EPT
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7974
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On July 01 2017 02:35 LegalLord wrote: No - but primarying the sitting president seldom works. And by seldom I mean that I can't recall a single case in which it was successful. Johnson declined to run again if that counts. pretty sure he was being primaried at that point | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On July 01 2017 02:36 ticklishmusic wrote: the people who will feel the least impact of the medicaid rollback are the ones in red states with governors who refused to take the expansion in the first place Think again, nursing homes more often than not gave residents that have Medicare A&B, but backed up by the state's Medicaid service to ensure cost vontrol. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
1) No health insurance bill takes effect by the end of the policy year that touches any of the five major issues (individual mandate, subsidy rates, pre-existing conditions, minimum essential coverage, medicaid expansion) (70% confidence) 2) at least 10 million of the 18 million people lose insurance next policy year. (90% confidence) Reasoning on 1: Discussions have degraded to the point where there is no reasonable debate going on. Political inertia has set in. I would be less confident in the no-change scenario if the bill were split; the medical device tax cut would stand a reasonable chance on its own. Reasoning on 2: Trend-following; as I posted earlier 8 million of these people have already "lost" insurance. I see no reason why this group would suddenly shrink in 2018; meanwhile, premiums will reliably continue to escalate because insurance companies have already set their prices for next year. The high premiums will drive more people to pay the penalty rather than comply with the individual mandate. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On July 01 2017 03:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/880844859594199041 Thank god Roy Cooper won. McCrory would have handed the numbers over for sure. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On July 01 2017 02:22 Danglars wrote: Is the expansion the crucial measure saving millions from death? I wouldn't need to cite the study if the rhetoric wasn't already at the level of Medicaid expansion acting like the divine intervention of God. Those despicable individuals whose tweets several cited a few pages back remind me how detached the debate has become from solid grounding in the federal programs, the ACA changes, and the bills under consideration in the House (formerly) and Senate. Are you referring to the Oregon study? If so I'm happy to cite it. It had it's limitations, but still reached some interesting conclusions: The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes Medicaid coverage did not have a significant effect on measures of blood pressure, cholesterol, or glycated hemoglobin. I assume this is what you're referring to when you say that access to Medicaid has been proven to not improve health outcomes. As you are probably well-aware, these three measures are not the only way to measure health outcomes. It should be noted that the sample size of the study was too small to look at morbidity or cancer treatment, among other things. The study did find that access to Medicaid increased the percentage of people who reported that their health had improved over the previous year, and reduced financial hardship from catastrophic medical expenses. Keeping in mind that this study had a small sample size and was limited to one state, it is totally reasonable to have a discussion around it about whether the amount we spend on Medicaid is worth the identified benefits. It would also be great to discuss improvements which can be made to Medicaid so that the treatments provided do a better job of treating blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. However the current debate isn't about the best way to provide healthcare to poor people. The current debate is over whether a tax cut for rich people should be paid for by taking health coverage away from millions of poor people. Conservatives supporting the healthcare bill (I know you're not in this group) don't give a shit about health outcomes. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
So the p values for each of the individual null hypotheses may be greater than the significance threshold, but that's not necessarily the p value for *all* of the null hypotheses being true (which is what anyone saying the study showed Medicaid does nothing for all these things are saying). All of which only matters if you think p values and statistical significance are the be-all and end-all, which is absurd for a variety of reasons. + Show Spoiler + So I guess I did end up trying to explain this on a politics thread in a gaming forum | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On July 01 2017 03:39 Buckyman wrote: If that were its sole goal, it would not repeal the individual mandate, which is a heavily regressive tax. Without acknowledging that it makes sense to call the individual mandate a "heavily regressive tax," they took out the individual mandate because it was unpopular and because the people drafting the bill don't understand how health insurance works. Apparently someone subsequently told them how health insurance works because they are now saying they will add penalties back into BCRA in the next draft. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
