other developed nations.

It is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under UHC systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. Not so. As mentioned, UHC is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result America's health-related taxation is also the highest in the world. According to the OECD, in 2006, American government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. For comparison:

Australia: $2106
Canada: $2338
Sweden: $2468
United Kingdom: $2372

American healthcare taxes are in fact the highest in the OECD, with France second at $2714. In conclusion, every single UHC system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the American health care system. By implementing UHC in the U.S., things can only get better.

Frequently Raised Objections

There are many incorrect arguments against the implementation of UHC in the United States. In order to better facilitate discussion, I will explain the errors found in the most common.

"America isn't Europe!", or It Won't Work Here
The argument from American exceptionalism states that what works in Europe will not work in the U.S. It's said that this is because European nations have more people in less space, resulting in less logistical difficulties, and because European government is more competent.

Firstly, not all developed nations are European. The most obvious example that counteracts the logistical argument is Australia, where there are 20 million people in only slightly less space than America's 300 million. This does indeed affect prices, as can be seen by comparing Australia to Sweden or the U.K. - but it doesn't bring them anywhere near the levels currently experienced in America.

The argument that American government is uniquely incompetent, and cannot do things that every other nation in the world can do, is simply nonsense. Not only has America, and American government, achieved many things that other countries have not, America has so many resources and the improvement in care and cost from moving to UHC is so large that even with incredible inefficiencies it would still be a good idea.

"It is immoral to force me to pay for others' healthcare."
You are already paying for others' healthcare. Furthermore, you are paying far more than you would be under UHC. The U.S. government incurs massive costs from paying hospital fees when ER visitors have no money, and from the limited coverage that it provides, which cannot take advantage of economies of scale and which has to subsidise corporate profit.

As demonstrated above, U.S. taxes devoted to healthcare are the highest in the world. Even if you choose not to have health insurance, under the current system, you are still paying more for others' healthcare than you would be paying for theirs plus your own under UHC.

"This is socialism."
It is not socialist to recognise that there is a service the free market is inefficient at providing, and to decide it should better be provided by the government. Even the most staunch libertarian admits that there are some services in this category, such as national defence.

Secondly, it is irrelevant whether this is a "socialist" policy; it's effective. It costs less and provides better care to more people, and as a result is used literally everywhere else in the entire world. Those who want to ensure that society remains ideologically committed to market capitalism need to look for other issues, as if they cling to this one they will only end up providing evidence against their position.

"I don't want more government bureaucracy."
UHC will involve much less bureaucracy than is commonly assumed, as it can replace the existing partial systems like Medicare and also the plethora of state-specific programs. Regardless, the lives and money saved are more important than any potential expansion of the state.

"Why don't we try making the system even more private instead? That might help."
It might. However, there's no evidence to suggest it, and many reasons to presume it wouldn't. By its nature, the less publicly-supported a system, the more people will be unable to purchase health services.

The only potential gain would be reduced costs due to some sort of market mechanism, and in practice this has never occurred; every private healthcare system that has ever existed in world history has proved inefficient and been replaced by public systems, and given the demonstrable gains that have resulted the U.S. must follow.

"Doctors will be paid less."
They probably will. In nations with UHC, doctors often earn less - for example, U.S. doctors earn 30% more than Canadian doctors - but this isn't an inherent problem. It is still one of the highest-paying professions in the world, and there are many other ways of attracting skilled people to medicine - such as subsidising their education.

It is sometimes claimed that doctors paid less in a country with UHC will instead go elsewhere where they can be paid more, but once the U.S. has UHC there will not be an elsewhere to go.

"Medical research is funded by the payments of the rich in the current system, and will be reduced."
It is not true that most medical research is done in the United States. In 2000, U.S. research spending was $46 billion, but European spending was also $43 billion. And although U.S. research spending doubled in the last decade, the funding's efficacy has actually decreased.

Secondarily, if the option for private healthcare still exists - and there is no reason why it should not - there will still be people choosing to pay more for a higher quality of care, faster service, et cetera. Their profits will still be reinvested in the development of new drugs, equipment and understanding of the human body, as they still are in nations with UHC today. Even in the United States, private spending accounts for only 57% of research spending.

"With the option of private healthcare, the rich will 'opt out' and costs will go up."
This isn't necessarily true at all; although private healthcare is usually allowed in UHC nations (for good reasons), it doesn't have to decrease the taxes paid by all to support the public system!

