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.
On February 08 2014 06:23 KwarK wrote: Not saying it is a bad thing. I agree with socialised healthcare. But insurance is a way of paying for yourself, this is redistribution and calling it insurance is dishonest if they're being forced to pay over their risk so someone else can pay under their risk.
no that's exactly insurance : you pay for others.
Okay. You're not getting this so I'll explain it to you.
Say you have 10 people and each of them have a 10% chance of costing $100. If you charge each of them $10 for insurance against that cost then they have not paid for anyone else, they have each individually made a bet that the event does not happen and made a payment based upon the cost multiplied by the likelihood. It's no different than if one person did it.
So, that's insurance. You pay for your own statistical risk. Now insurance providers make their money by selling this to a bunch of people and then using the money they make from the bets they win to cover the bets they lose. But that doesn't mean that the healthy people are paying for the sick, that's not how numbers work. You can't say "these are numbers, and those over there are numbers too, therefore they're the same numbers".
Now, how Obamacare works is that it drives down premiums on people who are statistically very expensive by letting them beat the house. They are allowed to bet $10 despite having a 10% chance of costing $200. Now no casino (or insurance company as we'll know them) would normally allow them to take that bet because they'd run out of money. So to make up for those losses the government forces people who only have a 5% chance of costing $50 to pay the same $10 premium, even though that bet is very strongly weighed in favour of the house. In this case it is no longer insurance, they are now paying significantly over their own statistical costs. Rather it is redistribution, no different to if the healthy people were simply paying the medical bills of the unhealthy out of pocket.
Hopefully that clears it up for you.
No real insurance actually works as you describe, because of lack of knowledge. All insurance providers (even completely market-oriented ones) group people into groups and inside those groups the situation is completely the same as you describe the Obamacare situation. So the distinction between normal insurance and Obamacare-type one is continuous and not discrete and the biased one also fits perfectly under the definition of insurance. Just because some information is ignored when judging the probabilities does not change the fact it is insurance and can easily be as profitable.
Obviously they don't take the time to have personalised arcturial tables made for every customer, they make an estimate and give you the premium that nearest fits you. But what they do not do is estimate a person will cost them more than their premiums and then insure them anyway. The same distinction still applies.
You're simply not allowed by law as an insurance company to estimate what a single person will cost in premiums. You have to do it by groups. The reason for this is that certain races and genders are more costly than others in terms of premiums/mortality/rate of sickness, and discrimination based on race/gender is not permitted in the US. My first job out of college was at an insurance co.
On February 08 2014 06:23 KwarK wrote: Not saying it is a bad thing. I agree with socialised healthcare. But insurance is a way of paying for yourself, this is redistribution and calling it insurance is dishonest if they're being forced to pay over their risk so someone else can pay under their risk.
no that's exactly insurance : you pay for others.
Okay. You're not getting this so I'll explain it to you.
Say you have 10 people and each of them have a 10% chance of costing $100. If you charge each of them $10 for insurance against that cost then they have not paid for anyone else, they have each individually made a bet that the event does not happen and made a payment based upon the cost multiplied by the likelihood. It's no different than if one person did it.
So, that's insurance. You pay for your own statistical risk. Now insurance providers make their money by selling this to a bunch of people and then using the money they make from the bets they win to cover the bets they lose. But that doesn't mean that the healthy people are paying for the sick, that's not how numbers work. You can't say "these are numbers, and those over there are numbers too, therefore they're the same numbers".
Now, how Obamacare works is that it drives down premiums on people who are statistically very expensive by letting them beat the house. They are allowed to bet $10 despite having a 10% chance of costing $200. Now no casino (or insurance company as we'll know them) would normally allow them to take that bet because they'd run out of money. So to make up for those losses the government forces people who only have a 5% chance of costing $50 to pay the same $10 premium, even though that bet is very strongly weighed in favour of the house. In this case it is no longer insurance, they are now paying significantly over their own statistical costs. Rather it is redistribution, no different to if the healthy people were simply paying the medical bills of the unhealthy out of pocket.
Hopefully that clears it up for you.
