|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 12 2018 16:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2018 14:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Well there's: The Gini coefficient, a gauge ranging between zero and one that measures income equality, increased slightly to 0.465 last year, from 0.462 in 2015, according to data released by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) this week.
A reading of zero would mean everyone’s income was equal, while a reading of one would indicate that all the income was going to one person.
The United Nations considers a Gini coefficient higher than 0.4 a sign of severe income inequality.
The most recent figure for the US was 0.479. In term of cities, Hong Kong recorded an all-time high of 0.539 last year, behind only New York at 0.551. For the record, Hong Kong is not China. Both in that Hong Kong is not representative of all of China, and that Hong Kong is actually an autonomous region of China that is literally politically and economically separate from the mainland (alongside Macau). Hong Kong is basically the hub of money, trade and business, and Macau is essentially a bigger Las Vegas. So speaking of economic disparity, most of China doesn't even come close to Hong Kong and Macau (they're the dark blue two in the south-east).
I can't say for sure whether Hong Kong is included in China's GINI or wealth distribution or whether it should or shouldn't be. But the wealth calculation specifically says 'mainland' China. Not that I think that changes either of my points though.
|
On May 12 2018 11:53 mierin wrote:
At this point I'm not sure how I feel about China. I'm obviously not a Chinese citizen and can't speak from experience, but their system seems to be superior just from what I've heard. They seem to be honest about what they censor, and their government officials seem to genuinely have China's best interests in mind as opposed to rich individuals (I admit I could be completely wrong about this, I just don't know that much about the country's internal workings).
that's not what I've heard at all. esp about officials having china's best interests at heart, given how endemic corruption is there.
what have you been hearing about them and from where?
|
Wealth in China is a bit odd to compare. The government has very strict controls over where people can put their money, in part so that the goals of the state are met first and foremost (e.g. grow the economy through cap ex). One example is that provincial governments are always strapped for cash. They sell land to developers who always find buyers - buyers will often use real estate as a store of wealth / investment. This is often a point of consternation (are they building real cities or 'ghost cities'?).
Another oddity is their hukou system, which separates China into rural and urban households. Urban households get more benefits than rural households, and earn higher wages in the cities as well. Migrants from rural areas can sometimes work in cities, but will still have a rural hukou. I don't know if they ever got around to reforming this, but there is still a huge difference in income between urban (coastal) and rural provinces.
|
On May 12 2018 22:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wealth in China is a bit odd to compare. The government has very strict controls over where people can put their money, in part so that the goals of the state are met first and foremost (e.g. grow the economy through cap ex). One example is that provincial governments are always strapped for cash. They sell land to developers who always find buyers - buyers will often use real estate as a store of wealth / investment. This is often a point of consternation (are they building real cities or 'ghost cities'?).
Another oddity is their hukou system, which separates China into rural and urban households. Urban households get more benefits than rural households, and earn higher wages in the cities as well. Migrants from rural areas can sometimes work in cities, but will still have a rural hukou. I don't know if they ever got around to reforming this, but there is still a huge difference in income between urban (coastal) and rural provinces.
I have heard odd things about China as well. I can say that from what I understand of the country, this seems "reasonably accurate." China is not an enemy of the USA, they are just bigger than us and have a broader land mass. Well, Russia is bigger than the US, & Canada too, but it is mostly desert or scrublands that are useless in terms of farming, manufacturing, industry, etc. Americans should try to cultivate more connections with the Han Chinese, in my opinion, & there should be more general knowledge of the various intricacies of the local culture.
|
On May 13 2018 06:28 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2018 22:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wealth in China is a bit odd to compare. The government has very strict controls over where people can put their money, in part so that the goals of the state are met first and foremost (e.g. grow the economy through cap ex). One example is that provincial governments are always strapped for cash. They sell land to developers who always find buyers - buyers will often use real estate as a store of wealth / investment. This is often a point of consternation (are they building real cities or 'ghost cities'?).
Another oddity is their hukou system, which separates China into rural and urban households. Urban households get more benefits than rural households, and earn higher wages in the cities as well. Migrants from rural areas can sometimes work in cities, but will still have a rural hukou. I don't know if they ever got around to reforming this, but there is still a huge difference in income between urban (coastal) and rural provinces. I have heard odd things about China as well. I can say that from what I understand of the country, this seems "reasonably accurate." China is not an enemy of the USA, they are just bigger than us and have a broader land mass. Well, Russia is bigger than the US, & Canada too, but it is mostly desert or scrublands that are useless in terms of farming, manufacturing, industry, etc. Americans should try to cultivate more connections with the Han Chinese, in my opinion, & there should be more general knowledge of the various intricacies of the local culture.
American corporations have already cultivated connections with the Han Chinese elite. It's why almost everything you own was made in Chinese sweatshops covered in suicide nets.
|
On May 12 2018 22:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wealth in China is a bit odd to compare. The government has very strict controls over where people can put their money, in part so that the goals of the state are met first and foremost (e.g. grow the economy through cap ex). One example is that provincial governments are always strapped for cash. They sell land to developers who always find buyers - buyers will often use real estate as a store of wealth / investment. This is often a point of consternation (are they building real cities or 'ghost cities'?).
Another oddity is their hukou system, which separates China into rural and urban households. Urban households get more benefits than rural households, and earn higher wages in the cities as well. Migrants from rural areas can sometimes work in cities, but will still have a rural hukou. I don't know if they ever got around to reforming this, but there is still a huge difference in income between urban (coastal) and rural provinces.
