A Look At Sarah Palin

[Ed-M]

Professor Chaos wrote

Translation: The percentage of Merkins, incapable of critical thought, who worship guns, cheap bear, Jesus, and an American flag made in China; and who would like to deport any American citizen who doesn't worship an American flag with a picture of Jesus holding a gun, regardless of their citizenship status, and who are incapable - because of a stunningly low IQ - of realizing that Republicans don't want a "smaller government" out of principle, they want it because "Republican" is synonymous with "corporate interest," and that the Corporatocracy will ass-rape them far worse than their government ever has or even can, has grown in recent years to encompass more Merkin states.

You put it better than I just did! Much better!

[calpurnpiso]

Sarah Palin thinks & reason like any other person affected by my postulated FBBAS ( False Bizarre Belief Accepting Syndrome) the atypical neurological phenomenon responsible for the crazy thinking & reasoning of schizophrenics, religious, TL epileptics, & other diseases that affects the mature healthy brain perception of reality, turning it into a sick brain.

I suggest watching Sarah Palin's exorcism-Baptism to understand the extend of her ChristPSychosis affliction another woman infected with the FBBAS (False Bizarre Beliefs Accepting Syndrome) is Michelle Bachmann.

Sane people do not believe resurrecting zombies that walk on water & save with blood are real. These delusions are only accepted as reality by mentally afflicted people.

Here is a video proving my point, Palin is infected by ChristPsychosis, and she ought to be placed in a mentally health care center along those like her affected by FBBAS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

Those living in poverty (i.e., incapable of meeting their own subsistence needs).

And if you can't afford to pay your medical bills out of pocket without sacrificing the mortgage or rent payments, groceries, etc., then you're in poverty.

Victus wrote

That's what (catastrophic coverage) health insurance is for, so you don't have to pay $100K medical bills.

And not everybody has or can afford to pay for that kind of medical coverage. It's very expensive.

Personally, I'd prefer to be euthanized if I suffer a delibilating, severe quality-of-life altering illness, but that's not a legal option yet, and it's certainly not something that I think can be imposed on other people.

Victus wrote

Or, you know, bad at managing resources.

Perhaps, if you want to be judgmental. And you're entitled to be. But it doesn't change the fact that not everybody can afford to be saddled with expensive medical bills, especially those who might be forced to live on a fixed income after 40 to 45 years of steady employment. Some people have actually been bankrupted by such bills. Again, you are not required to care at all.

Victus wrote

It's basically people trying to get rich by picking their own pockets.

Well, I don't know anybody who has gotten rich off of Social Security and Medicare, but if you do, you should report those individuals, because they're obviously doing something illegal.

Victus wrote

They paid for others' retirements, not their own. They have no legal claim to benefits, even if they paid taxes into the program.

Well, actually they do unless and until the law is changed. Yeah, I know some of our legislators claim to be working on it. We'll see, I guess.

Victus wrote

Average life expectancy is just a bit shy of 80.

I know. But a lot of us still won't make it to 80. And if Medicare is eliminated (not likely), a lot more of us won't.

[anthonyjfuchs]

Ed-M wrote

PA = Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Alabama in between)

We (I say "we" like I still live there) call that "Alabama-in-between" wasteland Pennsyltucky.

Jim Carville also apparently called it "Alabama without the blacks," so spot-on there, Ed

[lostsheep]

Professor Chaos wrote

Translation: The percentage of Merkins, incapable of critical thought, who worship guns, cheap bear, Jesus, and an American flag made in China; and who would like to deport any American citizen who doesn't worship an American flag with a picture of Jesus holding a gun, regardless of their citizenship status, and who are incapable - because of a stunningly low IQ - of realizing that Republicans don't want a "smaller government" out of principle, they want it because "Republican" is synonymous with "corporate interest," and that the Corporatocracy will ass-rape them far worse than their government ever has or even can, has grown in recent years to encompass more Merkin states.

(Applause)

But it is sad and frustrating to me, how very many intelligent and educated people I know who thoroughly buy Republican (aka, corporate) propaganda. I am at a loss to explain it. They really, truly believe that the poor people of this country are the ones sucking the life out of it, and they just want to slash government programs and regulation almost if not completely. They also think it's just fine for them to work harder and harder for less and less, even as their CEO's earn more and more: they think that it's "just the American way" as far as I can fathom, anyway.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

And if you can't afford to pay your medical bills out of pocket without sacrificing the mortgage or rent payments, groceries, etc., then you're in poverty.
And not everybody has or can afford to pay for that kind of medical coverage. It's very expensive.