"Other countries fix drug prices, so the US has to pay more for drugs."
This is another common misconception. U.S. healthcare does not include higher pharmaceutical spending than other countries; it's around the average or even slightly lower. From the OECD:

Canada: 17.7%
Germany: 15.2%
Iceland: 13.3%
Australia: 13.3%
US: 12.4%
Sweden: 12%
Ireland: 11.6%

In Conclusion

Thank you for reading. To those who were not previously supporters of UHC, I apologise if anything seemed condescending, but there's no shame in being wrong due to not having all the facts or having been misled. If anyone has questions feel free to ask, and hopefully we can now discuss what sort of UHC system ought to be implemented or how the political will for it can be gathered, rather than being bogged down by misconceptions about its desirability.

eviltastic fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Oct 10, 2013

Miltank
Dec 27, 2009

by XyloJW

FISHMANPET posted:

Why is it a bad idea for the Democrats to "negotiate" with the Republicanss? I had an argument with a coworker and his point was that they're all politicians they should figure it out and he wouldn't accept any reasoning that it's the Republicans that need to figure their poo poo out, nor could he understand why "negotiating" on whether or not the government should run and pay it's bills wasn't negotiating at all.

The framing shouldn't be whether or not it is acceptable to negotiate. The real question is "what are the republicans offering as a compromise?" Funding the government and raising the debt ceiling are things that both parties want (whether the GOP actually wants this or not is up for debate but they are claiming they do so we will go with it.) The problem is that the GOP also wants to defund the ACA. This means that if the government is funded sans Obamacare the Republicans get a functional government AND a functional repeal of Obamacare whereas the Democrats only get a functional government. Not a compromise.

The GOP calling the defunding of the ACA a compromise is an admission that they view funding the government as a sacrifice. That is insane.

Miltank fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Oct 10, 2013

Dr. Arbitrary
Mar 15, 2006

Bleak Gremlin
I've been trying to find the best analogy for the situation, something that'll really drill into people's heads.

Did you ever have a group project when you were in school? Everyone has to work together and they share the grade.
It doesn't always work out well. Sometimes the team members can't get along or have difficulty agreeing how to split up the work.
This is actually one of the best parts of a group project because it can help people who want to succeed learn how to work with each other.

The real problem though comes when you have someone who cares a lot about getting a good grade, and the other doesn't.
Usually it ends up with the motivated student doing all of the work. But what if the motivated student NEEDS the other student's help? Is it okay for the unmotivated student to demand money in order to do his share of the work? Do both students share the blame if the project is a failure?

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

I've been trying to find the best analogy for the situation, something that'll really drill into people's heads.
Analogies are almost always terrible, the facts of the situation should be enough to convince any sane person. The Republicans deliberately shut down the government in an effort to seek concessions from the Democrats, this means either: the Republicans regard the shutdown as a good thing (insanity) or that the Republicans are willing to literally damage the country to achieve their political goals (at best essentially accelerationism, at worst super villain territory).

Dr. Arbitrary
Mar 15, 2006

Bleak Gremlin

twodot posted:

Analogies are almost always terrible, the facts of the situation should be enough to convince any sane person.

Maybe it depends on the audience but my experience has been that facts are not a good way to convince someone.

People don't understand facts, they understand stories. If your facts don't fit with a credible narrative, your facts will be rejected.

The most dangerous story right now is the "Both sides are bad, neither wants to work with the other" story.

I'm trying to come up with something that can hopefully replace that story and allow for an understanding of the situation that's a little closer to reality.

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

People don't understand facts, they understand stories. If your facts don't fit with a credible narrative, your facts will be rejected.

The most dangerous story right now is the "Both sides are bad, neither wants to work with the other" story.
Sure, but "The Republicans are literally engaging in terrorism (they are trying to extract policy concessions from Democrats by harming America)" is a story that doesn't require analogy.

Habibi
Dec 8, 2004

We have the capability to make San Jose's first Cup Champion.

The Sharks could be that Champion.
Hey fellas and ladies - I know this topic has been discussed ad nauseum, but without a thread-specific search it's tough for me to go back and look for specific stuff that shares keywords with topics being brought up every hour, so: I'm currently discussing the rise of our healthcare costs with my step-dad, a diehard Republican (owns a GBW mug!) who is at least a little annoyed with his party right now (because he's not stupid [graduate of USSR university system as a mathematician], he's just poorly informed and afraid of communism). He is of the opinion that,

quote:

High health care cost is determined by cumbersome system ,which eliminated any market competition, put severe burden on doctors of paper work and protection from potential litigation.

I used to have a whole bunch of links covering how the for-profit insurance system has completely hosed us, but they are all on a laptop that recently died and currently the effort to try and recover them is just not there. On top of general information, I've also been trying to find articles from a couple of years ago showing that despite the number of people purchasing insurance dropping due to the recession, insurers were reporting record or at least record increases in profit (which just logically makes it difficult to believe that the rising costs are a function mainly of care providers, lawyers, etc... But really any assistance on this would be helpful as my entire link library is currently MIA.

e: he has some other interesting ideas that I haven't encountered in some time - such as splitting insurance into 'maintenance' and 'catastrophic' and havin g insurance only for the latter (which basically sounds like car insurance for your body - great!). I've asked him if he is familiar with the concept of price elasticity but he hasn't responded about that yet.