Yes the Hukou or "residence card" is still alive and well. It controls where you can work, and therefore where you can buy housing and live. It's one of the ways China controls immigration from province to province, and rural to urban.
One of the most popular ways to "improve" one's Hukou is to get married to someone else who as a "better" Hukou than you.
|
I'd say the only possible way to balance wealth equality in currently known systems is government redistribution.
In the libertarian (conservative?) definition this equals "violence".
Providing they have some kind of moral point, the redistribution needs to be as gentle and fair as possible. This means skimming from the top and feeding the bottom, ideally, without hassle, leaks, corruption, loopholes, bloated bureaucracy, big government, unnecessary force...
At any rate oppressing/restricting your productive class has shown to be a poor strategy.
In the 21st century the only system I see accomplishing this has some kind of simple and robust progressive tax code, few restrictions on human activity overall, and an AI allocating around some type of universal basic income, or universal access to basic utilities (net/education).
|
On May 13 2018 15:39 Kickboxer wrote:
I'd say the only possible way to balance wealth equality in currently known systems is government redistribution.
In the libertarian (conservative?) definition this equals "violence".
Providing they have some kind of moral point, the redistribution needs to be as gentle and fair as possible. This means skimming from the top and feeding the bottom, ideally, without hassle, leaks, corruption, loopholes, bloated bureaucracy, big government, unnecessary force...
At any rate oppressing/restricting your productive class has shown to be a poor strategy.
In the 21st century the only system I see accomplishing this has some kind of simple and robust progressive tax code, few restrictions on human activity overall, and an AI allocating around some type of universal basic income, or universal access to basic utilities (net/education).
I think we're long off an AI being advanced enough to handle that. Let's try the simple and robust tax code first and see if that works before ushering in SKYNET.
|
On May 13 2018 16:40 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2018 15:39 Kickboxer wrote:
I'd say the only possible way to balance wealth equality in currently known systems is government redistribution.
In the libertarian (conservative?) definition this equals "violence".
Providing they have some kind of moral point, the redistribution needs to be as gentle and fair as possible. This means skimming from the top and feeding the bottom, ideally, without hassle, leaks, corruption, loopholes, bloated bureaucracy, big government, unnecessary force...
At any rate oppressing/restricting your productive class has shown to be a poor strategy.
In the 21st century the only system I see accomplishing this has some kind of simple and robust progressive tax code, few restrictions on human activity overall, and an AI allocating around some type of universal basic income, or universal access to basic utilities (net/education). I think we're long off an AI being advanced enough to handle that. Let's try the simple and robust tax code first and see if that works before ushering in SKYNET.
Even if we weren’t, the notion that taxation and wealth distribution is an objective problem that could be « solved » by a machine is absurd. There is no right and wrong taxation system, just a balance of interests and deep philosophical questions about justice, solidarity, individualism and freedom that each of us answers his way.
As for the trope that the state is heavy and inneficient, I think anyone who has had to deal with corporate bureaucracy would agree that it’s an inherent problem to all bureaucratic institutions, whether public or private. It’s just really hard to design efficient, huge administrative machines.
In all honesty, social liberal democracy works just fine. The question is whether people agree with its human and philosophical foundations. It’s not too hard to see that most of the shit middle class, rural america is in is basically self inflicted; many poor white folks who would enormously benefit a functional universal healthcare system oppose it vehemently, for example.
|
On May 13 2018 20:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2018 16:40 iamthedave wrote:On May 13 2018 15:39 Kickboxer wrote:
I'd say the only possible way to balance wealth equality in currently known systems is government redistribution.
In the libertarian (conservative?) definition this equals "violence".
Providing they have some kind of moral point, the redistribution needs to be as gentle and fair as possible. This means skimming from the top and feeding the bottom, ideally, without hassle, leaks, corruption, loopholes, bloated bureaucracy, big government, unnecessary force...
At any rate oppressing/restricting your productive class has shown to be a poor strategy.
In the 21st century the only system I see accomplishing this has some kind of simple and robust progressive tax code, few restrictions on human activity overall, and an AI allocating around some type of universal basic income, or universal access to basic utilities (net/education). I think we're long off an AI being advanced enough to handle that. Let's try the simple and robust tax code first and see if that works before ushering in SKYNET. Even if we weren’t, the notion that taxation and wealth distribution is an objective problem that could be « solved » by a machine is absurd. There is no right and wrong taxation system, just a balance of interests and deep philosophical questions about justice, solidarity, individualism and freedom that each of us answers his way. As for the trope that the state is heavy and inneficient, I think anyone who has had to deal with corporate bureaucracy would agree that it’s an inherent problem to all bureaucratic institutions, whether public or private. It’s just really hard to design efficient, huge administrative machines. In all honesty, social liberal democracy works just fine. The question is whether people agree with its human and philosophical foundations. It’s not too hard to see that most of the shit middle class, rural america is in is basically self inflicted; many poor white folks who would enormously benefit a functional universal healthcare system oppose it vehemently, for example.
yes, universal health care would be a great benefit to society in America. So to some extent there actually is that in the state of Minnesota, it's called MinnesotaCare & it's pretty cheap to visit the doctor if you actually break something or have "real issues" of some sort, such as a broken arm or a fractured foot bone or something of that nature. I think they are a little leery of ppl coming in for "nonsense injuries" such as a cough or a runny nose (just take sudafed). Anyways, the point is, the healthcare is supposed to be for non-trivial things that matter. Going to visit the cabin of an elderly grandparent so good healthcare is a big concern for them
|
On May 14 2018 03:11 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2018 20:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 13 2018 16:40 iamthedave wrote:On May 13 2018 15:39 Kickboxer wrote:
I'd say the only possible way to balance wealth equality in currently known systems is government redistribution.
