Off Topic Poker Forums

Just provide your own axioms. I would rather burn holy scriptures than read them. The you-have-not-learned anything was a comment about your methods rather than your results.

Children should learn that their method is more important than how many books they can quote.

I agree a gradual approach is likely best. Europe has 731 million and most countries have a health care system equivalent to the Danish.

I strongly disagree with the environmental laws in the US. They are way too soft. The business is not generated by the laws but by the fact that environmental labs in the US operate like EU labs did 10 years ago.

I think it is a mistake to look at the Danish economy in a vacuum. It seems you agree.

You are right we have strict rules for people outside the EU. And I think the US should implement stricter control, minimum wages and a central database with information about all citizens.

You are right there are many many things that needs to be fixed in the US - but we have to start somewhere.

So an economy with a strong social dimension can perform really well? I thought it would be inefficient and produce products of low quality.

Improva, I am not going to have a lot of time to go into this today.
I just want to say, I give anyone credit for their honesty. There are some things you believe, and I have to accept them as your premises -- even if I disagree with them. But that still does not make them the truth (i.e. EPA).

The one thing that is interesting, is which comes first.....Strong Social Dimension (welfare?) or Strong Economy? I agree we have a lot of problems that are unique to the US.
* We have 314million people from all walks of life vs 6million (same culture?)
* We have huge debt that is climbing by trillions each year. Government wastes money on pet project/experiments.
* Victimhood is almost like a cool thing. How do kids get inspired, if they are taught the deck is stacked against them? Victimhood is like an industry in the US. Anyone profiting from this industry, has nothing good to say about the opportunities. US bad = don't try, is a dogma beating a drum. I know there are inequalities (there always will be), but that cannot be the major theme -- unless it is somone's career (I guess).
* list is longer.........but none of this has anything to do with the differences in Trade Balance. Denmark is doing very well economically, and has cash in the bank. The US does not. The US absorbs a lot of immigrans each year. Denmark cannot. etc etc on the differences.

It is the Chicken-and-the-Egg.....Govt spend money vs Cash Flow to pay for it.
Greece has had to face this dilemna recently (as well as the EU). California Govt is also too dumb to figure out there is a financial problem (complete thread by itself, but I am changing status to another state. Calif is going bankrupt). People who support government with bias, think that money does not matter -- like it grows on trees.
.......I am fairly certain you do not run your business that way, right? If your personal economy takes a dive, you will start cutting somewhere (responsibility). Politicians have no "accountability" or "responsibility" for their screw-ups. It takes a crisis for people to realize that their government is too fat. Everyone should be watching Greece and California (among others). The riots in Greece are silly and give a window into part of the issue IMO.



Lot more to say, but not a lot of time today. I do appreciate your honesty. At least I see some give in the conversation.

EDUCATION
BTW, I have also been a teacher (Junior High and HighSchool), as well as a volunteer at InnerCity Children projects (PAL, Police Athletic League). I completely appreciate the value of education (top of my list) and positive activities such as sports . I agree strongly on the value of education to any country -- which I believe is at the core of your beliefs (correct me if I am wrong).

Unfortunately in the US, partly because of the victimhood syndrome, many kids don't even try. The Teacher Unions also protect bad teachers and systems. I believe a major part ofthe Unions are a cancer to the education system.
........Many kids just don't try, or worse cannot try, because of the distractions in their schools. Most of it starts at the home IMO. But I do think it is government's job to protect the kids who do want to learn. This is very sad to me. My guess is that Denmark does not have this ugly situation.



In short, undeniable that the US has some social issues. But we also have bank account issues (DEBT). I repeat, unleash the entrepreneurs and small businesses -- and get some positive cash flow coming in. Second, to your theme, protect the kids who do want to learn in schools. This may be the "voucher" system. Responsibility and Accountability for the schools (and unions) that still want to exist.
.........Education is not a money problem in the US. It is a quality and "accountability" problem.

I won't have a lot of time to respond today on this thread. I have already contributed a lot, right? lol

A free market is "everyone". No one should be at the "helm" trying to coerce anyone.
But what I believe you want is that everyone be "educated" to your belief system. Anything else, is not "educated" enough for you. You make wisecracks about my opinion, and no one calls you on it. meh I am just going by the history of your arguments -- unless something has drastically changed in your belief system and you are less bleeding-heart and more logical. If that has happened, then let me know. Because for that, I will dance the jig and put it on youtube (maybe lol).