Middle class is typically defined as an income of around $30k/year in the US. The average health insurance premium is $3k/year, assuming it isn't provided by an employer. That's ridiculously expensive, and could be made a lot cheaper by deregulating both the provider licensing system (arbitrary licensing regulation constricts supply and raises prices without improving quality) and the insurance market (if you are unhealthy, the insurer should be able to charge you more).

That leaves $27K per year with which to pay rent. ~$12K/year for a very very nice family-sized apartment in my city, leaving ~$15K/year for everything else.

So yeah, if you're lower-middle class, you can probably afford the average policy, and that policy would be a whole lot cheaper if we stopped hyper-regulating both the providers and the insurers, and remove tax incentives that make the market inefficient.

Irr wrote

Personally, I'd prefer to be euthanized if I suffer a delibilating, severe quality-of-life altering illness, but that's not a legal option yet, and it's certainly not something that I think can be imposed on other people.

It should be legal, but why should we want to impose it on people?

Irr wrote

Perhaps, if you want to be judgmental. And you're entitled to be.

Indeed. I mean, if the problem isn't actually a lack of resources/complete and utter inability to afford insurance, but just poor resource management, then I have to question whether we should be taking away peoples' rights in order to correct it.

Let's say someone makes $500K a year. He invests $499K in the stock market/housing/other illiquid assets, to the extent that he can't afford insurance, despite being relatively wealthy. Should we buy him health insurance?

Irr wrote

But it doesn't change the fact that not everybody can afford to be saddled with expensive medical bills, especially those who might be forced to live on a fixed income after 40 to 45 years of steady employment.

Who, exactly, is forcing you to retire? And why couldn't you save money for your late-in life medical expenses?

If the answer to the first question is some form of disability, then you might have a legitimate claim to government resources to provide basic income/healthcare/etc. If you just stopped working because you don't feel like it anymore, then I think you (should) have zero claim on said resources, regardless of age.

Irr wrote

Some people have actually been bankrupted by such bills.

That's tragic, but once we take out the cases where this outcome is completely beyond the control of those involved, should we really be (forcibly) helping people who, by their own choices, refuse to save for their own medical care?

Should we force people to help others that are capable but unwilling to help themselves?

Irr wrote

Well, I don't know anybody who has gotten rich off of Social Security and Medicare, but if you do, you should report those individuals, because they're obviously doing something illegal.

Max retirement benefits are a bit over $28K/year, current Medicare spending is ~$13K/year per person, totaling $41K/year per person in benefits for everyone (plus whatever money they saved privately).

So, yeah, that's a lot of money. That's more than I make in a year, just for existing. That's crazy.

Irr wrote

Well, actually they do unless and until the law is changed.

Well, actually they don't, unless the Supreme Court has changed its mind recently. Flemming v. Nestor (1960) established that paying into Social Security is not contractually related to the benefits you receive in any way.

You aren't owed anything based on what you've payed into the system. The two aren't linked in any way.

Irr wrote

I know. But a lot of us still won't make it to 80.

About half.

Irr wrote

And if Medicare is eliminated (not likely), a lot more of us won't.

Based on what? I've already stipulated guaranteed health care for those that can't provide it for themselves, so why would the quality of health go down?

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

Middle class is typically defined as an income of around $30k/year in the US. The average health insurance premium is $3k/year, assuming it isn't provided by an employer. That's ridiculously expensive, and could be made a lot cheaper by deregulating both the provider licensing system (arbitrary licensing regulation constricts supply and raises prices without improving quality) and the insurance market (if you are unhealthy, the insurer should be able to charge you more).

Perhaps. But how much more should the insurance companies be allowed to charge those who are chronically ill or those who have dependant family members who are chronically ill? A quarter of their income? A third? Half? More? Should the market determine how much?

Should someone who has a child born with, say, spina bifida be required to hold down two or more jobs in order to afford the catastrophic health insurance needed to forestall bankruptcy and, possibly, destitution? If a third of that family's $30K annual income goes to cover health insurance and co-pays, does it matter if, according to income charts, that family does not meet federal poverty standards?

Victus wrote

That leaves $27K per year with which to pay rent. ~$12K/year for a very very nice family-sized apartment in my city, leaving ~$15K/year for everything else.