In the libertarian (conservative?) definition this equals "violence".
Providing they have some kind of moral point, the redistribution needs to be as gentle and fair as possible. This means skimming from the top and feeding the bottom, ideally, without hassle, leaks, corruption, loopholes, bloated bureaucracy, big government, unnecessary force...
At any rate oppressing/restricting your productive class has shown to be a poor strategy.
In the 21st century the only system I see accomplishing this has some kind of simple and robust progressive tax code, few restrictions on human activity overall, and an AI allocating around some type of universal basic income, or universal access to basic utilities (net/education). I think we're long off an AI being advanced enough to handle that. Let's try the simple and robust tax code first and see if that works before ushering in SKYNET. Even if we weren’t, the notion that taxation and wealth distribution is an objective problem that could be « solved » by a machine is absurd. There is no right and wrong taxation system, just a balance of interests and deep philosophical questions about justice, solidarity, individualism and freedom that each of us answers his way. As for the trope that the state is heavy and inneficient, I think anyone who has had to deal with corporate bureaucracy would agree that it’s an inherent problem to all bureaucratic institutions, whether public or private. It’s just really hard to design efficient, huge administrative machines. In all honesty, social liberal democracy works just fine. The question is whether people agree with its human and philosophical foundations. It’s not too hard to see that most of the shit middle class, rural america is in is basically self inflicted; many poor white folks who would enormously benefit a functional universal healthcare system oppose it vehemently, for example. yes, universal health care would be a great benefit to society in America. So to some extent there actually is that in the state of Minnesota, it's called MinnesotaCare & it's pretty cheap to visit the doctor if you actually break something or have "real issues" of some sort, such as a broken arm or a fractured foot bone or something of that nature. I think they are a little leery of ppl coming in for "nonsense injuries" such as a cough or a runny nose (just take sudafed). Anyways, the point is, the healthcare is supposed to be for non-trivial things that matter. Going to visit the cabin of an elderly grandparent so good healthcare is a big concern for them
A big part of the cost saving from universal health care comes from regular medical checkups, not just going in when something feels terrible. Late-stage illnesses or issues cost a lot more to deal with than problems that are caught early.
|
On May 14 2018 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2018 03:11 A3th3r wrote:On May 13 2018 20:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 13 2018 16:40 iamthedave wrote:On May 13 2018 15:39 Kickboxer wrote:
I'd say the only possible way to balance wealth equality in currently known systems is government redistribution.
In the libertarian (conservative?) definition this equals "violence".
Providing they have some kind of moral point, the redistribution needs to be as gentle and fair as possible. This means skimming from the top and feeding the bottom, ideally, without hassle, leaks, corruption, loopholes, bloated bureaucracy, big government, unnecessary force...
At any rate oppressing/restricting your productive class has shown to be a poor strategy.
In the 21st century the only system I see accomplishing this has some kind of simple and robust progressive tax code, few restrictions on human activity overall, and an AI allocating around some type of universal basic income, or universal access to basic utilities (net/education). I think we're long off an AI being advanced enough to handle that. Let's try the simple and robust tax code first and see if that works before ushering in SKYNET. Even if we weren’t, the notion that taxation and wealth distribution is an objective problem that could be « solved » by a machine is absurd. There is no right and wrong taxation system, just a balance of interests and deep philosophical questions about justice, solidarity, individualism and freedom that each of us answers his way. As for the trope that the state is heavy and inneficient, I think anyone who has had to deal with corporate bureaucracy would agree that it’s an inherent problem to all bureaucratic institutions, whether public or private. It’s just really hard to design efficient, huge administrative machines. In all honesty, social liberal democracy works just fine. The question is whether people agree with its human and philosophical foundations. It’s not too hard to see that most of the shit middle class, rural america is in is basically self inflicted; many poor white folks who would enormously benefit a functional universal healthcare system oppose it vehemently, for example. yes, universal health care would be a great benefit to society in America. So to some extent there actually is that in the state of Minnesota, it's called MinnesotaCare & it's pretty cheap to visit the doctor if you actually break something or have "real issues" of some sort, such as a broken arm or a fractured foot bone or something of that nature. I think they are a little leery of ppl coming in for "nonsense injuries" such as a cough or a runny nose (just take sudafed). Anyways, the point is, the healthcare is supposed to be for non-trivial things that matter. Going to visit the cabin of an elderly grandparent so good healthcare is a big concern for them A big part of the cost saving from universal health care comes from regular medical checkups, not just going in when something feels terrible. Late-stage illnesses or issues cost a lot more to deal with than problems that are caught early.
Agreed, I had to get certain tests done every few months for residency requirements because of a pneumothorax I had suffered in college. The testing was to monitor some scarring from that on my lung and was expected and also turned out to to be a nothing burger but the meticulousness (and perhaps slightly unnecessary paranoia) on the doctors part found another issue unrelated to the thing they were testing that saved me months of illness and time off work aswell as a surgery that would have hurt the tax payer way more.
I think the preventative care that we have here atleast in Ontario is amazing compared to the absolute trash experiences I had in the US healthcare system, preventative care isnt even a thing.
|
On May 14 2018 03:11 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2018 20:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 13 2018 16:40 iamthedave wrote:On May 13 2018 15:39 Kickboxer wrote:
I'd say the only possible way to balance wealth equality in currently known systems is government redistribution.
In the libertarian (conservative?) definition this equals "violence".