At least that's how it was sold as working. In fact, your understanding of the broad picture of it is by no means shared discussing ACA in my county. Hours to just get people to understand what's cost savings and what's redistribution. It's a form of redistribution and the debate is whether or not Obamacare does this well, or whether this form of redistribution is the best way to help the destitute get a catastrophic-type plan. The other thing that pisses me off is how many other great things are lumped into insurance that are not risk-based, but rather budgetable amounts occurring at regular intervals. It's vestiges of non-wage compensation privileged in tax regimes from WW2-era pay freezes ... compensation, not insurance.
On February 08 2014 11:06 KwarK wrote: Obviously they don't take the time to have personalised arcturial tables made for every customer, they make an estimate and give you the premium that nearest fits you. But what they do not do is estimate a person will cost them more than their premiums and then insure them anyway. The same distinction still applies.
They actually assume a lot of people WILL cost them more than the premium, that is the point of insurance. They make sure that the whole pool of people does not cost them more than their premiums. This same principle easily applies if you have just one big pool of people. The distinction is artificial and does not actually differentiate between insurance and non-insurance. Both schemes are perfectly valid insurance schemes.
Sorry, I don't know if you're drawing a distinction between EV and result. Obviously some people come out ahead from insurance because the event happens but statistically those people do not come out ahead if the premium multiplied by the chance of it happening were less than the payout. It's like saying some people win at roulette, while some people do walk out with more money than they came in with it doesn't work by rewarding some people with profitable bets while fucking over others, everyone gets statistically fucked.
When you say a lot of people will cost the insurance company more do you mean in real terms or in EV?
On February 08 2014 14:12 KwarK wrote: Sorry, I don't know if you're drawing a distinction between EV and result. Obviously some people come out ahead from insurance because the event happens but statistically those people do not come out ahead if the premium multiplied by the chance of it happening were less than the payout. It's like saying some people win at roulette, while some people do walk out with more money than they came in with it doesn't work by rewarding some people with profitable bets while fucking over others, everyone gets statistically fucked.
When you say a lot of people will cost the insurance company more do you mean in real terms or in EV?
This technical detail is quite irrelevant as I think we both know how insurance works and would in the end agree with each other after we cleared up what we mean. I get what you mean and have no problem with that part.
My actual point is that there is no non-arbitrary point on the continuous scale from one-pool-for-all style insurance to individual-rate-for-everyone-based-on-perfect-knowledge-of-a-priori-probabilities where insurance becomes "redistribution". Let's imagine one-pool system. You say it is not insurance, but redistribution (I would say either every insurance is or none is). Ok, let's split the pool into smokers and non-smokers, still redistribution and not insurance ? Let's then split it again, and my question is at what arbitrary point does it stop being redistribution and becomes insurance. Because at no point would you reach situation where someone's premium would be perfectly setup and thus not being redistributed. Also in one-pool style you can easily achieve profit and a state where people pay less than the event they are insured against would cost them. Thus satisfying requirements for it to be insurance. Person paying exactly(or even close to) the premium that statistically comes from the EV is not requirement for being insurance as otherwise insurance companies would not be able to make profit.
Slightly irrelevant to the point everyone above is making, but actually the majority of insurance companies make a vast amount of profit from investment income. They act similar to banks. They invest your premiums until you have to pay out in claims. But this really just adds an unnecessary element to the examples .
Everybody responded and I have just one thing to add : insurance also give assurance for risks that are not statistically assessable, like natural catastrophe. It is in fact a lack of knowledge on the matter to think that insurance are individualised and perfect in assessing risk. No matter how you look at it, insurance mutualize risks (insurance existed before statistic you know).
Let's get to things we haven't talked about, like Obama's failed promises! Well, we have talked about those, but there are always new ones to discover! This particular topic has been ignored since we've been going on tangents, but I've read a little about it.
Edit: Also, please tell me I'm not the only one who couldn't help but laugh several times throughout those videos.
You know, in between the dark, depressed feelings.
What Does It Cost To Be an Obama Ambassador? Upwards of a half a million dollars. That’s what more than half of President Obama’s second-term political appointments raised for his re-election campaign, according to data gathered from the American Foreign Service Association and the Center For Responsive Politics. Rewarding donors and political allies with ambassadorships is nothing new, but Obama vowed to buck the tradition, promising shortly after he was elected to “have civil servants, wherever possible, serve in these posts.”
On February 08 2014 17:48 Introvert wrote: Let's get to things we haven't talked about, like Obama's failed promises! Well, we have talked about those, but there are always new ones to discover! This particular topic has been ignored since we've been going on tangents, but I've read a little about it.