I guess I'm not clear when I say at the helm. If the economy or the government were a ship, I think the people should be the captain, not the deckhand. They should be in control collectively as to where it goes. As for my belief system, I don't have one. I often end up being a governmental apologist because government often is a boogie man for people. I like to think I'm intelligent enough to not believe my own beliefs. The dangerous people in my opinion are the ones who do not doubt they are absolutely right. No one ever is.

BUT, you always defended Barney's Frank.

No, I never did. That's you reading what you want into what I say. I IGNORED Barney Frank as inconsequential, because he was. All I said about him personally is I liked his disheveled appearance.

I guess I'm not clear when I say at the helm. If the economy or the government were a ship, I think the people should be the captain, not the deckhand. They should be in control collectively as to where it goes. As for my belief system, I don't have one. I often end up being a governmental apologist because government often is a boogie man for people. I like to think I'm intelligent enough to not believe my own beliefs. The dangerous people in my opinion are the ones who do not doubt they are absolutely right. No one ever is.



No, I never did. That's you reading what you want into what I say. I IGNORED Barney Frank as inconsequential, because he was. All I said about him personally is I liked his disheveled appearance.

Like I said, I am not letting you get away with this. I am calling you on it. You are lying (or conveniently forgetting. Straight up. Don't waste my time. jeez

Many times, you have outright defended Barney Frank and the Community Reinvestment Act, even when other members (not just me) have spelled it out for you. Your boogie-man is 100% class-warfare (victimhood industry).

Barney Frank, Fannie Mae/FreddieMac, The Community Reinvestment Act were huge players in the Housing Boom and Bust. Barney's Frank was a lead player in this right before and after the crisis.

These are the things I will always hammer on. Your blatant bias for a victimhood ideology, apparently makes you blind or dishonest.

No apology from me for my wording here. You are being dishonest. Straight up.

The dangerous people in my opinion are the ones who do not doubt they are absolutely right.

I agree 100% with this. As you might imagine, my rebellion against political-correctness is not an easy task. It takes balls to be skeptical and question supposed truths. It takes fortitude to constantly question truths -- and be called "bigot" or "racist" for voicing the doubts. Pay attention to how many times you hear these words over the next few months. Question the President and be called sickening names. These are the tools of those who promote class-warfare (feigning moral superiority). Beyond that, being a skeptic certainly does not win friends. Political Correctness is obviously the easy path.

I believe I represent the silent majority. That is why you see the super close elections. Just watch Nov'12. It could be a landslide against the incumbents.

My observation is not really based on my own experience as a student but my experience as a teacher, but my teachers in primary school were relentless in their focus on method rather than result. I think we had 1 or 2 multiple choice tests in primary school.

that's not usually seen in American schools (or schools i went to anyway, middle-class public schools). pretty much from 1st grade to college, it seemed to me the point of every class session was to prepare for an upcoming multiple-choice test. "learn" something, take a test.

the joy of learning something new about the world is sucked out of the process when there's a looming test behind every bit of knowledge that enters one's head. i stopped trying to learn around 10th grade once i realized there was a never-ending stream of crap to "learn." whenever i think of school learning, i imagine a water hose being held in my mouth while a teacher turns the hose on full force. "here you go, kid, learn something. isn't this fun?"

or maybe it's just me.

/too-personal-life-story-rant


and maybe i would feel different if i went through the Danish system. is it a different culture? different goals? are school administrators that much smarter in Denmark?

forget healthcare. fix the schools, America!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRn9ySc-RDM

And fixing the schools - LOL - they're so fucking broken it's not even funny... and there's basically NO HOPE to fix that. At least with healthcare you know the bubble will blow somehow someway in the next decade or so, but our populace, with the benefit of these schools, will be too stupid to know what to do.

if education doesn't get fixed, at least the games will be good (assuming sites get legalized soon, but it probably will since dumb people love gambling). there is always HOPE.

top economists point the finger at employer-sponsored health care for skyrocketing costs in America:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/18/156928675/episode-387-the-no-brainer-economic-platform

program also covers lots more eye-opening stuff like liberal economists saying raise middle class taxes and get rid of corporate taxes. say what?!

top economists point the finger at employer-sponsored health care for skyrocketing costs in America:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/18/156928675/episode-387-the-no-brainer-economic-platform

program also covers lots more eye-opening stuff like liberal economists saying raise middle class taxes and get rid of corporate taxes. say what?!