Providing they have some kind of moral point, the redistribution needs to be as gentle and fair as possible. This means skimming from the top and feeding the bottom, ideally, without hassle, leaks, corruption, loopholes, bloated bureaucracy, big government, unnecessary force...
At any rate oppressing/restricting your productive class has shown to be a poor strategy.
In the 21st century the only system I see accomplishing this has some kind of simple and robust progressive tax code, few restrictions on human activity overall, and an AI allocating around some type of universal basic income, or universal access to basic utilities (net/education). I think we're long off an AI being advanced enough to handle that. Let's try the simple and robust tax code first and see if that works before ushering in SKYNET. Even if we weren’t, the notion that taxation and wealth distribution is an objective problem that could be « solved » by a machine is absurd. There is no right and wrong taxation system, just a balance of interests and deep philosophical questions about justice, solidarity, individualism and freedom that each of us answers his way. As for the trope that the state is heavy and inneficient, I think anyone who has had to deal with corporate bureaucracy would agree that it’s an inherent problem to all bureaucratic institutions, whether public or private. It’s just really hard to design efficient, huge administrative machines. In all honesty, social liberal democracy works just fine. The question is whether people agree with its human and philosophical foundations. It’s not too hard to see that most of the shit middle class, rural america is in is basically self inflicted; many poor white folks who would enormously benefit a functional universal healthcare system oppose it vehemently, for example. yes, universal health care would be a great benefit to society in America. So to some extent there actually is that in the state of Minnesota, it's called MinnesotaCare & it's pretty cheap to visit the doctor if you actually break something or have "real issues" of some sort, such as a broken arm or a fractured foot bone or something of that nature. I think they are a little leery of ppl coming in for "nonsense injuries" such as a cough or a runny nose (just take sudafed). Anyways, the point is, the healthcare is supposed to be for non-trivial things that matter. Going to visit the cabin of an elderly grandparent so good healthcare is a big concern for them
MinnesotaCare is Minnesota's Medicaid program. Medicaid is a CMS program that provides insurance for low-income people or those without access to coverage through an employer. Programs are administered at the state level (and states typically don't actually do much besides approve/ reimburse plans administered by private insurance companies [also note that Medicaid tends to have shittier reimbursement rates so plan choices tend to be limited]), so they're branded differently - but most of the funding is coming from the fed, with the balance provided by however the state chooses to fund it.
The big difference is between states which opted for Medicaid expansion as part of the ACA, and those who didn't.
On May 14 2018 03:55 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2018 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 14 2018 03:11 A3th3r wrote:On May 13 2018 20:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 13 2018 16:40 iamthedave wrote:On May 13 2018 15:39 Kickboxer wrote:
I'd say the only possible way to balance wealth equality in currently known systems is government redistribution.
In the libertarian (conservative?) definition this equals "violence".
Providing they have some kind of moral point, the redistribution needs to be as gentle and fair as possible. This means skimming from the top and feeding the bottom, ideally, without hassle, leaks, corruption, loopholes, bloated bureaucracy, big government, unnecessary force...
At any rate oppressing/restricting your productive class has shown to be a poor strategy.
In the 21st century the only system I see accomplishing this has some kind of simple and robust progressive tax code, few restrictions on human activity overall, and an AI allocating around some type of universal basic income, or universal access to basic utilities (net/education). I think we're long off an AI being advanced enough to handle that. Let's try the simple and robust tax code first and see if that works before ushering in SKYNET. Even if we weren’t, the notion that taxation and wealth distribution is an objective problem that could be « solved » by a machine is absurd. There is no right and wrong taxation system, just a balance of interests and deep philosophical questions about justice, solidarity, individualism and freedom that each of us answers his way. As for the trope that the state is heavy and inneficient, I think anyone who has had to deal with corporate bureaucracy would agree that it’s an inherent problem to all bureaucratic institutions, whether public or private. It’s just really hard to design efficient, huge administrative machines. In all honesty, social liberal democracy works just fine. The question is whether people agree with its human and philosophical foundations. It’s not too hard to see that most of the shit middle class, rural america is in is basically self inflicted; many poor white folks who would enormously benefit a functional universal healthcare system oppose it vehemently, for example. yes, universal health care would be a great benefit to society in America. So to some extent there actually is that in the state of Minnesota, it's called MinnesotaCare & it's pretty cheap to visit the doctor if you actually break something or have "real issues" of some sort, such as a broken arm or a fractured foot bone or something of that nature. I think they are a little leery of ppl coming in for "nonsense injuries" such as a cough or a runny nose (just take sudafed). Anyways, the point is, the healthcare is supposed to be for non-trivial things that matter. Going to visit the cabin of an elderly grandparent so good healthcare is a big concern for them A big part of the cost saving from universal health care comes from regular medical checkups, not just going in when something feels terrible. Late-stage illnesses or issues cost a lot more to deal with than problems that are caught early. Agreed, I had to get certain tests done every few months for residency requirements because of a pneumothorax I had suffered in college. The testing was to monitor some scarring from that on my lung and was expected and also turned out to to be a nothing burger but the meticulousness (and perhaps slightly unnecessary paranoia) on the doctors part found another issue unrelated to the thing they were testing that saved me months of illness and time off work aswell as a surgery that would have hurt the tax payer way more. I think the preventative care that we have here atleast in Ontario is amazing compared to the absolute trash experiences I had in the US healthcare system, preventative care isnt even a thing.