So yeah, if you're lower-middle class, you can probably afford the average policy, and that policy would be a whole lot cheaper if we stopped hyper-regulating both the providers and the insurers, and remove tax incentives that make the market inefficient.

Hmm. A typical family plan for one seeking to join an HMO costs about $12,000 a year right now. That's way more than a third of an annual $30K salary, even before taxes. You seem to be saying that it would be cheaper if one didn't get insurance through an employer. Is that what you're saying? I don't understand how that would be.

Victus wrote

It should be legal, but why should we want to impose it on people?

We shouldn't. I was merely stating that we can't. However, my main point is that there is currently no legal option to impose it on one's self. Hence, if one becomes catastrophically ill, one had better be prepared to pay, bigtime, and quite possibly settle for taking their nuclear family with them from middle class to poverty status in very short order.

Victus wrote

Indeed. I mean, if the problem isn't actually a lack of resources/complete and utter inability to afford insurance, but just poor resource management, then I have to question whether we should be taking away peoples' rights in order to correct it.

And, as I said, you have the right to question that, particularly if you are a U.S. citizen, and a fair number of U.S. citizens appear to be doing just that. Of course, it doesn't require all us to join that chorus. I mean, one can rationalize a system of utter "Darwinian" anarchy, if he or she wants to, but I'm not obliged to subscribe to it.

Victus wrote

Let's say someone makes $500K a year. He invests $499K in the stock market/housing/other illiquid assets, to the extent that he can't afford insurance, despite being relatively wealthy. Should we buy him health insurance?

No. He should be required to invest the entire $500K in junk bonds before we all take up a collection to buy him health insurance and a new Mercedes Benz. Sorry, but I'm not buying into this simplistic framing that you're invested in promoting. It just doesn't bear much resemblance to real people's lives.

Victus wrote

Who, exactly, is forcing you to retire? And why couldn't you save money for your late-in life medical expenses?

That's not an easy question to answer, as everyone's circumstances are different. Depending on what they do for a living, not everyone can continue working into their 70s, even if they don't necessarily appear to be falling through their own assholes. They still may no longer be physically capable of pursuing the kinds of employment that they first undertook at, say, 25.

And other people do get pushed out of jobs they've been performing forever when they reach a certain stage in life. I've seen it happen. Again, depending on the job, sometimes older people are not competitive with younger people in certain fields and there aren't enough Walmart greeter jobs to go around. Though, I suppose, with the right laws in place, they could be forced to sell apples on the street.

Yes, we should all live frugally, even in a society that constantly promotes excess as a means to drive our economy. Sadly, a lot of us don't shun a new car, cable TV and the latest electronic gadget. I suppose that if the majority of us did, we'd have even less manufacturing and service sector jobs than we do now. But those of us lucky enough to find employment or create a market for something unequivocally non-fivilous and truly essential, well, we could save a mint towards our retirement, maybe a third or more of our lifetime earnings.

Victus wrote

If the answer to the first question is some form of disability, then you might have a legitimate claim to government resources to provide basic income/healthcare/etc. If you just stopped working because you don't feel like it anymore, then I think you (should) have zero claim on said resources, regardless of age.

Well, I'd agree with you if it were that simple. But I don't think it is for a lot of older people who are living on their tiny pensions and supplemental Social Security benefits.

Victus wrote

Should we force people to help others that are capable but unwilling to help themselves?

Since we've already had this discussion before, you ought to know that I do at all agree with your framing on this question.

Victus wrote

Max retirement benefits are a bit over $28K/year, current Medicare spending is ~$13K/year per person, totaling $41K/year per person in benefits for everyone (plus whatever money they saved privately).

Not everybody is entitled to the maximum. Perhaps, most aren't. Nor does everyone receiving Medicare rack up $13K a year in medical expenses. Some might rack up more and others far less.

Victus wrote

So, yeah, that's a lot of money. That's more than I make in a year, just for existing. That's crazy.

But you live in Canada and you already receive government paid healthcare.

Victus wrote

Well, actually they don't, unless the Supreme Court has changed its mind recently. Flemming v. Nestor (1960) established that paying into Social Security is not contractually related to the benefits you receive in any way.

Mr. Nestor was stripped of his citizenship and deported, no? Otherwise, on what other basis would the federal government have denied him the Social Security benefits he sought to claim?

Victus wrote

You aren't owed anything based on what you've payed into the system. The two aren't linked in any way.