Edit: Also, please tell me I'm not the only one who couldn't help but laugh several times throughout those videos.
You know, in between the dark, depressed feelings.
What Does It Cost To Be an Obama Ambassador? Upwards of a half a million dollars. That’s what more than half of President Obama’s second-term political appointments raised for his re-election campaign, according to data gathered from the American Foreign Service Association and the Center For Responsive Politics. Rewarding donors and political allies with ambassadorships is nothing new, but Obama vowed to buck the tradition, promising shortly after he was elected to “have civil servants, wherever possible, serve in these posts.”
To be fair not knowing the recent election results from a country you are supposed to become ambassador of.. it's not good.
then again it's hard to accurately explain the success of the progress party without being insulting towards Norwegians, which I guess he should also try his hardest not to do.
On February 09 2014 02:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: To be fair not knowing the recent election results from a country you are supposed to become ambassador of.. it's not good.
then again it's hard to accurately explain the success of the progress party without being insulting towards Norwegians, which I guess he should also try his hardest not to do.
I guess this is derailing the thread a little, but do you mind shedding a little light on why people voted for the progress party? Typically this kind of stuff happens in bad economic times, but Norway's economy seems to be doing really well.
On February 08 2014 17:48 Introvert wrote: Let's get to things we haven't talked about, like Obama's failed promises! Well, we have talked about those, but there are always new ones to discover! This particular topic has been ignored since we've been going on tangents, but I've read a little about it.
Edit: Also, please tell me I'm not the only one who couldn't help but laugh several times throughout those videos.
You know, in between the dark, depressed feelings.
What Does It Cost To Be an Obama Ambassador? Upwards of a half a million dollars. That’s what more than half of President Obama’s second-term political appointments raised for his re-election campaign, according to data gathered from the American Foreign Service Association and the Center For Responsive Politics. Rewarding donors and political allies with ambassadorships is nothing new, but Obama vowed to buck the tradition, promising shortly after he was elected to “have civil servants, wherever possible, serve in these posts.”
On February 08 2014 17:48 Introvert wrote: Let's get to things we haven't talked about, like Obama's failed promises! Well, we have talked about those, but there are always new ones to discover! This particular topic has been ignored since we've been going on tangents, but I've read a little about it.
Edit: Also, please tell me I'm not the only one who couldn't help but laugh several times throughout those videos.
You know, in between the dark, depressed feelings.
What Does It Cost To Be an Obama Ambassador? Upwards of a half a million dollars. That’s what more than half of President Obama’s second-term political appointments raised for his re-election campaign, according to data gathered from the American Foreign Service Association and the Center For Responsive Politics. Rewarding donors and political allies with ambassadorships is nothing new, but Obama vowed to buck the tradition, promising shortly after he was elected to “have civil servants, wherever possible, serve in these posts.”
...if you are shocked that political appointees get ambasadorial sports while professional diplomats at the state department do all the actual diplomatic work...you are going to have a tough time once you graduate from college...because...the world is actually a pretty cynical place.
On February 08 2014 17:48 Introvert wrote: Let's get to things we haven't talked about, like Obama's failed promises! Well, we have talked about those, but there are always new ones to discover! This particular topic has been ignored since we've been going on tangents, but I've read a little about it.
Edit: Also, please tell me I'm not the only one who couldn't help but laugh several times throughout those videos.
You know, in between the dark, depressed feelings.
What Does It Cost To Be an Obama Ambassador? Upwards of a half a million dollars. That’s what more than half of President Obama’s second-term political appointments raised for his re-election campaign, according to data gathered from the American Foreign Service Association and the Center For Responsive Politics. Rewarding donors and political allies with ambassadorships is nothing new, but Obama vowed to buck the tradition, promising shortly after he was elected to “have civil servants, wherever possible, serve in these posts.”
...if you are shocked that political appointees get ambasadorial sports while professional diplomats at the state department do all the actual diplomatic work...you are going to have a tough time once you graduate from college...because...the world is actually a pretty cynical place.
I already knew that, my first sentence about failed promises showed what I was going for. But this is, again, something people should really be paying attention to. The status quo today sucks, but we shouldn't ignore it just because it's business as usual (I suppose that's slightly redundant).
Promises to end practice, does it more than the last two presidents!