I'm going to assume that you haven't been in the US for some time, since one of the big things in the ACA was requiring all plans to cover preventative care and annual screenings.
|
Gotta keep those Chinese companies who get hurt by tariffs in mind, and give them assistance if needed. That was part of the platform, right? Provide aid to any foreign companies hurt by the America First policy?
|
On May 14 2018 04:06 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2018 03:11 A3th3r wrote:On May 13 2018 20:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 13 2018 16:40 iamthedave wrote:On May 13 2018 15:39 Kickboxer wrote:
I'd say the only possible way to balance wealth equality in currently known systems is government redistribution.
In the libertarian (conservative?) definition this equals "violence".
Providing they have some kind of moral point, the redistribution needs to be as gentle and fair as possible. This means skimming from the top and feeding the bottom, ideally, without hassle, leaks, corruption, loopholes, bloated bureaucracy, big government, unnecessary force...
At any rate oppressing/restricting your productive class has shown to be a poor strategy.
In the 21st century the only system I see accomplishing this has some kind of simple and robust progressive tax code, few restrictions on human activity overall, and an AI allocating around some type of universal basic income, or universal access to basic utilities (net/education). I think we're long off an AI being advanced enough to handle that. Let's try the simple and robust tax code first and see if that works before ushering in SKYNET. Even if we weren’t, the notion that taxation and wealth distribution is an objective problem that could be « solved » by a machine is absurd. There is no right and wrong taxation system, just a balance of interests and deep philosophical questions about justice, solidarity, individualism and freedom that each of us answers his way. As for the trope that the state is heavy and inneficient, I think anyone who has had to deal with corporate bureaucracy would agree that it’s an inherent problem to all bureaucratic institutions, whether public or private. It’s just really hard to design efficient, huge administrative machines. In all honesty, social liberal democracy works just fine. The question is whether people agree with its human and philosophical foundations. It’s not too hard to see that most of the shit middle class, rural america is in is basically self inflicted; many poor white folks who would enormously benefit a functional universal healthcare system oppose it vehemently, for example. yes, universal health care would be a great benefit to society in America. So to some extent there actually is that in the state of Minnesota, it's called MinnesotaCare & it's pretty cheap to visit the doctor if you actually break something or have "real issues" of some sort, such as a broken arm or a fractured foot bone or something of that nature. I think they are a little leery of ppl coming in for "nonsense injuries" such as a cough or a runny nose (just take sudafed). Anyways, the point is, the healthcare is supposed to be for non-trivial things that matter. Going to visit the cabin of an elderly grandparent so good healthcare is a big concern for them MinnesotaCare is Minnesota's Medicaid program. Medicaid is a CMS program that provides insurance for low-income people or those without access to coverage through an employer. Programs are administered at the state level (and states typically don't actually do much besides approve/ reimburse plans administered by private insurance companies [also note that Medicaid tends to have shittier reimbursement rates so plan choices tend to be limited]), so they're branded differently - but most of the funding is coming from the fed, with the balance provided by however the state chooses to fund it. The big difference is between states which opted for Medicaid expansion as part of the ACA, and those who didn't. Show nested quote +On May 14 2018 03:55 Rebs wrote:On May 14 2018 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 14 2018 03:11 A3th3r wrote:On May 13 2018 20:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 13 2018 16:40 iamthedave wrote:On May 13 2018 15:39 Kickboxer wrote:
I'd say the only possible way to balance wealth equality in currently known systems is government redistribution.
In the libertarian (conservative?) definition this equals "violence".
Providing they have some kind of moral point, the redistribution needs to be as gentle and fair as possible. This means skimming from the top and feeding the bottom, ideally, without hassle, leaks, corruption, loopholes, bloated bureaucracy, big government, unnecessary force...
At any rate oppressing/restricting your productive class has shown to be a poor strategy.
In the 21st century the only system I see accomplishing this has some kind of simple and robust progressive tax code, few restrictions on human activity overall, and an AI allocating around some type of universal basic income, or universal access to basic utilities (net/education). I think we're long off an AI being advanced enough to handle that. Let's try the simple and robust tax code first and see if that works before ushering in SKYNET. Even if we weren’t, the notion that taxation and wealth distribution is an objective problem that could be « solved » by a machine is absurd. There is no right and wrong taxation system, just a balance of interests and deep philosophical questions about justice, solidarity, individualism and freedom that each of us answers his way. As for the trope that the state is heavy and inneficient, I think anyone who has had to deal with corporate bureaucracy would agree that it’s an inherent problem to all bureaucratic institutions, whether public or private. It’s just really hard to design efficient, huge administrative machines. In all honesty, social liberal democracy works just fine. The question is whether people agree with its human and philosophical foundations. It’s not too hard to see that most of the shit middle class, rural america is in is basically self inflicted; many poor white folks who would enormously benefit a functional universal healthcare system oppose it vehemently, for example. yes, universal health care would be a great benefit to society in America. So to some extent there actually is that in the state of Minnesota, it's called MinnesotaCare & it's pretty cheap to visit the doctor if you actually break something or have "real issues" of some sort, such as a broken arm or a fractured foot bone or something of that nature. I think they are a little leery of ppl coming in for "nonsense injuries" such as a cough or a runny nose (just take sudafed). Anyways, the point is, the healthcare is supposed to be for non-trivial things that matter. Going to visit the cabin of an elderly grandparent so good healthcare is a big concern for them A big part of the cost saving from universal health care comes from regular medical checkups, not just going in when something feels terrible. Late-stage illnesses or issues cost a lot more to deal with than problems that are caught early. Agreed, I had to get certain tests done every few months for residency requirements because of a pneumothorax I had suffered in college. The testing was to monitor some scarring from that on my lung and was expected and also turned out to to be a nothing burger but the meticulousness (and perhaps slightly unnecessary paranoia) on the doctors part found another issue unrelated to the thing they were testing that saved me months of illness and time off work aswell as a surgery that would have hurt the tax payer way more. I think the preventative care that we have here atleast in Ontario is amazing compared to the absolute trash experiences I had in the US healthcare system, preventative care isnt even a thing. I'm going to assume that you haven't been in the US for some time, since one of the big things in the ACA was requiring all plans to cover preventative care and annual screenings.