But paying into the system entitles you to collect those benefits when you're legally eligible. At least, that's how it has been working so far.

Victus wrote

Based on what? I've already stipulated guaranteed health care for those that can't provide it for themselves, so why would the quality of health go down?

That's very generous of you, but you're not even a U.S. citizen. Hence, not even hypothetically are you in position to guarantee me or any other U.S. citizen a thing.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

Perhaps. But how much more should the insurance companies be allowed to charge those who are chronically ill or those who have dependant family members who are chronically ill? A quarter of their income? A third? Half? More? Should the market determine how much?

The latter, same with any other kind of insurance. The cost of insurance is determined by the insurer's best guess as to the risk of the outcome being insured against. If you're already sick, neither getting insurance nor offering it makes any sense at all, and its crazy to think that it ever should. I mean, you wouldn't expect a company selling fire insurance to charge the same rate for an intact house as for a smoldering pile of ashes, would you?

Irr wrote

Should someone who has a child born with, say, spina bifida be required to hold down two or more jobs in order to afford the catastrophic health insurance needed to forestall bankruptcy and, possibly, destitution? If a third of that family's $30K annual income goes to cover health insurance and co-pays, does it matter if, according to income charts, that family does not meet federal poverty standards?

Arguably, yes, it matters. Despite the hardship, they are not poor or apparently in need of assistance.

Irr wrote

Hmm. A typical family plan for one seeking to join an HMO costs about $12,000 a year right now. That's way more than a third of an annual $30K salary, even before taxes. You seem to be saying that it would be cheaper if one didn't get insurance through an employer. Is that what you're saying? I don't understand how that would be.

There's a 35% tax subsidy for employers to choose a health insurer for employees, but they have no incentive to choose the cheapest/best one. If we get rid of the subsidy, two things will happen:

1) People will get more of their compensation in cash (as opposed to in employer-provided health insurance.

2) If they so choose, they can use that compensation to purchase the health insurance that works best for them, thereby creating a more competitive (i.e., cheaper for consumers) market.

The subsidy makes the market inefficient, which makes it more expensive for consumers.

Put another way, why do you hate poor people?

Irr wrote

Hence, if one becomes catastrophically ill, one had better be prepared to pay, bigtime

That's what health insurance is for. You pay into a pool with other people, those that get super-duper sick have their illness paid for, so that it's not financially debilitating.

Irr wrote

And, as I said, you have the right to question that, particularly if you are a U.S. citizen, and a fair number of U.S. citizens appear to be doing just that. Of course, it doesn't require all us to join that chorus. I mean, one can rationalize a system of utter "Darwinian" anarchy, if he or she wants to, but I'm not obliged to subscribe to it.

Sure, but once we guarantee people's basic needs, you're just arguing that you want free stuff for yourself/others are the expense of others' liberties.

Irr wrote

No. He should be required to invest the entire $500K in junk bonds before we all take up a collection to buy him health insurance and a new Mercedes Benz. Sorry, but I'm not buying into this simplistic framing that you're invested in promoting. It just doesn't bear much resemblance to real people's lives.

Really? I don't see how it's much different that the scenario we discussed earlier.

If a lower-middle class worker such as myself (< $30K/year) could afford health insurance for himself, but instead chooses to rent a really really nice apartment (with a view of the harbor!) as opposed to a place more in my price range, should that person have some claim on others' resources for the purposes of health insurance while he lives in the apartment?

Regardless of how much money people have, if they can afford to cover their own basic needs and choose to use the the money for other, non-necessary things, then I don't think they have any claim to others' resources.

Irr wrote

That's not an easy question to answer, as everyone's circumstances are different. Depending on what they do for a living, not everyone can continue working into their 70s, even if they don't necessarily appear to be falling through their own assholes. They still may no longer be physically capable of pursuing the kinds of employment that they first undertook at, say, 25.

If they are unable to provide for themselves, and charity isn't taking care of them, then they would qualify for welfare (but they should keep looking for a job).

Irr wrote

Though, I suppose, with the right laws in place, they could be forced to sell apples on the street.

What's wrong with selling apples on the street? Apples are good.

Irr wrote

Yes, we should all live frugally, even in a society that constantly promotes excess as a means to drive our economy.

People want you to buy their stuff, you are not obligated to do so. Stupid decisions are your responsibility.

Irr wrote

But those of us lucky enough to find employment or create a market for something unequivocally non-fivilous and truly essential, well, we could save a mint towards our retirement, maybe a third or more of our lifetime earnings.

