But "Really Big Round Glass Thing for Seeing Further" would be abbreviated RBRGTSF which I can't even pronounce let alone remember and "Very Large Telescope" is just VLT.
my SSN is no more harmful to me than... the primary keys assigned to me in any of hundreds of databases.
As long as there is no "one key to rule them all", I would agree with you because the data between those databases is effectively compartmentalized. A national ID will be that one key to rule them all (Cf. SSN and how you wouldn't need to protect your SSN so carefully if is was only used for what it was intended).
Personally, I don't like the idea of our entire society being single-sign-on.
Like I said before the availability of high deductible insurance means that people will still put off preventative care with the end result that health care costs stay the same.
IIUC the bill that just passed does not contain a "Public Option". Some other proposals did, but not this one.
Finally, the total amount of money spent on ER visits doesn't change simply because instead of paying for someone else's ER visit through a higher bill, I start paying for their ER visit through higher taxes for Medicaid. (That is why I specified spending as a fraction of GDP so it would be independent of the spender.)
As long as the fine (A) is > $0, A + premium > premium.
No, the calculation is Fine + Medical Costs <=> Premimum + Non-Covered Medical Costs. That could go either way. (Technically, there should be a "Price of Risk" factor in there, but I'm keeping it simple.)
Unless you plan on not having insurance for 10 years, getting sick, then going "Oh, sorry, have $1000, get me a premium and fix me!"
Well if they can't discriminate based on preexisting conditions, why wouldn't someone do that? (Other than their own ethical/moral integrity.)
And why exactly are insurance companies going to offer their best rates at an exchange where they have less information about the quality of risk they are buying? And why is a large company going to buy an off-the-shelf plan that costs more than making a deal directly with the insurance companies? (Small businesses I could understand if the exchange has a lower transaction cost than negotiating a deal.)
In any case you're still buying your insurance though your employer.
I wouldn't exactly call that a mandate, if a Republican can win a special election in Massachusetts of all places by running on platform that amounted to being against the Democratic health care plan.
This is especially considering that Massachusetts hadn't elected a Republican senator since the 1960's and Massachusetts happens to be the state that has already tried a health care system like this new federal health care plan.
This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense.
Mhahahahaha *cough* *ahem* hahahahah *cough* *cough* haha *cough* *wheeze*. (I guess I should get that cough looked at, but with my deductible I'd be paying out of pocket to see the doc so I'll wait another week to see if it clears up on its own.)
puts us on a path away from employer provided health insurance.
Except that the bill requires employer provided health insurance. Companies that don't provide it face a sizable fine. Employees can decline the insurance but employers are required to automatically enroll employees (i.e. its an opt-out not an opt-in).
AFAICT, all the provisions in this bill relate to Health Insurance not Health Care. How it this magically going to reduce the 15+% GDP spent on health care? (Well, OK, it does expand MedicAid and cut MediCare which I guess counts as Health Care.)
The best I can see this bill doing for Health Care costs is making the currently uninsured seek preventative care rather than putting it off until it results in an expensive emergency room visit. But even that theory doesn't work if they all buy the cheapest insurance which will likely have a $25,000 deductible, which means they will still put off preventative care.
So I ask again, what does this bill do to reduce Health Care costs?
you understand the legal logic behind requiring people to have car insurance before driving, right?
Yes, but do you? You are only required to have liability insurance not repair insurance. It is up to you whether you want insurance to help repair your car. The requirement is only to ensure you are solvent if you cause someone else harm. (Technically liability insurance isn't even a requirement as long as you can post a bond ($30,000 IIRC) showing that you are solvent.)
..., only auto liability is required b/c you have to be able to pay for damage you cause to other people. Also it is only required by the states, not the federal government.
The fine is going to be cheaper. A quick google for "health insurance fine" shows predictions around <$1000 or 2.5% of your income (if you make $50K a year that's only $1250). And it looks like finding a policy cheaper than that will be hard (I'm not sure if I trust those numbers as the advertised (i.e. artificially-low-to-catch-your-attention) prices for insurance are closer to $60-$100 per year). In any case the Massachusetts law that it this bill modeled after is designed so the fine will always be less than the cheapest premium.
Every time someone says "Every time someone crusades against X, I think they must secretly like X", I think they must one of those people who likes to crusades against some Y yet secretly likes Y. (Y may or may not be the same as X.)
In fact, maybe I should start a crusade over this.
Every company aims to make more profit. By the same logic I'd rather not let my food/car/house/life-savings/etc. be the subject of financial gambling.
Of course insurance companies don't sell health care. That is like thinking that auto-insurance companies sell mechanic services. An insurance company (of whatever sort) sells risk management. I might have a 5% chance of incurring a $100,000 medical/auto/house expense in any particular year. In its most basic form insurance is the offer that in exchange for me paying each year $100,000*5%=$5,000 plus a small (~6.7%) profit margin, I don't have to worry about the risk of me randomly getting stuck with a $100,000 bill. The expense of the $5000 premium isn't the fault of the insurance company. It is the "fault" of the $100,000 upstream cost and the 5% chance.
health insurance isn't rival nor excludable, because they see an advantage to cheap and readily accessible health care
There is an advantage to cheap and readily accessible food, but they are still both rival and excludable so I don't see how your justification leads to the conclusion you claim it does. (Note, I'm using the Economics meanings of these terms.)