As of 2014 I was working in DC and whatever Anthem plan I had through work had no annual screenings. Not sure if there was some exception or if I was misinformed (which strangely enough, my college health plan did). Probably the later.
Besides preventative care is a very broad term and obviously I was exaggerating, The ACA mandates alot of things, infact its very thorough, well atleast for commonish problems.
it was more a comment about how things are put into practice. I wouldnt really try to even pretend that preventative care in the US holds a candle to Canada. For anyone whose experienced both, its on a whole other level.
Lets take the TB screening for example. The process in Canada is absolutely seemless and its not just a TB screening they will go out of their way to check other things they dont really have to and thats how my issue was discovered.
It had been floating around in the US after two surgeries over 5 years thousands of dollars in Copayments because no one really gave a shit when they were doing the post OP X rays.
"We did X ray, X ray looks good. Thats all you paid for. K thanks bye See you. Oh you sick again ? Oops we missed something. Not reached your deductible yet? Lets find some more ways to make you pay first."
|
On May 14 2018 04:18 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2018 04:06 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 14 2018 03:11 A3th3r wrote:On May 13 2018 20:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 13 2018 16:40 iamthedave wrote:On May 13 2018 15:39 Kickboxer wrote:
I'd say the only possible way to balance wealth equality in currently known systems is government redistribution.
In the libertarian (conservative?) definition this equals "violence".
Providing they have some kind of moral point, the redistribution needs to be as gentle and fair as possible. This means skimming from the top and feeding the bottom, ideally, without hassle, leaks, corruption, loopholes, bloated bureaucracy, big government, unnecessary force...
At any rate oppressing/restricting your productive class has shown to be a poor strategy.
In the 21st century the only system I see accomplishing this has some kind of simple and robust progressive tax code, few restrictions on human activity overall, and an AI allocating around some type of universal basic income, or universal access to basic utilities (net/education). I think we're long off an AI being advanced enough to handle that. Let's try the simple and robust tax code first and see if that works before ushering in SKYNET. Even if we weren’t, the notion that taxation and wealth distribution is an objective problem that could be « solved » by a machine is absurd. There is no right and wrong taxation system, just a balance of interests and deep philosophical questions about justice, solidarity, individualism and freedom that each of us answers his way. As for the trope that the state is heavy and inneficient, I think anyone who has had to deal with corporate bureaucracy would agree that it’s an inherent problem to all bureaucratic institutions, whether public or private. It’s just really hard to design efficient, huge administrative machines. In all honesty, social liberal democracy works just fine. The question is whether people agree with its human and philosophical foundations. It’s not too hard to see that most of the shit middle class, rural america is in is basically self inflicted; many poor white folks who would enormously benefit a functional universal healthcare system oppose it vehemently, for example. yes, universal health care would be a great benefit to society in America. So to some extent there actually is that in the state of Minnesota, it's called MinnesotaCare & it's pretty cheap to visit the doctor if you actually break something or have "real issues" of some sort, such as a broken arm or a fractured foot bone or something of that nature. I think they are a little leery of ppl coming in for "nonsense injuries" such as a cough or a runny nose (just take sudafed). Anyways, the point is, the healthcare is supposed to be for non-trivial things that matter. Going to visit the cabin of an elderly grandparent so good healthcare is a big concern for them MinnesotaCare is Minnesota's Medicaid program. Medicaid is a CMS program that provides insurance for low-income people or those without access to coverage through an employer. Programs are administered at the state level (and states typically don't actually do much besides approve/ reimburse plans administered by private insurance companies [also note that Medicaid tends to have shittier reimbursement rates so plan choices tend to be limited]), so they're branded differently - but most of the funding is coming from the fed, with the balance provided by however the state chooses to fund it. The big difference is between states which opted for Medicaid expansion as part of the ACA, and those who didn't. On May 14 2018 03:55 Rebs wrote:On May 14 2018 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 14 2018 03:11 A3th3r wrote:On May 13 2018 20:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 13 2018 16:40 iamthedave wrote:On May 13 2018 15:39 Kickboxer wrote:
I'd say the only possible way to balance wealth equality in currently known systems is government redistribution.
In the libertarian (conservative?) definition this equals "violence".
Providing they have some kind of moral point, the redistribution needs to be as gentle and fair as possible. This means skimming from the top and feeding the bottom, ideally, without hassle, leaks, corruption, loopholes, bloated bureaucracy, big government, unnecessary force...
At any rate oppressing/restricting your productive class has shown to be a poor strategy.
