U.S. Politics

Page 301 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
High information voters usually do a little bit of research to make sure something is true. You might want to consider doing that sometime. Like now.
See, when attempting to predict probabilities of future occurrences bright people called actuaries create tables based the laws of large numbers of people.

Those tables will tell you insurance costs for the average 25 year old will cost significantly less than those of a 75 year old.

But, in two brilliant moves, ACA tables dictate that the 25 year old pay much more than an actuarially sound rate in order to subsidize the 75 year old who will pay much less. In reality, rob from those just getting started by fiat to redistribute to those who should be in a much better financial position.

Regressive taxation.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
In reality, rob from those just getting started by fiat to redistribute to those who should be in a much better financial position.

Regressive taxation.
I don't know whether actuarial calculations in the US show that there is anything dishonest or unfair about the contributions that people will pay towards health care (I'm sure Velo will come up with figures,) but I can tell you this much -

Civilized, responsible, adults (tax-payers) in civilized countries do not view their contributions to their health care system as robbery by the state (though of course, everyone, everywhere, feels that their premium is too high,) nor are healthcare contributions seen as any kind of 'redistribution of wealth' from the young(er) to the old(er). Nobody except the US extreme right thinks in terms like these.

I don't even know why I bothered, really. The mere fact that you use terms like 'rob' and 'redistribute' when talking about health care contributions is a perfect demonstration of just how totally batsh!t crazy the US right wing view about health care is.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Whats up with Sen..Rubio and his dry mouth or smacking ..etc....last night?

Anyone catch that follow up to the state of the union? What was up with the pause to drink water? WTF? It was hilarious in my opinion.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
I don't know whether actuarial calculations in the US show that there is anything dishonest or unfair about the contributions that people will pay towards health care (I'm sure Velo will come up with figures,) but I can tell you this much -

Civilized, responsible, adults (tax-payers) in civilized countries do not view their contributions to their health care system as robbery by the state (though of course, everyone, everywhere, feels that their premium is too high,) nor are healthcare contributions seen as any kind of 'redistribution of wealth' from the young(er) to the old(er). Nobody except the US extreme right thinks in terms like these.

I don't even know why I bothered, really. The mere fact that you use terms like 'rob' and 'redistribute' when talking about health care contributions is a perfect demonstration of just how totally batsh!t crazy the US right wing view about health care is.
Justice Roberts cast the decisive opinion. It's a tax.

The fact that the young will pay more than they should so that the old pay less is a regressive tax no matter how you slice it.

You are all for parents and grandparents being supported by their kids and grand kids.... fine. But let's be honest about what's happening.

You are horrified by regressive taxation except when you are for it.


Belief in government control trumps all else. Am I wrong?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
You say using Newfoundland and Labrador as an example is like Alaska. So I guess that means the good folks in places like Alaska...deep south states ....rural west...Will have a horrible affordable health care plan! WTF velo??? If that is the way a social system is to work then it will be a piece of **** plan.
Extrapolating one experience in NF to the entire Canadian health care system would be like using one experience in Alaska and extrapolating it to the entire US system.

But let's see what Canadians themselves think.

A 70% majority of Canadians thought their system was performing either "very well (12%) or "fairly well" (58%). Only 28% thought it was performing "not well at all" (9%) or "not that well" (19%).

Most people (55%) favored an expansion of the public sector. Just over a quarter (27%) of Canadians thought that the Canadian system had got the balance between public and private sector health care right. Only 12% favored a tilt towards the private sector.

An 82% majority of Canadians believed their country's health care system was superior to the U.S. system. Only 8% thought the U.S. system was superior.
Seems like they're pretty happy with their system. Sure wouldn't trade it for ours.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20090812/US-health-care-system-e2809cenvy-of-the-worlde2809d-not-in-Canada!.aspx

And Americans? Not so happy.

Another Harris Poll report, published July 2, 2008, compared the popularity of the health care systems in 10 countries. The United States system was the most unpopular. It reported that 33% of Americans felt there was "so much wrong with the health care system, we need to completely rebuild it." In the other nine countries between 9% (in the Netherlands) and 20% (in Italy) felt this way. Only 12% of Americans thought that "the system works pretty well."
Why when you ask doctors here they say that a large amount of there peers have went south. Does that not show up on some pie chart somewhere? I don't have time to get into google and find some wordpress blog etc.
It's not that hard to track the number of doctors immigrating and emigrating.

Time for me to move full time to Japan.
Japan has an awesome system but it's less likely to be adopted in the US.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Whats up with Sen..Rubio and his dry mouth or smacking ..etc....last night?