What was the tax increase on the middle class? I'm pretty sure I've listened to this episode, but I don't remember that part.

What was the tax increase on the middle class? I'm pretty sure I've listened to this episode, but I don't remember that part.

eliminating mortgage deduction and taxing health benefits.

I don't agree with the premise of the employer health care argument. It assumes a lot.

eliminating mortgage deduction and taxing health benefits.

I don't agree with the premise of the employer health care argument. It assumes a lot.

Ah, yes. I may have misunderstood. I thought the point of that was that they would close the regressive deductions, but not necessarily that the current tax brackets would still be optimal after doing so.

Ah, yes. I may have misunderstood. I thought the point of that was that they would close the regressive deductions, but not necessarily that the current tax brackets would still be optimal after doing so.

They sort of implied that but didn't say it. And the implication would be wrong anyway, since they want to impose consumption taxes on everything, especially energy use.

The idea that all employers seek out the most expensive plans to provide their workers and that their workers seek to overuse it at every opportunity is laughable.

everybody is wrong about everything.

sad panda is sad.

Sorry for thinking critically

top economists point the finger at employer-sponsored health care for skyrocketing costs in America:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/18/156928675/episode-387-the-no-brainer-economic-platform

program also covers lots more eye-opening stuff like liberal economists saying raise middle class taxes and get rid of corporate taxes. say what?!

If the US makes huge cuts to corporate taxes the rest of the world will simply follow.

I really suggest you read this paper.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41743_20110331.pdf

The idea that all employers seek out the most expensive plans to provide their workers and that their workers seek to overuse it at every opportunity is laughable.

both points are arguable, but the assumptions are far from laughable.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/05/12/how-employer-sponsored-insurance-drives-up-health-costs/

so i think getting employers out of healthcare is the solution to lowering costs. isn't this what Obamacare [ed: or Gaming Obamacare ] effectively does? so isn't Forbes, a conservative publication, ultimately advocating Obamacare?

sad panda is still sad

If the US makes huge cuts to corporate taxes the rest of the world will simply follow.

I really suggest you read this paper.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41743_20110331.pdf

i cheated and looked for a summary online.

i'm more confused now than ever since it was supposedly liberal economists who were saying to cut corporate taxes on NPR's Planet Money show.

sigh

both points are arguable, but the assumptions are far from laughable.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/05/12/how-employer-sponsored-insurance-drives-up-health-costs/

so i think getting employers out of healthcare is the solution to lowering costs. isn't this what Obamacare [ed: or Gaming Obamacare ] effectively does? so isn't Forbes, a conservative publication, ultimately advocating Obamacare?

sad panda is still sad

They are laughable IMO. It's not like every employed American has top flight health insurance. I have a job and I don't. My older brother has a much better healthcare plan than I do, and it's better than what his wife gets from her employer. There's no jackpot/goldmine of medical service waiting for anyone who gets any job. Furthermore, my brother doesn't go to the most well known doctor in town every time he gets a cold. He doesn't say to the doctor, 'my back hurts, get me an MRI'. The notion that employed people all have cadillac plans and use and abuse them is just silly. Businesses can't afford to give everyone cadillac plans, and most people do what their doctor tells them, not the other way around.

Your article is an opinion piece, which mentions but then ignores the trend of hospitals consolidating. Of course there will be increased bargaining power for hospitals when they start joining forces. Bargaining power is not due to joe worker wanting to fully exploit every advantage of his incredibly fantastic coverage because hey, it's not his money. Not to mention, in their one detailed example, Tufts had crucial issues hobbling their bargaining position that had nothing to do with the hospital system or employer/employees. And it seems to me the hospitals and doctors in this case were the ones driving costs up.