If you feel like it, and are able to do so, I fully support your right to retire at age 16.

Irr wrote

Well, I'd agree with you if it were that simple. But I don't think it is for a lot of older people who are living on their tiny pensions and supplemental Social Security benefits.

So what are the other options? If they're not disabled (let's say disability exists on a continuum), and they're not able to work, then what are they?

Irr wrote

Since we've already had this discussion before, you ought to know that I do at all agree with your framing on this question.

But I don't think you've explained why. People are either able to meet their basic needs or they're not. I'm totally behind government programs (assuming the failure of charity) that essentially guarantee basic needs. Everything beyond that is just a desire to have free stuff delivered to you at others' expense.

Irr wrote

Not everybody is entitled to the maximum.

No, but the max, as far as I can tell, isn't that far off the mean. I'll check the numbers a bit more in depth later today.

Irr wrote

Nor does everyone receiving Medicare rack up $13K a year in medical expenses. Some might rack up more and others far less.

Indeed, but they have a theoretically limitless access to healthcare for "free". Per person spending is the best price estimate we can generate, as far as I am aware.

Irr wrote

But you live in Canada and you already receive government paid healthcare.

Indeed, and I don't think I should. Unfortunately, it is illegal for me to buy healthcare.

Irr wrote

Mr. Nestor was stripped of his citizenship and deported, no? Otherwise, on what other basis would the federal government have denied him the Social Security benefits he sought to claim?

Nestor was deported as a communist, but argued that because he paid into Social Security, he was owed the benefits. This argument was rejected.

Irr wrote

But paying into the system entitles you to collect those benefits when you're legally eligible. At least, that's how it has been working so far.

The government collects a tax. The government pays out benefits. The two are not legally connected. If benefits were slashed to $0.00/year due to budget constraints or even just arbitrarily, you are not owed or entitled to anything even if you paid into the system for 40 years.

Irr wrote

That's very generous of you, but you're not even a U.S. citizen. Hence, not even hypothetically are you in position to guarantee me or any other U.S. citizen a thing.

I'm just stipulating a system wherein all basic needs are met. Anything you want beyond that is just a plea for free stuff at others' expense in both money and liberty. I'm not really sure how that's different than robbery.

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

The latter, same with any other kind of insurance. The cost of insurance is determined by the insurer's best guess as to the risk of the outcome being insured against. If you're already sick, neither getting insurance nor offering it makes any sense at all, and its crazy to think that it ever should. I mean, you wouldn't expect a company selling fire insurance to charge the same rate for an intact house as for a smoldering pile of ashes, would you?

I would not compare living people-- no matter how physically dilapidated-- to smoldering piles of ashes, nor would I desire to treat them as such.

Victus wrote

Arguably, yes, it matters. Despite the hardship, they are not poor or apparently in need of assistance.

That's your opinion and I don't agree with it.

Victus wrote

There's a 35% tax subsidy for employers to choose a health insurer for employees, but they have no incentive to choose the cheapest/best one.

Nor do I see how this provides an incentive for companies to buy the most expensive plan. Whether you get it as a benefit through your employer or purchase it out of pocket, health insurance is expensive.

Victus wrote

If we get rid of the subsidy, two things will happen:

1) People will get more of their compensation in cash (as opposed to in employer-provided health insurance.

That is not guaranteed to happen.

Victus wrote

2) If they so choose, they can use that compensation to purchase the health insurance that works best for them, thereby creating a more competitive (i.e., cheaper for consumers) market.

And I think you're making far too many assumptions with this assertion.

Victus wrote

The subsidy makes the market inefficient, which makes it more expensive for consumers.

I don't know this to be true and I don't know how you how you claim to know this as fact.

Victus wrote

Put another way, why do you hate poor people?

I could pose the same question to you.

Victus wrote

That's what health insurance is for. You pay into a pool with other people, those that get super-duper sick have their illness paid for, so that it's not financially debilitating.

Sure. If they can afford the premiums and if those premiums don't gobble a good chunk of their income.

Victus wrote

Sure, but once we guarantee people's basic needs, you're just arguing that you want free stuff for yourself/others are the expense of others' liberties.

Yes, you've characterized my position this way several times already, but it has nothing to do with my actual position.

Victus wrote

Really? I don't see how it's much different that the scenario we discussed earlier.