Anyone catch that follow up to the state of the union? What was up with the pause to drink water? WTF? It was hilarious in my opinion.
What's with these Rs and their ridiculous SOTU responses? First Bobby Jindal and now Rubio.

As for Rubio's response, just a laundry list of personal attacks against Obama and not a shred of policy substance. No one pays attention to conservatives anymore because it's pretty obvious that they're out of ideas.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I know man. Sometimes when things are put into perspective what we thought we knew turns out not to be the case.
So because we don't have quite the death toll of, say, El Salvador, that puts it into perspective? That's ****ing moronic.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
What's with these Rs and their ridiculous SOTU responses? First Bobby Jindal and now Rubio.

As for Rubio's response, just a laundry list of personal attacks against Obama and not a shred of policy substance. No one pays attention to conservatives anymore because it's pretty obvious that they're out of ideas.
No one pays attention to conservatives because they aren't offering more federal goodies.

SOTU. "Smart" government (oxymoron) tax and spend, err invest.

Lesseee, take money out of the economy and put it back in. The height of efficiency:rolleyes:

My favorite part? Federal Minimum Wage at $9.00. Further destruction of entry level jobs... further deterioration of teen employment, particularly in the minority communities.

I don't know what Obama has against young people.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Belief in government control trumps all else. Am I wrong?
Yes, as usual, you are wrong. That's just what you choose to believe. What we believe in is finding a better balance between government and markets, the private and public sectors. I think we've been saying that for, what, like a thousand pages or so? It's not that hard to understand unless you really, really don't want to.

See, here's the difference: we believe in markets but we also believe that government also can play a constructive role in society and, in some cases - like health care - has to fill in the gaps left by market failures.

Judging from your knee-jerk reaction regarding anything government-related, really we should be the ones asking you the question: Belief in free markets trumps all else. Am I wrong?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
Yes, as usual, you are wrong. That's just what you choose to believe. What we believe in is finding a better balance between government and markets, the private and public sectors. I think we've been saying that for, what, like a thousand pages or so? It's not that hard to understand unless you really, really don't want to.

See, here's the difference: we believe in markets but we also believe that government also can play a constructive role in society and, in some cases - like health care - has to fill in the gaps left by market failures.

Judging from your knee-jerk reaction regarding anything government-related, really we should be the ones asking you the question: Belief in free markets trumps all else. Am I wrong?
Belief more solutions are found with free people in free markets over government control? Yep. Sorry.

Are limits needed? Of course.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Belief more solutions are found with free people in free markets over government control? Yep. Sorry.

Are limits needed? Of course.
Well see, there's your problem - everything is black and white, "free people in free markets" vs "government control", no room for anything in between.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
See, when attempting to predict probabilities of future occurrences bright people called actuaries create tables based the laws of large numbers of people.

Those tables will tell you insurance costs for the average 25 year old will cost significantly less than those of a 75 year old.

But, in two brilliant moves, ACA tables dictate that the 25 year old pay much more than an actuarially sound rate in order to subsidize the 75 year old who will pay much less. In reality, rob from those just getting started by fiat to redistribute to those who should be in a much better financial position.

Regressive taxation.
Are you referring to the Oliver Wyman paper?

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/01/14/12023/opinion-what-insurers-arent-telling-you

2.5% will pay more. That's quite the soaking. btw, and again I'm assuming that you are referring to the Oliver Wyman study, you might want to check thisout:

In the OW report, the consulting company which is happy to goalseek any result requested of it by its client
Would appear that they have quite the reputation as guns for hire.

But dude, all of this was covered before, it was even discussed during the SC hearings. It just ain't true.

The three-to-one “age band” in premiums is the same as the ratio of average medical spending for 45 to 64 year olds to spending for 18 to 24 year olds, according to data from the 2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Moreover, the ACA also offers young adults up to age 30 the opportunity to purchase catastrophic policies that are not available to older adults.
Taking these two features of the law into account, it is not clear there will be much redistribution from young to old as a result of the ACA at all. There will, within each age group, be pooling of good and bad risks; by definition, this is how insurance works, and as noted above is a more efficient outcome than one in which markets do not exist because of adverse selection. But subsidies from young to old are a red herring.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2012/05/23/health-care-economics-101-and-the-supreme-court/

I have to say, it is amusing how freaked out you are by the ACA - you want it to fail so badly and yet it won't even be fully implemented for another year or two and it's full impacts, good and bad, won't be known for at least a decade or more, and it's a minor set of reforms at best, and yet the right acts like it's the Apocalypse. Why don't we give it some time and see what happens, eh?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/is-marco-rubio-capable-of-more-than-bromides/273117/

What Rubio does best is movement-conservative boilerplate, so that's mostly what he does, but he doesn't make any effort to freshen up the ideas, or even to freshen up the rhetoric he uses to express the ideas. When he starts talking, it's like when the Dave Matthews Band song comes on, the one you liked the very first time you heard it 15 years ago, but then the guy across the hall played it on repeat for all of sophomore year, and now when the lyrics play you can't even conceive of them as words with a meaning.
If Rubio is the future of the GOP, well, good luck with that. Problem is, it's not just Rubio, it's damn well near every R these days who sounds like a Dave Matthews song. They're stuck in the past and have no idea how to address current and future issues so they just repeat the same old stale, tired rhetoric, pushing the same old failed policies that no one save old white people support anymore. They're completely out of ideas.