The hit the US economy is going to take from a lack of medical care will be pretty bad. I'm not sure why not even basic economic reasoning works with Republicans | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
On July 01 2017 04:00 Nyxisto wrote: The hit the US economy is going to take from a lack of medical care will be pretty bad. I'm not sure why not even basic economic reasoning works with Republicans This is about two steps after basic economic reasoning. The basic economic reasoning goes like this: "The government is subsidizing health care via insurance. The government is restricting the supply of health care via licensing, rendering it inelastic. Therefore, the price of health care will increase with only a small increase in overall health care provided." One step after that looks at the impact on individual groups: "Old people, people covered by the medicaid expansion and people in the subsidy sweet-spot get better health care. Young people, rich people and poor people not covered by medicaid get worse health care." And then step three gets to look at the consequences of the policy and of changes thereto. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11988 Posts
On July 01 2017 03:43 TheTenthDoc wrote: Plus if you find that Medicaid reduces four health outcomes (regardless of significance) the probability of that under all four of the null hypotheses being true is at most 0.0625 and depending on the individual outcomes' associated p values and associations with the intervention less than that. So the p values for each of the individual null hypotheses may be greater than the significance threshold, but that's not necessarily the p value for *all* of the null hypotheses being true (which is what anyone saying the study showed Medicaid does nothing for all these things are saying). All of which only matters if you think p values and statistical significance are the be-all and end-all, which is absurd for a variety of reasons. + Show Spoiler + So I guess I did end up trying to explain this on a politics thread in a gaming forum Another very important distinction is between "We can't prove a significant increase" and "We can prove significantly that it did not increase" The second is a much stronger statement. The first says that it might increase or not, the data is not good enough to say whether it does or not. The second says that the data is good enough, and says that it increases. The difference between the two is very important. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24354 Posts
On July 01 2017 01:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Neither are married so how is it cheating. They are engaged to one another? I'm confused. They were though haha. I know Seattle's min wage came up, and the study sighted gave us no idea if businesses were making smart economic choices with their work scheduling or were throwing irrational and emotional fits. But I know it doesn't jive with the anecdotal experiences I've had and I saw this. Seems like the wage isn't the problem, just that some people/businesses can't support a livable wage. And as was said when the minimum wage was originally created It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. “By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On July 01 2017 03:46 Mercy13 wrote: Without acknowledging that it makes sense to call the individual mandate a "heavily regressive tax," they took out the individual mandate because it was unpopular and because the people drafting the bill don't understand how health insurance works. Apparently someone subsequently told them how health insurance works because they are now saying they will add penalties back into BCRA in the next draft. it's like saying life is a regressive tax because poorer people have less money and less discretionary income against a base level of expenditures | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On July 01 2017 04:28 GreenHorizons wrote: They were though haha. I know Seattle's min wage came up, and the study sighted gave us no idea if businesses were making smart economic choices with their work scheduling or were throwing irrational and emotional fits. But I know it doesn't jive with the anecdotal experiences I've had and I saw this. https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/880204004101414912 Seems like the wage isn't the problem, just that some people/businesses can't support a livable wage. And as was said when the minimum wage was originally created Yes, the end result is obviously that if businesses cannot support a living wage, then they are providing no wage at all. Hence why people in Seattle are being paid less on average. It's a question of goals, more or less. Do you want everyone who is working to have a living wage, at the expense of higher unemployment, or lower unemployment with some people working and being below the poverty line. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24354 Posts
On July 01 2017 05:06 WolfintheSheep wrote: Yes, the end result is obviously that if businesses cannot support a living wage, then they are providing no wage at all. Hence why people in Seattle are being paid less on average. It's a question of goals, more or less. Do you want everyone who is working to have a living wage, at the expense of higher unemployment, or lower unemployment with some people working and being below the poverty line. Did that study mention less people working or just people working a few less hours? IIRC it was latter. The idea that it's a job killer seems to be a myth, or at best, greatly exaggerated to the point of not being relevant. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-06-30-at-9.40.45-AM-1-768x409.jpg)