Really? Because I don't know anybody who is earning $500K a year and having a struggle with paying their health insurance premiums. It certainly doesn't sound like a real-life scenario.

Victus wrote

If a lower-middle class worker such as myself (< $30K/year) could afford health insurance for himself, but instead chooses to rent a really really nice apartment (with a view of the harbor!) as opposed to a place more in my price range, should that person have some claim on others' resources for the purposes of health insurance while he lives in the apartment?

Again, I don't know any folks earning $30K a year who would even have that option.

Victus wrote

Regardless of how much money people have, if they can afford to cover their own basic needs and choose to use the the money for other, non-necessary things, then I don't think they have any claim to others' resources.

I know. And you already know that I don't agree with your simplistic framing of a complex issue. I don't have the space here to explain to you why I don't agree with you, though I have attempted to do that elsewhere on this forum.

Suffice it to say, I don't think I'm advocating that poor and struggling people in the U.S. should be encouraged to live high on the hog at someone else's expense. As far as I can see, that is not what government-funded, social safety net programs do.

Victus wrote

If they are unable to provide for themselves, and charity isn't taking care of them, then they would qualify for welfare (but they should keep looking for a job).

Frankly, I'm surprised you're a proponent of public welfare under any circumstances.


Anyway, lots of old people do work. Of course, some don't and choose to live on their pensions and/or any savings they've acquired, along with whatever supplemental Social Security benefits to which they are entitled. In some cases, the latter may be the only income they have. If it's not enough to support their desired lifestyle, well, then, yes, they'll have to find employment or some other means to supplement their income, if the pursuit of that option is available to them.

Victus wrote

What's wrong with selling apples on the street? Apples are good.

Selling apples on the street in, say, Fargo, N.D.? In the dead of winter? To pay the rent and one's medical co-pay? At, say, 75 years of age? What's wrong with that? Why, absolutely nothing that Dickens hasn't already written about.

Victus wrote

People want you to buy their stuff, you are not obligated to do so. Stupid decisions are your responsibility.

Then I guess you must live in a cave and hunt free varmints for survival. What are you doing with a computer? Do you really need one? If you found yourself in need of a subsidy tomorrow, would you blame the fact that you purchased a computer for your dire predicament.

Victus wrote

If you feel like it, and are able to do so, I fully support your right to retire at age 16.

Well, you're more than 35 years too late, but thanks. I do appreciate the thought.

Victus wrote

So what are the other options? If they're not disabled (let's say disability exists on a continuum), and they're not able to work, then what are they?

Retired.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

I would not compare living people-- no matter how physically dilapidated-- to smoldering piles of ashes, nor would I desire to treat them as such.

That's a cop out.

Insurance is a means of guarding against the (huge) financial costs of some probabalistic future event. You can't insure against something that's already happened, or which is guaranteed to happen in the near term. That's rediculous. I mean, you're basically saying that you want to hand a (relatively) small amount of money to the insurance company, and then have them hand you back a huge amount of money to pay your medical bills.

You must see how that's completely batshit crazy. Right?

Irr wrote

That's your opinion and I don't agree with it.

I'm just going by the definition of poverty the government uses. If they can meet all their basic needs by their own income, then they're not in poverty.

Irr wrote

Nor do I see how this provides an incentive for companies to buy the most expensive plan. Whether you get it as a benefit through your employer or purchase it out of pocket, health insurance is expensive.

It removes the incentive to buy high quality product for the lowest available price, the incentive that drives down prices for consumers. At present, the person doing the shopping isn't the person doing the paying, and that makes the end product more expensive. Moreover, by subsidizing the employer-provided market, it makes individual insurance, the kind that an unemployed person might buy, more expensive than it otherwise would be.

Irr wrote

That is not guaranteed to happen.

They are already giving you the money in the form of health insurance, it is already part of your compensation. Why, exactly, would they take it away? Would your labour suddenly become cheaper?

Irr wrote

And I think you're making far too many assumptions with this assertion.

People's labour doesn't become magically cheaper by taking away the deduction, so they have more money. People want insurance. People use money to buy insurance. People will make good decisions for themselves.

Those are my assumptions.

Irr wrote

I don't know this to be true and I don't know how you how you claim to know this as fact.

For it to work, I only have to assume that things will work out better when the person using the insurance is the person that shops for it. That's not a particularly controversial assumption.

Irr wrote

I could pose the same question to you.