That was a very strong SOTU. The President has honed his presentation of what activist government should look like in the 21st century, and, amazingly, it actually rings more conservative than the bull**** being peddled by the so-called conservatives in the chamber. And the last segment of the speech, on voting and then gun violence, was incredibly powerful. I had a tear in my eye. I can’t believe Boehner wasn’t bawling … well, then again, there’s no telling what will make the Speaker break out in tears.

Rubio, on the other hand, gave a speech that clearly had nothing to do with the SOTU address that preceded it, which made it very flat and tone deaf. It was alternately condescendingly partisan and incredibly defensive. Surprisingly weak. We know which of these two is the Alpha Male in American politics today.
And it's about time Obama acted like the alpha male of American politics.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Well see, there's your problem - everything is black and white, "free people in free markets" vs "government control", no room for anything in between.
Ah yes. The public/private partnership. The greater good decided by corrupt politicians bought and paid for by deep pocket corrupt private enterprise types.

It's an exclusive club. We need more of that:rolleyes:
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Ah yes. The public/private partnership. The greater good decided by corrupt politicians bought and paid for by deep pocket corrupt private enterprise types.

It's an exclusive club. We need more of that:rolleyes:
Being overly cynical is just as naive as being overly trusting. Not everyone's out to get you or your wallet, Scott.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Whoops - the deficit is falling too fast.

Here's a pretty important fact that virtually everyone in Washington seems oblivious to: The federal deficit has never fallen as fast as it's falling now without a coincident recession.

To be specific, CBO expects the deficit to shrink from 8.7% of GDP in fiscal 2011 to 5.3% in fiscal 2013 if the sequester takes effect and to 5.5% if it doesn't. Either way, the two-year deficit reduction — equal to 3.4% of the economy if automatic budget cuts are triggered and 3.2% if not — would stand far above any other fiscal tightening since World War II.

Until the aftermath of the Great Recession, there were only three such periods in which the deficit shrank by a cumulative 2% of GDP or more. The 1960-61 and 1969-70 episodes both helped bring about a recession.
Far steeper deficit cuts during the demobilization from World War II and in 1937-38 both precipitated economic reversals.

Now the deficit is shrinking about 50% faster than it did during the booming late 1990s, when the jobless rate was falling south of 5% and tax revenues were soaring — without tax hikes.History suggests that there's little good to be gotten from cutting the deficit much faster than 1% of GDP per year. That's especially true at the moment, given the nature of our related demographic and budget challenges.

Both of those challenges suggest that growth should be our paramount concern, far ahead of near-term deficit reduction, even as we work to improve the intermediate-term budget outlook.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/021213-644063-chart-should-embarrass-deficit-hawks.htm#ixzz2KnuQatjd
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Appears that right-to-work legislation isn't so popular in MI after all.

http://www.freep.com/article/20130212/NEWS15/130212106/michigan-governor-rick-snyder?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

A poll released to the Free Press today suggests that support for Gov. Rick Snyder dropped sharply after he did an about-face in December and backed the speedy passage of controversial right-to-work legislation.

The poll by EPIC-MRA of Lansing, released exclusively to the Free Press and WXYZ-TV (Channel 7), found that 61% of Michigan voters surveyed between Feb. 5 and Feb. 10 gave Snyder a negative job rating, while 36% gave him a positive rating.

Those numbers contrast sharply with the same firm’s most recent previous poll, conducted at the end of November, when 51% gave Snyder a positive job rating, and 48% gave him a negative rating.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Are you referring to the Oliver Wyman paper?

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/01/14/12023/opinion-what-insurers-arent-telling-you

2.5% will pay more. That's quite the soaking. btw, and again I'm assuming that you are referring to the Oliver Wyman study, you might want to check thisout:

Would appear that they have quite the reputation as guns for hire.