Examining these claims in detail:
The cost of providing health care to 2 million people is about twice the cost of care for 1 million people. That is textbook rivalness. Please explain why you don't think it is. (As I've already mentioned infectious diseases are an exception.)
It is possible to provide health insurance to one person while not giving it to another. Again that is textbook excludability. It doesn't matter whether we should or do exclude. It is possible. Please explain why you think it isn't excludable. (Again, infectious diseases are an exception.)
Modern treatments for tuberculosis (TB) may have changed this but for a long time, among all the states Arizona had the highest rate of death from TB. This wasn't because the climate of Arizona was bad for TB sufferers, but because the climate was good for TB sufferers. Thus lots of people with TB moved to Arizona to help their health. Thus many people with TB lived and eventually died in Arizona.
I hope you see the parallels with health care costs. High spending could mean inefficiencies or it could mean high quality of care or it could be we are just a country of fat people who are of course less healthy or it could mean any number of other things. The GDP number on its own means next to nothing.
Those are all non-rival, non-excludable services. Having the government run them makes sense. Health insurance is both rival and excludable.
(The major exception to this is contagious disease. Having local governments pay for immunizations makes a lot of sense for a game-theory/economic perspective.)
... because frankly, his religious beliefs have no lesser basis than any other religion (ie. none).
While such an argument may sound good when you are preaching to a choir of atheists, it is begging the question to start a logical argument with "because all religions have no basis in fact".
Yeah, that explains it. Though now it sounds like the DMCA is an even greater way to harass someone that I thought. Simply having to post counter-notices is bad enough, but that the counter notice doesn't have effect for 10 days is downright scary.
Cryptome sent a counter notice which specifically indicated they would not be taking down the file. Upon receipt, Network Solutions took down the site, as they clearly explained they would be required to by law.
IANAL, but I thought after a counter-notice the host was not required to take it down. Every explanation of the DMCA that I've seen says that the DMCA merely sets maximum time before take-down and before put-back but not a minimum as your post implies. Do you have a cite showing that the DMCA sets a minimum time before put-back?
I have no doubt that the stated policy and the de facto policy differ
Which is why a true economic free-market requires informational transparency (and usually more than 3 options). If you can't predict the outcome of your potential choices with some level of certainty, then acting like a free-market rational actor become hard.
In "don't taze me bro", the kid might have been making scene and being disruptive, but that just shows that the cops are willing to use the Tazer on a kid who is just making a scene and being disruptive.
Slashdot Mirror
But "Really Big Round Glass Thing for Seeing Further" would be abbreviated RBRGTSF which I can't even pronounce let alone remember and "Very Large Telescope" is just VLT.
my SSN is no more harmful to me than ... the primary keys assigned to me in any of hundreds of databases.
As long as there is no "one key to rule them all", I would agree with you because the data between those databases is effectively compartmentalized. A national ID will be that one key to rule them all (Cf. SSN and how you wouldn't need to protect your SSN so carefully if is was only used for what it was intended).
Personally, I don't like the idea of our entire society being single-sign-on.
As long as the fine (A) is > $0, A + premium > premium.
No, the calculation is Fine + Medical Costs <=> Premimum + Non-Covered Medical Costs. That could go either way. (Technically, there should be a "Price of Risk" factor in there, but I'm keeping it simple.)
Unless you plan on not having insurance for 10 years, getting sick, then going "Oh, sorry, have $1000, get me a premium and fix me!"
Well if they can't discriminate based on preexisting conditions, why wouldn't someone do that? (Other than their own ethical/moral integrity.)
And why exactly are insurance companies going to offer their best rates at an exchange where they have less information about the quality of risk they are buying? And why is a large company going to buy an off-the-shelf plan that costs more than making a deal directly with the insurance companies? (Small businesses I could understand if the exchange has a lower transaction cost than negotiating a deal.)
In any case you're still buying your insurance though your employer.
You're right, the GGGP should have said "2,409 pages".
I wouldn't exactly call that a mandate, if a Republican can win a special election in Massachusetts of all places by running on platform that amounted to being against the Democratic health care plan.
This is especially considering that Massachusetts hadn't elected a Republican senator since the 1960's and Massachusetts happens to be the state that has already tried a health care system like this new federal health care plan.
That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost
Specifically, a 30yo. male non-smoker living in Austin, Texas with Blue Cross/Blue Shield:
(All plans include prescription coverage but no dental. And are the no frills hook-em-with-low-cost-then-upsell-them-with-addons plans.)
This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense.
Mhahahahaha *cough* *ahem* hahahahah *cough* *cough* haha *cough* *wheeze*. (I guess I should get that cough looked at, but with my deductible I'd be paying out of pocket to see the doc so I'll wait another week to see if it clears up on its own.)
puts us on a path away from employer provided health insurance.