Danglers makes an excellent point- it's transparent because his motivations for these picks are so clear! So he HAD to do this, one promise failed to fulfill another!
Trust me, I am exceedingly cynical and pessimistic, it's one of the primary reasons I'm a small government conservative.
WASHINGTON -- A new Department of Justice memo will instruct federal government lawyers to give same-sex marriages "full and equal recognition, to the greatest extent possible under the law," Attorney General Eric Holder plans to announce during a speech on Saturday.
The immediate effects of the memo include recognizing that couples in same-sex marriages have the right to decline to give testimony in a civil or criminal case that might violate their marital privilege; that same-sex couples can file for bankruptcy jointly, and that federal inmates in same-sex marriages can be visited by their spouses and receive all other benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples.
"This means that, in every courthouse, in every proceeding, and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States - they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections, and rights as opposite-sex marriages under federal law," Holder will say in a speech at the Human Rights Campaign gala on Saturday. The speech was release earlier in the day to the media.
The decision also means that same-sex couples will be recognized equally in programs administered by the DOJ, including the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, and the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program. That means the spouses of all law enforcement officers and firefighters are entitled to benefits in the event of death or severe injury in the line of duty.
An Ohio association funded by oil and gas drillers has been paying for teacher-training seminars in which industry-funded representatives demonstrate how students can learn about oil and gas extraction in fun ways, the Columbus Dispatch newspaper reported.
Environmentalists said Saturday that the program, being conducted by the Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program (OOGEEP), is an interference in the state’s public education system by an industry that has come under increasing scrutiny over practices including hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
The seminars, which are held around the state, show teachers how to use props such as Twinkies to demonstrate how gas drilling works: Teachers are instructed to ask students to think of the cream in the Twinkie as oil, and a straw to demonstrate how gas drillers find their target.
“It’s $100,000 every time you stick it in,” a workshop leader joked to the Dispatch.
But to environmentalists, the programs are not funny. Some of them say that the seminars are part of the oil and gas industry’s allegedly inappropriate influence in Ohio’s public schools. As more and more controversial fracking wells are drilled in the state, they say schools should not allow an organization with a vested interest in increasing oil and gas production to mold school science curriculums – or should at least give environmental groups the opportunity to present their side of the story.
“The industry is welcome to promote whatever they want, but it seems a little inappropriate to be minimizing the risks of this highly industrial activity using props like Twinkies,” Jack Shaner, deputy director of the Ohio Environmental Council, said Saturday. “Schools should be offering a balanced presentation, not a one-sided traveling medicine man-style show.”
Al Jazeera could not immediately reach the OOGEEP for comment Saturday. A representative had earlier pointed out to the Dispatch that the organization has been educating Ohio residents and science teachers about oil and gas drilling for 16 years.
An Ohio association funded by oil and gas drillers has been paying for teacher-training seminars in which industry-funded representatives demonstrate how students can learn about oil and gas extraction in fun ways, the Columbus Dispatch newspaper reported.
Environmentalists said Saturday that the program, being conducted by the Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program (OOGEEP), is an interference in the state’s public education system by an industry that has come under increasing scrutiny over practices including hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
The seminars, which are held around the state, show teachers how to use props such as Twinkies to demonstrate how gas drilling works: Teachers are instructed to ask students to think of the cream in the Twinkie as oil, and a straw to demonstrate how gas drillers find their target.
“It’s $100,000 every time you stick it in,” a workshop leader joked to the Dispatch.
But to environmentalists, the programs are not funny. Some of them say that the seminars are part of the oil and gas industry’s allegedly inappropriate influence in Ohio’s public schools. As more and more controversial fracking wells are drilled in the state, they say schools should not allow an organization with a vested interest in increasing oil and gas production to mold school science curriculums – or should at least give environmental groups the opportunity to present their side of the story.
“The industry is welcome to promote whatever they want, but it seems a little inappropriate to be minimizing the risks of this highly industrial activity using props like Twinkies,” Jack Shaner, deputy director of the Ohio Environmental Council, said Saturday. “Schools should be offering a balanced presentation, not a one-sided traveling medicine man-style show.”
Al Jazeera could not immediately reach the OOGEEP for comment Saturday. A representative had earlier pointed out to the Dispatch that the organization has been educating Ohio residents and science teachers about oil and gas drilling for 16 years.
EPT
.
