4 ms·

Most of the Democratic primary candidates.

by rhcom2 7y ago

spking 7y ago
It's probably time to stop expecting politicians to solve these problems for us, regardless of what they claim on the campaign trail.
- notfromhere 7y ago
  medical insurance is a political problem, so the only solution is also political.
- vsskanth 7y ago
  yeah but only they can write the law and nominate judges to enforce it. IMO getting rid of the tax subsidy for employer sponsored insurance, enforcing anti-trust law on health providers (insurance, hospitals, etc.) by forcing them to disclose prices and getting rid of onerous licensing regulations will achieve the intended decoupling between health insurance and employment. However, you need to pass laws for all that.
andrei_says_ 7y ago
Which is indeed very hopeful. The level of institutionalized corruption including in how money selects who appears on ballots makes this a difficult process. This is a great reminder of the root issues we need to deal with. https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...
- beat 7y ago
  After having looked at it for a long time, I'm convinced that "institutionalized corruption" is a pleasing myth with no grounding in reality. Money in politics flows to candidates who already agree with those who control the money. It doesn't go to change the minds of those who disagree.
  - andrei_says_ 7y ago
    please take a look at Lessig’s talk if you have 15 min
hiram112 7y ago
Be careful what you wish for here. Since Obamacare, most white collar workers will admit that their insurance is worse and simultaneously more expensive. That's to be expected, because those who pay insurance and are healthy are now paying for many people who previously had less of a safety net. No free lunch and all. Obamacare has twisted some of the incentives of actually working, though. Many of us in groups like /r/financialindependence have calculated that it is now to our advantage to eventually quit work altogether, structure our investments and distributions to ensure we are right below the line where subsidies (from those who continue to work) will pay our way, while we just exit the game itself. It will do nothing but screw those who continue to work themselves ragged as they are now subsidizing many people, like my possible future self, who have many dollars hoarded away, but refuse to be forced to work for everyone else any longer without the extra renumeration that is now sucked out by the government. And this is one of the problems with socialism. If things move to a single payer social system under a Warren or Sanders presidency, I'd probably quit my job tomorrow. Those who continue to play the game will be working more and more for less and less.
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  That's to be expected, because those who pay insurance and are healthy are now paying for many people who previously had less of a safety net. No free lunch and all. Not necessarily to be expected, part of the goal of access to healthcare for all is that people can get treatment sooner, before problems get so bad, and get healthier, sooner. Over time if that was effective, medical costs would trend down. America doesn't seem to do that, paying more for the same treatment than other countries, but high healthcare costs are not caused by workers paying them. But let's say that is expected, healthy people are now paying more to cover the needy. It's a kind of forced charity, and there are good reasons for personally disliking being forced to cover others expenses, sure. But then your answer to this is to quit your job, and live off your investments? "Making your money work for you" is a polite way of saying "live off the work of others". The dividends and investment growth in that lifestyle come directly from the work done by the still-employed. Your future dream life will send you in the direction of being a shareholder squeezing and extract maximum money from the still-employed, because your survival depends on their work. In a world where everyone saved for financial independence and the pool of workers was ever shrinking, your income would dry up, so the incentives will be upon you to stop the still-employed from doing do what you did - pulling up the ladder after you. That is, while it won't be outright legislated in a single bill in plain terms like Obamacare was, you will be all-but mandating that other people work to keep you alive, or supporting systems and legislation which has that effect. The very thing you are complaining about, being forced to help others, in your opening paragraph, will still be a system you take part in and support. You're saying "if I am compelled to pay for others, that's evil Socialism" and "if others are working themselves ragged supporting me that's great, self-interest individualism at its best". screw those who continue to work themselves ragged as they are now subsidizing many people, like my possible future self, [..] while we just exit the game itself. You aren't exiting the game. You can never exit. The moral answer is to not be the leech you think is so deplorable, and keep working to keep yourself alive. When you can survive on your savings without growth beyond inflation, without dividends, and with spending the principle, then maybe retire. If everyone pitches in, with more people working, there won't need to be screwed over employees working themselves ragged. That ought to benefit society collectively, which will benefit you in roundabout ways.