Except that the bill requires employer provided health insurance. Companies that don't provide it face a sizable fine. Employees can decline the insurance but employers are required to automatically enroll employees (i.e. its an opt-out not an opt-in).
AFAICT, all the provisions in this bill relate to Health Insurance not Health Care. How it this magically going to reduce the 15+% GDP spent on health care? (Well, OK, it does expand MedicAid and cut MediCare which I guess counts as Health Care.)
The best I can see this bill doing for Health Care costs is making the currently uninsured seek preventative care rather than putting it off until it results in an expensive emergency room visit. But even that theory doesn't work if they all buy the cheapest insurance which will likely have a $25,000 deductible, which means they will still put off preventative care.
So I ask again, what does this bill do to reduce Health Care costs?
you understand the legal logic behind requiring people to have car insurance before driving, right?
Yes, but do you? You are only required to have liability insurance not repair insurance. It is up to you whether you want insurance to help repair your car. The requirement is only to ensure you are solvent if you cause someone else harm. (Technically liability insurance isn't even a requirement as long as you can post a bond ($30,000 IIRC) showing that you are solvent.)
..., only auto liability is required b/c you have to be able to pay for damage you cause to other people. Also it is only required by the states, not the federal government.
The fine is going to be cheaper. A quick google for "health insurance fine" shows predictions around <$1000 or 2.5% of your income (if you make $50K a year that's only $1250). And it looks like finding a policy cheaper than that will be hard (I'm not sure if I trust those numbers as the advertised (i.e. artificially-low-to-catch-your-attention) prices for insurance are closer to $60-$100 per year). In any case the Massachusetts law that it this bill modeled after is designed so the fine will always be less than the cheapest premium.
Every time someone says "Every time someone crusades against X, I think they must secretly like X", I think they must one of those people who likes to crusades against some Y yet secretly likes Y. (Y may or may not be the same as X.)
In fact, maybe I should start a crusade over this.
Every company aims to make more profit. By the same logic I'd rather not let my food/car/house/life-savings/etc. be the subject of financial gambling.
Of course insurance companies don't sell health care. That is like thinking that auto-insurance companies sell mechanic services. An insurance company (of whatever sort) sells risk management. I might have a 5% chance of incurring a $100,000 medical/auto/house expense in any particular year. In its most basic form insurance is the offer that in exchange for me paying each year $100,000*5%=$5,000 plus a small (~6.7%) profit margin, I don't have to worry about the risk of me randomly getting stuck with a $100,000 bill. The expense of the $5000 premium isn't the fault of the insurance company. It is the "fault" of the $100,000 upstream cost and the 5% chance.
health insurance isn't rival nor excludable, because they see an advantage to cheap and readily accessible health care
There is an advantage to cheap and readily accessible food, but they are still both rival and excludable so I don't see how your justification leads to the conclusion you claim it does. (Note, I'm using the Economics meanings of these terms.)
Examining these claims in detail:
Modern treatments for tuberculosis (TB) may have changed this but for a long time, among all the states Arizona had the highest rate of death from TB. This wasn't because the climate of Arizona was bad for TB sufferers, but because the climate was good for TB sufferers. Thus lots of people with TB moved to Arizona to help their health. Thus many people with TB lived and eventually died in Arizona.
I hope you see the parallels with health care costs. High spending could mean inefficiencies or it could mean high quality of care or it could be we are just a country of fat people who are of course less healthy or it could mean any number of other things. The GDP number on its own means next to nothing.
Those are all non-rival, non-excludable services. Having the government run them makes sense. Health insurance is both rival and excludable.
(The major exception to this is contagious disease. Having local governments pay for immunizations makes a lot of sense for a game-theory/economic perspective.)
... because frankly, his religious beliefs have no lesser basis than any other religion (ie. none).
While such an argument may sound good when you are preaching to a choir of atheists, it is begging the question to start a logical argument with "because all religions have no basis in fact".
Yeah, that explains it. Though now it sounds like the DMCA is an even greater way to harass someone that I thought. Simply having to post counter-notices is bad enough, but that the counter notice doesn't have effect for 10 days is downright scary.
Cryptome sent a counter notice which specifically indicated they would not be taking down the file. Upon receipt, Network Solutions took down the site, as they clearly explained they would be required to by law.
IANAL, but I thought after a counter-notice the host was not required to take it down. Every explanation of the DMCA that I've seen says that the DMCA merely sets maximum time before take-down and before put-back but not a minimum as your post implies. Do you have a cite showing that the DMCA sets a minimum time before put-back?
So Apple ensures that no one can pirate my app by ensuring that no one can install my app? Brilliant!
I have no doubt that the stated policy and the de facto policy differ
Which is why a true economic free-market requires informational transparency (and usually more than 3 options). If you can't predict the outcome of your potential choices with some level of certainty, then acting like a free-market rational actor become hard.
In "don't taze me bro", the kid might have been making scene and being disruptive, but that just shows that the cops are willing to use the Tazer on a kid who is just making a scene and being disruptive.