I do think getting employers out of healthcare is the right move, and that it would be a factor in lowering costs. I do not think it is the only one, and I definitely do not think health care costs as much as it does because employed people all think hey, it's not my money.

i cheated and looked for a summary online.

i'm more confused now than ever since it was supposedly liberal economists who were saying to cut corporate taxes on NPR's Planet Money show.

sigh

Things are just as simple as many would like them to be.

They are laughable IMO. It's not like every employed American has top flight health insurance. I have a job and I don't. My older brother has a much better healthcare plan than I do, and it's better than what his wife gets from her employer. There's no jackpot/goldmine of medical service waiting for anyone who gets any job. Furthermore, my brother doesn't go to the most well known doctor in town every time he gets a cold. He doesn't say to the doctor, 'my back hurts, get me an MRI'. The notion that employed people all have cadillac plans and use and abuse them is just silly. Businesses can't afford to give everyone cadillac plans, and most people do what their doctor tells them, not the other way around.

Your article is an opinion piece, which mentions but then ignores the trend of hospitals consolidating. Of course there will be increased bargaining power for hospitals when they start joining forces. Bargaining power is not due to joe worker wanting to fully exploit every advantage of his incredibly fantastic coverage because hey, it's not his money. Not to mention, in their one detailed example, Tufts had crucial issues hobbling their bargaining position that had nothing to do with the hospital system or employer/employees. And it seems to me the hospitals and doctors in this case were the ones driving costs up.

I do think getting employers out of healthcare is the right move, and that it would be a factor in lowering costs. I do not think it is the only one, and I definitely do not think health care costs as much as it does because employed people all think hey, it's not my money.

i think you're arguing against a straw man here. nobody said everybody has a cadillac health plan. but it's undeniable that these plans are pushing up medical costs. there's no reason for hospitals to charge less for procedures when there are people (not all, maybe not even many, but enough) with these plans driving up costs for everybody.

i answered my previous question tho. according to this Washington Post piece, Obamacare does work to tax these cadillac plans which Republicans have wanted to do in the past also.

i think you're arguing against a straw man here. nobody said everybody has a cadillac health plan. but it's undeniable that these plans are pushing up medical costs. there's no reason for hospitals to charge less for procedures when there are people (not all, maybe not even many, but enough) with these plans driving up costs for everybody.

When they say in the NPR piece, and the articles you linked, that employers are going out and getting the best plans for employees, and that employees aren't caring about what things cost because they aren't paying, the implication is that everyone's getting a free ride and insist on spending as much as they can.
I think these plans push up medical costs the same way any and all insurance works - those who don't use it subsidize those who do. There is no reason for hospitals to charge less for procedures as long as hospitals and doctors stick together, as long as hospitals consolidate so there's less competition, and as long as insurers are content to be separated from care. That is something that is changing now, especially in the western part of the country, where insurers have started their own one stop shop hospitals and medical buildings and staff.
There is a lot of stuff that drives costs, and it is foolish to pin it all on employers providing some people with good plans. A lot of costs are driven by doctors and hospitals and their power. They get away with a lot of bullshit, like killing a government agency when it evaluates whether they do appropriate procedures or waste money.

When they say in the NPR piece, and the articles you linked, that employers are going out and getting the best plans for employees, and that employees aren't caring about what things cost because they aren't paying, the implication is that everyone's getting a free ride and insist on spending as much as they can.

not everybody, just the fat cats with their cadillac plans. we're talking about $10,200 that's untaxed for individuals and $27,500 for families. even the NPR piece clarifies they're talking about people with "too much" insurance such as plans with no deductibles and 100% coverage.

There is no reason for hospitals to charge less for procedures as long as hospitals and doctors stick together, as long as hospitals consolidate so there's less competition, and as long as insurers are content to be separated from care. That is something that is changing now, especially in the western part of the country, where insurers have started their own one stop shop hospitals and medical buildings and staff.