In the 21st century the only system I see accomplishing this has some kind of simple and robust progressive tax code, few restrictions on human activity overall, and an AI allocating around some type of universal basic income, or universal access to basic utilities (net/education). I think we're long off an AI being advanced enough to handle that. Let's try the simple and robust tax code first and see if that works before ushering in SKYNET. Even if we weren’t, the notion that taxation and wealth distribution is an objective problem that could be « solved » by a machine is absurd. There is no right and wrong taxation system, just a balance of interests and deep philosophical questions about justice, solidarity, individualism and freedom that each of us answers his way. As for the trope that the state is heavy and inneficient, I think anyone who has had to deal with corporate bureaucracy would agree that it’s an inherent problem to all bureaucratic institutions, whether public or private. It’s just really hard to design efficient, huge administrative machines. In all honesty, social liberal democracy works just fine. The question is whether people agree with its human and philosophical foundations. It’s not too hard to see that most of the shit middle class, rural america is in is basically self inflicted; many poor white folks who would enormously benefit a functional universal healthcare system oppose it vehemently, for example. yes, universal health care would be a great benefit to society in America. So to some extent there actually is that in the state of Minnesota, it's called MinnesotaCare & it's pretty cheap to visit the doctor if you actually break something or have "real issues" of some sort, such as a broken arm or a fractured foot bone or something of that nature. I think they are a little leery of ppl coming in for "nonsense injuries" such as a cough or a runny nose (just take sudafed). Anyways, the point is, the healthcare is supposed to be for non-trivial things that matter. Going to visit the cabin of an elderly grandparent so good healthcare is a big concern for them A big part of the cost saving from universal health care comes from regular medical checkups, not just going in when something feels terrible. Late-stage illnesses or issues cost a lot more to deal with than problems that are caught early. Agreed, I had to get certain tests done every few months for residency requirements because of a pneumothorax I had suffered in college. The testing was to monitor some scarring from that on my lung and was expected and also turned out to to be a nothing burger but the meticulousness (and perhaps slightly unnecessary paranoia) on the doctors part found another issue unrelated to the thing they were testing that saved me months of illness and time off work aswell as a surgery that would have hurt the tax payer way more. I think the preventative care that we have here atleast in Ontario is amazing compared to the absolute trash experiences I had in the US healthcare system, preventative care isnt even a thing. I'm going to assume that you haven't been in the US for some time, since one of the big things in the ACA was requiring all plans to cover preventative care and annual screenings. As of 2014 I was working in DC and whatever Anthem plan I had through work had no annual screenings. Not sure if there was some exception or if I was misinformed (which strangely enough, my college health plan did). Probably the later. Besides preventative care is a very broad term and obviously I was exaggerating, The ACA mandates alot of things, infact its very thorough, well atleast for commonish problems. it was more a comment about how things are put into practice. I wouldnt really try to even pretend that preventative care in the US holds a candle to Canada. For anyone whose experienced both, its on a whole other level. Lets take the TB screening for example. The process in Canada is absolutely seemless and its not just a TB screening they will go out of their way to check other things they dont really have to and thats how my issue was discovered. It had been floating around in the US after two surgeries over 5 years because no one really gave a shit when they were doing the post OP X rays. We did X ray, X ray looks good. Thats all you paid for. See you. US insurance makes their money by extorting those who become ill.
The rest of the Western world make their money by keeping their customers healthy so they pay premiums but rarely take money out because once you get a serious illness the insurer loses a lot of money covering it.
|
On May 14 2018 04:18 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2018 04:06 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 14 2018 03:11 A3th3r wrote:On May 13 2018 20:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 13 2018 16:40 iamthedave wrote:On May 13 2018 15:39 Kickboxer wrote:
I'd say the only possible way to balance wealth equality in currently known systems is government redistribution.
In the libertarian (conservative?) definition this equals "violence".
Providing they have some kind of moral point, the redistribution needs to be as gentle and fair as possible. This means skimming from the top and feeding the bottom, ideally, without hassle, leaks, corruption, loopholes, bloated bureaucracy, big government, unnecessary force...
At any rate oppressing/restricting your productive class has shown to be a poor strategy.
In the 21st century the only system I see accomplishing this has some kind of simple and robust progressive tax code, few restrictions on human activity overall, and an AI allocating around some type of universal basic income, or universal access to basic utilities (net/education). I think we're long off an AI being advanced enough to handle that. Let's try the simple and robust tax code first and see if that works before ushering in SKYNET. Even if we weren’t, the notion that taxation and wealth distribution is an objective problem that could be « solved » by a machine is absurd. There is no right and wrong taxation system, just a balance of interests and deep philosophical questions about justice, solidarity, individualism and freedom that each of us answers his way. As for the trope that the state is heavy and inneficient, I think anyone who has had to deal with corporate bureaucracy would agree that it’s an inherent problem to all bureaucratic institutions, whether public or private. It’s just really hard to design efficient, huge administrative machines. In all honesty, social liberal democracy works just fine. The question is whether people agree with its human and philosophical foundations. It’s not too hard to see that most of the shit middle class, rural america is in is basically self inflicted; many poor white folks who would enormously benefit a functional universal healthcare system oppose it vehemently, for example. yes, universal health care would be a great benefit to society in America. So to some extent there actually is that in the state of Minnesota, it's called MinnesotaCare & it's pretty cheap to visit the doctor if you actually break something or have "real issues" of some sort, such as a broken arm or a fractured foot bone or something of that nature. I think they are a little leery of ppl coming in for "nonsense injuries" such as a cough or a runny nose (just take sudafed). Anyways, the point is, the healthcare is supposed to be for non-trivial things that matter. Going to visit the cabin of an elderly grandparent so good healthcare is a big concern for them MinnesotaCare is Minnesota's Medicaid program. Medicaid is a CMS program that provides insurance for low-income people or those without access to coverage through an employer. Programs are administered at the state level (and states typically don't actually do much besides approve/ reimburse plans administered by private insurance companies [also note that Medicaid tends to have shittier reimbursement rates so plan choices tend to be limited]), so they're branded differently - but most of the funding is coming from the fed, with the balance provided by however the state chooses to fund it. The big difference is between states which opted for Medicaid expansion as part of the ACA, and those who didn't. On May 14 2018 03:55 Rebs wrote:On May 14 2018 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 14 2018 03:11 A3th3r wrote:On May 13 2018 20:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 13 2018 16:40 iamthedave wrote:On May 13 2018 15:39 Kickboxer wrote:
I'd say the only possible way to balance wealth equality in currently known systems is government redistribution.