I'm trying to create a system where poor people can get jobs and buy nice things like health insurance and puppies without idiotic policies jacking up the price out of their reach. Helping poor people is a good, moral thing to do, but I think there would be fewer people in need if we would stop trying to help them in such wonderfully counter-productive ways.

As a microcausm, take Medicare and Social Security. Young people (< 35 years) are on average poorer than old people (> 65 years). Old people have had an entire lifetime to save money and accumulate assets, like homes or cars; their networth is much much higher, even if their year-to-year income isn't. These programs place substantial tax burdens on the working, relatively poor young, and transfer it to the not-working, relatively well-off old.

I mean, I'm fine with the idea of re-distributing wealth, but why re-distribute it from poor to rich? No doubt, some seniors are poor, but most aren't. Most of the people that get money from these programs, probably don't need it, or at least need it less than the people it was taken from.

Irr wrote

Sure. If they can afford the premiums and if those premiums don't gobble a good chunk of their income.

It would be cheaper if you would stop trying to make it 'fair'. If you are a 500lb crocodile trainer that likes to have unprotected sex with prostitutes, then your insurance should be rediculously expensive, because you lead an extremely health-risky life.

Irr wrote

Yes, you've characterized my position this way several times already, but it has nothing to do with my actual position.

What else could it be, then?

Irr wrote

Really? Because I don't know anybody who is earning $500K a year and having a struggle with paying their health insurance premiums. It certainly doesn't sound like a real-life scenario.

In both scenarios, the person has the ability to pay for their own basic needs, but has chosen not to because they wanted to do something else with the money instead.

Irr wrote

I know. And you already know that I don't agree with your simplistic framing of a complex issue. I don't have the space here to explain to you why I don't agree with you, though I have attempted to do that elsewhere on this forum. Suffice it to say, I don't think I'm advocating that poor and struggling people in the U.S. should be encouraged to live high on the hog at someone else's expense. As far as I can see, that is not what government-funded, social safety net programs do.

When everyone on the income scale between me (~$35K/year) and Bill Gates can go on Medicare just by virtue of being old, then the program is not catering selectively to the poor.

To put it another way, we often ask theists whether this world looks like one we might expect if it was Created. In this context, does the design of the welfare state, the two largest components of which are Social Security and Medicare, look like it should if it was set up to help the needy, or does it look like it was set up to give free stuff to the elderly regardless of need?

Hint: old people are the largest voting bloc.

Irr wrote

Frankly, I'm surprised you're a proponent of public welfare under any circumstances.

Proponent probably goes a bit far. I acknowledge that life sometimes randomly incurs costs on people who, through no apparent fault of their own, are unable to afford or contend with them, and that charity, although quite helpful, will inevitable fail in at least some cases. When all those improbabilities come together, I can go along with some welfare.

Basically, welfare for the needy. Everyone else is on their own.

Irr wrote

Anyway, lots of old people do work. Of course, some don't and choose to live on their pensions and/or any savings they've acquired, along with whatever supplemental Social Security benefits to which they are entitled. In some cases, the latter may be the only income they have. If it's not enough to support their desired lifestyle, well, then, yes, they'll have to find employment or some other means to supplement their income, if the pursuit of that option is available to them.

Is that so horrible, though? People that can't afford to not-work will, uh, be unable to not-work. It applies to every other age group, so why not seniors?

Irr wrote

Selling apples on the street in, say, Fargo, N.D.? In the dead of winter? To pay the rent and one's medical co-pay? Why, absolutely nothing that Dickens hasn't already written about.

You're conflating welfare and charity again.

Irr wrote

Then I guess you must live in a cave and hunt free varmints for survival. What are you doing with a computer? Do you really need one? If you found yourself in need of a subsidy tomorrow, would you blame the fact that you purchased a computer for your dire predicament.

I am quite frugal, actually. Don't get me wrong, I like nice stuff, but I don't think people are being forced to buy the newest, bestest thing. They choose to do it, because it makes them happy on some level. That's fine, but you can't expect the government to cover your basic needs when you're capable, but unwilling to do so because OMG the new iPhone500 is so totally EPIC!

Irr wrote

Retired.

But, assuming the lack of a disability, that's basically just saying that they don't feel like working. Why can they retire while I'm forced to work for money?

It's not fair!

[Davin]

Victus wrote

It would be cheaper if you would stop trying to make it 'fair'. If you are a 500lb crocodile trainer that likes to have unprotected sex with prostitutes, then your insurance should be rediculously expensive, because you lead an extremely health-risky life.