There is a lot of stuff that drives costs, and it is foolish to pin it all on employers providing some people with good plans. A lot of costs are driven by doctors and hospitals and their power. They get away with a lot of bullshit, like killing a government agency when it evaluates whether they do appropriate procedures or waste money.

both the Forbes and the Washington Post piece is saying the tax on cadillac plans is to curb behavior so more money is doled out in (taxable) salary instead of health benefits which makes people want to buy individual plans which leads to more awareness by consumers of the cost of services which leads to more leverage for insurers against doctors and hospitals. but the resulting tax revenue will be minor i think.

so it's an indirect way to affect what you also seem to think is the bigger problem.

employer healthcare is a problem, but not necessarily the problem. There are perhaps 10 different things that contribute to the issue.
1. EMTALA, allows any joe shmoe off the street to get grade A healthcare and leave everyone else with the bill. This is a big problem in the USA since we have open borders.... both officially and unofficially
2. Monopoly Protections - these are state, federal, and local in nature. All three work to insure that only a select few companies provide the healthcare. There's a huge barrier to entry in most cities
3. Health Insurance that's not really insurance .... the whole concept of insurance is to obviate against a low probability threat that can wipe someone out. We don't insure in the USA, we inflate our health costs by using middle men
4. Health Insurance monopolies... while health laws vary state to state (mandating what must be covered and what not) it's still a problem that a person cannot buy across state lines and that only a handful of insurers are allowed to provide to any given state
5. Federal Laws that subsidize the world.... who, in the world, pays for R&D in the medical field, on average? Sure there are some good studies that come out of Europe, but the big stuff is developed right here in the USA... see all of the above for reasons why that might be. The Fed Gov then stipulates that you cannot go purchase an MRI machine in Brazil and bring it back - nope, gotta buy it here. Every single drug cannot be purchased out of the country either. Suppose you live in Buffalo, NY and need viagra.... $20 a pill, but a few miles down the street in Canada, your counterpart gets his for $1 a pill. They do this because they can and they have the laws written in such a way to make sure it happens. The result is that the USA populace funds the rest of the world essentially.

Start with those 5 and you'd go a long ways to fixing the ridiculous problems... or just throw up your arms and say "daddy, can you please just take care of this for us??" daddy in this case is big government. I'm not saying these are the only ways to fix the problem, but they are some of the biggies

2. Monopoly Protections - these are state, federal, and local in nature. All three work to insure that only a select few companies provide the healthcare.

I agree that the US pays way too much for health care.

If your analysis is right => health care should be expensive (relative to avg income) in countries where there are only a few providers of health care.

And that is not the case.

In countries such as Canada and Britain, prices are set by the government. In others, such as Germany and Japan, they’re set by providers and insurers sitting in a room and coming to an agreement, with the government stepping in to set prices if they fail.

My guess is that the last model is a pretty good fit for the US market (and mentality).

1. EMTALA, allows any joe shmoe off the street to get grade A healthcare and leave everyone else with the bill. This is a big problem in the USA since we have open borders.... both officially and unofficially

from a criticism of Obamacare by the Cato Institute:

For it turns out that the uninsured cost-shifting problem—the basic rationale for Obamacare—has been vastly overstated. In 2008, the court reported, the uninsured paid on average 46 percent of their healthcare costs. Third parties paid another 26 percent of those costs. That’s 72 percent. In fact, what we’re talking about here amounts to a paltry 1.7 percent of our total healthcare expenditures.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/emtala-and-the-good-samaritan/


also, for #5, my health plan explicitly recommends getting generic drugs when available. but new drugs cost a lot since there are patent protections to help recoup the research costs. and the research costs so much since it takes years to test all the effects of drugs. and those drug testing laws are there to protect us from being guinea pigs for the drug companies (not that it doesn't happen anyway). all of which has nothing to do with artificial monopolies and whatnot.


as for the rest of the list, i've heard it mentioned in this thread before, but how would we go about changing it in the next 10 years? other than to elect a libertarian president and hope he can work with a non-libertarian congress to realize the free market 2nd coming?

[edit: sorry to be snide. although i'm still a fan of libertarianism, i'm desperate to find some hope in workable solutions in the here and now.]

as for the rest of the list, i've heard it mentioned in this thread before, but how would we go about changing it in the next 10 years? other than to elect a libertarian president and hope he can work with a non-libertarian congress to realize the free market 2nd coming?

[edit: sorry to be snide. although i'm still a fan of libertarianism, i'm desperate to find some hope in workable solutions in the here and now.]

I don't see how libertarianism will drive health care prices down. A government can to some extent dictate wages and the price they are willing to pay for pharma. Private insurance companies don't have that kind of leverage.