Most of the Democratic primary candidates.

by rhcom2 7y ago

Most of the Democratic primary candidates.

It's probably time to stop expecting politicians to solve these problems for us, regardless of what they claim on the campaign trail.

notfromhere 7y ago
medical insurance is a political problem, so the only solution is also political.
vsskanth 7y ago
yeah but only they can write the law and nominate judges to enforce it. IMO getting rid of the tax subsidy for employer sponsored insurance, enforcing anti-trust law on health providers (insurance, hospitals, etc.) by forcing them to disclose prices and getting rid of onerous licensing regulations will achieve the intended decoupling between health insurance and employment. However, you need to pass laws for all that.

andrei_says_ 7y ago

Which is indeed very hopeful. The level of institutionalized corruption including in how money selects who appears on ballots makes this a difficult process. This is a great reminder of the root issues we need to deal with. https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...

beat 7y ago
After having looked at it for a long time, I'm convinced that "institutionalized corruption" is a pleasing myth with no grounding in reality. Money in politics flows to candidates who already agree with those who control the money. It doesn't go to change the minds of those who disagree.
- andrei_says_ 7y ago
  please take a look at Lessig’s talk if you have 15 min

hiram112 7y ago

Be careful what you wish for here. Since Obamacare, most white collar workers will admit that their insurance is worse and simultaneously more expensive. That's to be expected, because those who pay insurance and are healthy are now paying for many people who previously had less of a safety net. No free lunch and all. Obamacare has twisted some of the incentives of actually working, though. Many of us in groups like /r/financialindependence have calculated that it is now to our advantage to eventually quit work altogether, structure our investments and distributions to ensure we are right below the line where subsidies (from those who continue to work) will pay our way, while we just exit the game itself. It will do nothing but screw those who continue to work themselves ragged as they are now subsidizing many people, like my possible future self, who have many dollars hoarded away, but refuse to be forced to work for everyone else any longer without the extra renumeration that is now sucked out by the government. And this is one of the problems with socialism. If things move to a single payer social system under a Warren or Sanders presidency, I'd probably quit my job tomorrow. Those who continue to play the game will be working more and more for less and less.

jodrellblank 7y ago
That's to be expected, because those who pay insurance and are healthy are now paying for many people who previously had less of a safety net. No free lunch and all. Not necessarily to be expected, part of the goal of access to healthcare for all is that people can get treatment sooner, before problems get so bad, and get healthier, sooner. Over time if that was effective, medical costs would trend down. America doesn't seem to do that, paying more for the same treatment than other countries, but high healthcare costs are not caused by workers paying them. But let's say that is expected, healthy people are now paying more to cover the needy. It's a kind of forced charity, and there are good reasons for personally disliking being forced to cover others expenses, sure. But then your answer to this is to quit your job, and live off your investments? "Making your money work for you" is a polite way of saying "live off the work of others". The dividends and investment growth in that lifestyle come directly from the work done by the still-employed. Your future dream life will send you in the direction of being a shareholder squeezing and extract maximum money from the still-employed, because your survival depends on their work. In a world where everyone saved for financial independence and the pool of workers was ever shrinking, your income would dry up, so the incentives will be upon you to stop the still-employed from doing do what you did - pulling up the ladder after you. That is, while it won't be outright legislated in a single bill in plain terms like Obamacare was, you will be all-but mandating that other people work to keep you alive, or supporting systems and legislation which has that effect. The very thing you are complaining about, being forced to help others, in your opening paragraph, will still be a system you take part in and support. You're saying "if I am compelled to pay for others, that's evil Socialism" and "if others are working themselves ragged supporting me that's great, self-interest individualism at its best". screw those who continue to work themselves ragged as they are now subsidizing many people, like my possible future self, [..] while we just exit the game itself. You aren't exiting the game. You can never exit. The moral answer is to not be the leech you think is so deplorable, and keep working to keep yourself alive. When you can survive on your savings without growth beyond inflation, without dividends, and with spending the principle, then maybe retire. If everyone pitches in, with more people working, there won't need to be screwed over employees working themselves ragged. That ought to benefit society collectively, which will benefit you in roundabout ways.