Or a coal miner, or fireman, or policeman, those selfish ass holes.

[Victus]

Davin wrote

Or a coal miner, or fireman, or policeman, those selfish ass holes.

Correct. Their jobs are dangerous, their insurance should cost more.

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

That's a cop out.

Insurance is a means of guarding against the (huge) financial costs of some probabalistic future event. You can't insure against something that's already happened, or which is guaranteed to happen in the near term. That's rediculous. I mean, you're basically saying that you want to hand a (relatively) small amount of money to the insurance company, and then have them hand you back a huge amount of money to pay your medical bills.

You must see how that's completely batshit crazy. Right?

No, because that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that ill people should be able to afford medical treatment. Period. I'm not copping out on that.

Victus wrote

I'm just going by the definition of poverty the government uses. If they can meet all their basic needs by their own income, then they're not in poverty.

And I'm saying that someone who takes in only $30K a year but must pay out $12K annually for health insurance for herself and her two children is living in poverty, regardless how the government classifies her. That's a huge chunk of her income that is not going to other basic needs that she may have for herself and her children.

Victus wrote

It removes the incentive to buy high quality product for the lowest available price, the incentive that drives down prices for consumers. At present, the person doing the shopping isn't the person doing the paying, and that makes the end product more expensive. Moreover, by subsidizing the employer-provided market, it makes individual insurance, the kind that an unemployed person might buy, more expensive than it otherwise would be.

And you don't think that's by design by the insurance companies? I'm not defending the present system, nor do I possess the magic bullet that could potentially cure its ills. Neither do I know that you possess this information.

I'm going to try to be as clear as I can be: Medical treatment should be affordable for those people who need it. The cost for a typical HMO family plan is about $12K a year. That's too much for working class families. If you have a bonafide means to cut that by more than half-- preferably 3/4-- for the single mom of two earning a gross annual income of $30K, I'm all ears.

Victus[/Quote wrote

They are already giving you the money in the form of health insurance, it is already part of your compensation. Why, exactly, would they take it away? Would your labour suddenly become cheaper?

It depends on the company. First of all, the incentive for providing that benefit is removed once it's no longer subsidized by the government, so why would an employer necessarily be compelled to convert those benefit dollars into salary dollars? And who says a company would be required to transfer all of those benefit dollars into an employee's salary?

If my employer-paid health benefits were eliminated and my employer decided to give me a $2,000 a year raise instead, that's not going to do a lot for me if I'm a $32K-a -year wage earner with two kids shopping for an affordable family health insurance plan. That is, unless you're guaranteeing me that the plan which cost my employer $12K annually will now cost me only $3K a year. Is that what you're guaranteeing me? If so, how did you manage it?

Victus wrote

People's labour doesn't become magically cheaper by taking away the deduction, so they have more money. People want insurance. People use money to buy insurance. People will make good decisions for themselves.

Those are my assumptions.

And you're still assuming that health insurance will be affordable when people spend less of their income on non-essentials. I'm not making that assumption.

Victus wrote

For it to work, I only have to assume that things will work out better when the person using the insurance is the person that shops for it. That's not a particularly controversial assumption.

It hasn't been put into practice, either. So, who knows?

To be continued.

[lostsheep]

Victus wrote

Correct. Their jobs are dangerous, their insurance should cost more.

A coal miner's insurance could be paid for by this company he works for. Firefighters, soldiers, and policeman should also have their insurance paid for, by the government that employs them. We need the services of these people. Why should we not expect to pay them fairly? Are you saying that we should expect these people to put their lives on the line, and then say, too bad, pay for it yourself, when they are injured (on the job)???

[Victus]

lostsheep wrote

A coal miner's insurance could be paid for by this company he works for.

That's between the miner and the company.

LS wrote

Firefighters, soldiers, and policeman should also have their insurance paid for, by the government that employs them.

Sure*

*Arguably, firefighting could be a privatized service. As per soldiers and police officers, we could just give them money so that they could buy their own insurance. Valid point, though.

LS wrote

We need the services of these people. Why should we not expect to pay them fairly? Are you saying that we should expect these people to put their lives on the line, and then say, too bad, pay for it yourself, when they are injured (on the job)???

Sure. All sorts of people do all kinds of jobs that are super important, and that are to varying extents, hazardous. Their employers can pay them money, with which they can purchase health insurance. If we pay less than people think is fair for the job, then people won't take the job.