In the libertarian (conservative?) definition this equals "violence".
Providing they have some kind of moral point, the redistribution needs to be as gentle and fair as possible. This means skimming from the top and feeding the bottom, ideally, without hassle, leaks, corruption, loopholes, bloated bureaucracy, big government, unnecessary force...
At any rate oppressing/restricting your productive class has shown to be a poor strategy.
In the 21st century the only system I see accomplishing this has some kind of simple and robust progressive tax code, few restrictions on human activity overall, and an AI allocating around some type of universal basic income, or universal access to basic utilities (net/education). I think we're long off an AI being advanced enough to handle that. Let's try the simple and robust tax code first and see if that works before ushering in SKYNET. Even if we weren’t, the notion that taxation and wealth distribution is an objective problem that could be « solved » by a machine is absurd. There is no right and wrong taxation system, just a balance of interests and deep philosophical questions about justice, solidarity, individualism and freedom that each of us answers his way. As for the trope that the state is heavy and inneficient, I think anyone who has had to deal with corporate bureaucracy would agree that it’s an inherent problem to all bureaucratic institutions, whether public or private. It’s just really hard to design efficient, huge administrative machines. In all honesty, social liberal democracy works just fine. The question is whether people agree with its human and philosophical foundations. It’s not too hard to see that most of the shit middle class, rural america is in is basically self inflicted; many poor white folks who would enormously benefit a functional universal healthcare system oppose it vehemently, for example. yes, universal health care would be a great benefit to society in America. So to some extent there actually is that in the state of Minnesota, it's called MinnesotaCare & it's pretty cheap to visit the doctor if you actually break something or have "real issues" of some sort, such as a broken arm or a fractured foot bone or something of that nature. I think they are a little leery of ppl coming in for "nonsense injuries" such as a cough or a runny nose (just take sudafed). Anyways, the point is, the healthcare is supposed to be for non-trivial things that matter. Going to visit the cabin of an elderly grandparent so good healthcare is a big concern for them A big part of the cost saving from universal health care comes from regular medical checkups, not just going in when something feels terrible. Late-stage illnesses or issues cost a lot more to deal with than problems that are caught early. Agreed, I had to get certain tests done every few months for residency requirements because of a pneumothorax I had suffered in college. The testing was to monitor some scarring from that on my lung and was expected and also turned out to to be a nothing burger but the meticulousness (and perhaps slightly unnecessary paranoia) on the doctors part found another issue unrelated to the thing they were testing that saved me months of illness and time off work aswell as a surgery that would have hurt the tax payer way more. I think the preventative care that we have here atleast in Ontario is amazing compared to the absolute trash experiences I had in the US healthcare system, preventative care isnt even a thing. I'm going to assume that you haven't been in the US for some time, since one of the big things in the ACA was requiring all plans to cover preventative care and annual screenings. As of 2014 I was working in DC and whatever Anthem plan I had through work had no annual screenings. Not sure if there was some exception or if I was misinformed (which strangely enough, my college health plan did). Probably the later. Besides preventative care is a very broad term and obviously I was exaggerating, The ACA mandates alot of things, infact its very thorough, well atleast for commonish problems. it was more a comment about how things are put into practice. I wouldnt really try to even pretend that preventative care in the US holds a candle to Canada. For anyone whose experienced both, its on a whole other level. Lets take the TB screening for example. The process in Canada is absolutely seemless and its not just a TB screening they will go out of their way to check other things they dont really have to and thats how my issue was discovered. It had been floating around in the US after two surgeries over 5 years thousands of dollars in Copayments because no one really gave a shit when they were doing the post OP X rays. "We did X ray, X ray looks good. Thats all you paid for. K thanks bye See you. Oh you sick again ? Oops we missed something. Not reached your deductible yet? Lets find some more ways to make you pay first."
It sounds like part of the issue you ran into is that there's a trend where many hospitals are loath to run 'unnecessary' tests, since in the US insurers have been kicking the hell out of doctors who order a MRI for a patient with sniffles (an exaggeration, but you get the idea) or other things that bump against fraud, waste and abuse. Or maybe you got a shitty doctor, who knows.
Your'e completely right that Canada and most other developed nations have a more efficient healthcare system. However, while there are many problems with the US system, it's detrimental to discussion if its characteristics represented inaccurately. 
|
United States43876 Posts
Oddly enough the US government spends more per person on public healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid) than the British government does on the NHS. And Brits live longer. The US could afford to cover everyone with the NHS without raising an additional cent in taxes.
|
not odd, decentralised systems incur overhead. There's literally no point to funnel identical service provision through dozens of private insurers. It's an industry that does not add any value. For private US insurers bureaucracy makes up one-fifth of their costs IIRC. It's something like 3% for the NHS.
|
On May 14 2018 05:02 KwarK wrote:
Oddly enough the US government spends more per person on public healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid) than the British government does on the NHS. And Brits live longer. The US could afford to cover everyone with the NHS without raising an additional cent in taxes.
That's assuming that the US would have similar expenses for supplies, drugs, staff, etc, which is far from a given. Especially if pharma/medical supply companies throw enough money on political campaigns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