Habibi fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Oct 10, 2013

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Habibi posted:

But really any assistance on this would be helpful as my entire link library is currently MIA.
I think your approach is backwards. I would ask him to back up his assertion since it doesn't seem compatible with how essentially every country with better healthcare than ours functions. I don't think pointing out the for-profit healthcare is screwing us is going to work here, he seems to agree that we are indeed being screwed in the current situation. You can't take the burden of showing the only possible way to avoid being screwed is your solution, you need to instead show why his particular solution doesn't do the thing he wants (or show that the thing he wants is reprehensible).

DarkHorse
Dec 13, 2006

Vroom Vroom, BEEP BEEP!
Nap Ghost
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/sick-and-wrong-20100405

This should link to an article that articulates the many ways the US system sucks, for everyone. You could not design a worse system deliberately, just about nobody comes out ahead.

Accretionist
Nov 7, 2012
I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES
Anyone know of a good analysis on specifically the relationship between gun crime rates and crime rates?

Edit: I had a rambling post here before, but the short of it is that the degree to which guns are a risk factor appears to be variable and it's a complex, nuanced issue. And the relevant link in the OP is unavailable due to shutdown.

Accretionist fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Oct 11, 2013

Habibi
Dec 8, 2004

We have the capability to make San Jose's first Cup Champion.

The Sharks could be that Champion.

twodot posted:

I think your approach is backwards. I would ask him to back up his assertion since it doesn't seem compatible with how essentially every country with better healthcare than ours functions. I don't think pointing out the for-profit healthcare is screwing us is going to work here, he seems to agree that we are indeed being screwed in the current situation. You can't take the burden of showing the only possible way to avoid being screwed is your solution, you need to instead show why his particular solution doesn't do the thing he wants (or show that the thing he wants is reprehensible).

Usually I would agree, but in this particular case, I know that if I ask for proof of his assertions I will get something from foxnews.com or who knows what. Like I said, he's not dumb or unreasonable, he just has some internal fears and views that push him to unfortunate news sources. He even allows that having a public option or a government run insurance company may be a good plan. This conversation grew out of him asking me why I thought a public option would do more to stem the growth of healthcare costs than the status quo or the version of ACA that we ended up with, which is why I am trying to approach it from the 'look what for-profit means for healthcare' angle rather than a 'prove your assertions' angle. Likewise I am not interested in showing that a single payer system is 'the only possible way,' just that it is a better way than what we've been working with. When I tried answering his initial question re why single payer would help reduce costs by explaining the idea of a single negotiator representing an enormous amount of customers...he began comparing it to the system back in the USSR and what is apparently going on now in Venezuela. Mainly, less than trying to prove anything, I want to make him consider the possibility that torts/paperwork/the system (which I am waiting for clarification on, but by which I am fairly sure he means the system of government regulations within which private insurers function.

DarkHorse
Dec 13, 2006

Vroom Vroom, BEEP BEEP!
Nap Ghost
You could try comparing it to economies of scale: with UHC, the government represents all 10,000 (or whatever) hip replacement patients per year. The government can say "ok all you companies, bid for the right to be our supplier of hips. You gotta show they are more effective and affordable than your competition; in exchange, you get a giant and reliable contract (that likewise gives them economies of scale).

It's cheaper per unit to produce a billion of some drug than a thousand different companies making a million doses each.

Pirate Radar
Apr 18, 2008

You're not my Ruthie!
You're not my Debbie!
You're not my Sherry!

Accretionist posted:

Anyone know of a good analysis on specifically the relationship between gun crime rates and crime rates?

Edit: I had a rambling post here before, but the short of it is that the degree to which guns are a risk factor appears to be variable and it's a complex, nuanced issue. And the relevant link in the OP is unavailable due to shutdown.

Taking the statistical track when arguing about guns and crime is essentially always a dead end. The question itself is endlessly complex--maybe impossible to actually answer, at least right now--and that means that reputable sources have at times produced work that supports either (or neither) position. Bringing statistics into it is basically setting yourself up to go around and around endlessly to no resolution.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Habibi posted:

When I tried answering his initial question re why single payer would help reduce costs by explaining the idea of a single negotiator representing an enormous amount of customers...he began comparing it to the system back in the USSR and what is apparently going on now in Venezuela.
If the fact that single payer could possibly be better than what we have right now is in dispute, then countries existing that have single payer should be sufficient evidence to prove that is true (since our healthcare is terrible). If it's not, he must have a wrong assertion laying somewhere. Note that this is an entirely different discussion from the cause of our current high costs, which was the subject of your quote.

  • Locked thread