But dude, all of this was covered before, it was even discussed during the SC hearings. It just ain't true.



http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2012/05/23/health-care-economics-101-and-the-supreme-court/

I have to say, it is amusing how freaked out you are by the ACA - you want it to fail so badly and yet it won't even be fully implemented for another year or two and it's full impacts, good and bad, won't be known for at least a decade or more, and it's a minor set of reforms at best, and yet the right acts like it's the Apocalypse. Why don't we give it some time and see what happens, eh?
Why am I not surprised you'll come out attacking the messenger? The Wyman study could have come out the other way and you'd applaud it:rolleyes:

I'm not freaked out over ACA more or less than any other stupid piece of legislation coming out of DC. There's just so much to choose from. But;



It’s official: the health care law will unduly stick it to young Americans by making them pay far higher premiums starting January 1, 2014.[1] New rules announced this month are even worse than expected when it comes to shoveling an unfair burden onto our nation’s youth. Moreover, they also perversely increase the incentives of young people to remain uninsured.

The newly announced rules limit insurers to charge their oldest customers no more than three times as much as younger ones. As shown in the following chart based on estimates by international management consulting firm Oliver Wyman, the rule will force insurers to hike rates for 18- to 24-year-olds by 45 percent even as rates for those 60 and older drop by 13 percent in most states.[2] That means a 22-year-old waitress paying $2,068 for her health insurance will have to fork over $3,000 when Obamacare takes effect.[3] And these figures even underestimate the actual impact.
Analysts based these estimates on average premiums for 5-year age groups (i.e. 55-59, 60-64, etc.). However, the new rules say that the restriction must apply to 1-year age groups (i.e. 25, 26, 27, etc.). Since health spending rises steadily by age—about 3.5 percent per year between 25 to 64—expected spending for 64 year-olds is higher than for the 60-64 year-old age group as a whole. That means insurance companies will have to charge 18-year-olds at least 10 percent more using the 1-year age groups to ensure their premiums fall within the mandated range of those of 64 year-olds.
And the kicker...

The real-world consequence of this regulatory misjudgment is that young people will have an even greater economic incentive to simply pay the $695 annual penalty for not having coverage and wait until they are sick before they purchase it. [4] In short, it is now even more likely that Obamacare will amplify the perverse incentives for “free-riding” that it was intended to counter.
That is called "adverse selection" and is the reason people can't just now enter other insurance markets... life insurance as an example. It's also why the young pay significantly more for auto insurance than older people. It's the exact opposite from how Obamacare will work. Newly licensed drivers cause most of the carnage out on the roadways of this country and they are charged accordingly. Conversely, more experienced drivers typically are much more safe with much smaller frequency and severity number... and are charged accordingly.

That's how real markets actually work as opposed to manipulated markets that are supposed to address "the greater good."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/11/27/young-people-under-obamacare-cash-cow-for-older-workers/
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/is-marco-rubio-capable-of-more-than-bromides/273117/

If Rubio is the future of the GOP, well, good luck with that. Problem is, it's not just Rubio, it's damn well near every R these days who sounds like a Dave Matthews song. They're stuck in the past and have no idea how to address current and future issues so they just repeat the same old stale, tired rhetoric, pushing the same old failed policies that no one save old white people support anymore. They're completely out of ideas.

And it's about time Obama acted like the alpha male of American politics.
lol

Lessee, Obama; Tax then spend. We need more revenue so we can invest. We can spend our way to prosperity. Government provided pre-school (get 'em indoctrinated at 4 because 5 might be too late). Spend, spend, spend. Infrastructure, Spend, jobs, spend, tax, not a dime SHOULD be added to the debt (gotta parse words with this one... he did learn something from Clinton), taxes, taxes spending, balanced approached of taxing (tax everything).

What did I miss?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Being overly cynical is just as naive as being overly trusting. Not everyone's out to get you or your wallet, Scott.
Not everybody in DC is out to make things better for anyone other than themselves either.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
lol

Lessee, Obama; Tax then spend. We need more revenue so we can invest. We can spend our way to prosperity. Government provided pre-school (get 'em indoctrinated at 4 because 5 might be too late). Spend, spend, spend. Infrastructure, Spend, jobs, spend, tax, not a dime SHOULD be added to the debt (gotta parse words with this one... he did learn something from Clinton), taxes, taxes spending, balanced approached of taxing (tax everything).

What did I miss?
Yep.

This was an intellectually exhausted speech that represents the intellectual bankruptcy of contemporary Republicanism. It was a series of Reaganite truisms that had a role to play in reinvigorating America after liberal over-reach in the 1960s and 1970s. It had precious little new in it. If reciting these platitudes in Spanish is what the GOP thinks will bring it back to anything faintly resembling political or intellectual relevance, they are more deluded than even I imagined.
Livin' in the past, no ideas for the future.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/13/rubios-pathetic-exhausted-vapid-response/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS