We share good ideas and conversation here.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
jadedog's profile
jadedog




stats
following: 34
followed tags: 5
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 4
member for: 381 days
style: normal



comments 6

I saw this yesterday at Reddit and was annoyed when I read it.

The government could be sending pre-filled forms where they have to show their hand instead of making taxpayers guess what was sent in. That would eliminate the guesswork of collecting paperwork to substantiate an item that they already know about and you're fine with.

The tax preparation companies can't even come up with a good reason that it would be bad for the taxpayer.

To add more insult, 70% of taxpayers are eligible to prepare their taxes for free under an existing government program, but only 2% have used it. Most don't know about it or don't want to take the chance of getting it wrong. If the government sent pre-filled tax forms, that wouldn't even be an issue.

It looks like the author is making a call to arms that this is the breaking point moment that everyone knew was coming.

    It might feel as though we're going over old ground here, and we are. Microsoft just keeps letting us (and you) down, time and time and time again.

    It's time for things to change, but will Microsoft listen?

Maybe people will get fed up. But it's more likely to happen if there's one big problem instead of many tiny niggling problems.

    So if it was up to me, children would be covered until 18 at least with a CHIPS-type program. It's a moral obligation to take care of those who can't take care of themselves for me. That would still leave the market to develop solutions and provide other options (which I don't think will look similarly to what we do now; it's unsustainable).

If the ACA was not sustainable, then Trumpcare as drafted so far will also be unsustainable. They're basically the same system. The only difference is in the amount of tax credit and how much the insurance companies can charge.

In this video , rep. Tim Ryan says that in Ohio, the head of the Ohio hospital association says that 1 million people may lose their coverage under the new Trumpcare as drafted at this point and 25% of hospitals will close.

If it's unsustainable to have insurers pull out of the market, it will be less sustainable not to have hospitals to give care at all.

Looking at a study the GAO did that was released in 2013, the factors of the growth of health care costs are the aging population, more people seeking health care under the new insurance programs and technological advancements in health care.

    Federal health care spending is expected to continue growing faster than the economy. In the near term, this is driven by increasing enrollment in federal health care programs due to the aging of the population and expanded eligibility. Over the longer term, excess cost growth (the extent to which growth of health care spending per capita exceeds growth of income per capita) is a key driver. Slowing the rate of health care cost growth would help put the budget on a more sustainable path. There is general agreement that technological advancement has been the key factor in health care cost growth in the past, along with the effects of expanding health insurance coverage and increasing income, but there is considerable uncertainty about the magnitude of the impact that the different factors will have on future health care cost growth.

Neither the ACA nor the proposed Trumpcare plan touches on these issues.

Hoping the market would develop solutions on its own when the healthcare industry is a monopoly is unrealistic. There's no incentive for the market forces to work.

The similarity of health care to Comcast is that they're both monopolies. The difference is that people can walk away from their internet service. People cannot walk away from health care. Their lives literally depend on it.

    I don't think the government is my friend. I think they are in the pockets of a lot of people. I think that if I can remove them from my life as much as possible it increases my liability and risk personally, but that is a cost I am willing to pay. So I don't want them in healthcare.

I'm curious how far you go with this philosophy. In this video , Obama talks with Bill Maher (could Bill Maher be any more in love with Obama?) about all the ways that government has socialized a number of institutions. Schools, prisons, retirement (social security) and elder health care (medicare) are some examples. Are you willing to allow the privatization of schools and prison? As Obama notes, if prisons are privatized, there will be a bigger incentive to incarcerate people. If schools are privatized, the rich will become the only people who can afford going to school, creating an elite class and an uneducated one.

Are you in favor of privatizing schools and prisons?

You mentioned single payer health care which is basically government sponsored health care. Are you in favor of single payer health care? If so, wouldn't this be more government intervention, not less?

    The ACA was a mess, and the experiment failed. Costs went up, way up. Certainly there were more people covered, but in one of the only analyses of multiple streams of information and not just a survey, Goldman Sachs came to the conclusion that there were 17 million people insured by 2015. But, of those 17 million, 11 million were gains from the expansion of medicare. 2 more million were from aging into medicare. 3 million were the ones who actually purchased insurance that didn't have it before.

I'm trying to process your argument first. Your article talks about health care costs rising.

    Prices for medicine, doctor appointments and health insurance rose the most last month since 1984.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure that ACA only dealt with the insurance part of it. The medicine costs and the doctor costs aren't regulated. Because of those rising costs, the insurance piece of it goes up.

In some ways, it may be because of the ACA that the costs went up. If more people have access to doctors, then more people went to the doctor and got medicine. If many of those people were sicker than anticipated, that might have driven up the costs of medicine and doctor's visits on an aggregate basis.

But then wouldn't that be a success for the ACA since those people are now going to the doctor when they wouldn't have? I'll grant you that I'm making up a scenario that neither of us can prove based on your data, but I don't think it can be shown that's not what happened either from this limited data.

    Goldman Sachs came to the conclusion that there were 17 million people insured by 2015. But, of those 17 million, 11 million were gains from the expansion of medicare. 2 more million were from aging into medicare. 3 million were the ones who actually purchased insurance that didn't have it before.

I didn't look at your data because Forbes has a script I don't want to pass. But I did look up more data sets to see if I could find other data.

Here's some from Urban Institute. as reported in CNN Money:

    Obamacare has made it easier for Americans to access health care when necessary. The share of adults who said they had to skip going to the doctor because of costs dropped by nearly 19% between 2013 and 2015, according to a new Commonwealth Fund report.

    Also, the Urban Institute issued a report Wednesday that found 4.4 million children could lose their coverage if Congress repeals but doesn't replace Obamacare. Some 88% of these children would be in families with working parents, and 54% would be white.

    The number of uninsured parents would rise by 7.6 million, with nearly 86% of them in families with at least one person working part time or full time.

    A total of nearly 30 million people would become uninsured if lawmakers repeal but don't replace Obamacare, according to Urban Institute. The repeal would do away with not only the individual exchanges, but also other provisions such as Medicaid expansion and letting children stay on their parents' health plan until age 26.

It's from an article from December 2016 in CNN Money.

According to the Urban Institue, 7.6 million parents could be uninsured, 4.4 million children and 30 million people total including the Medicaid expansion.

    So how many people who had pre-existing conditions and couldn't get insurance before actually got it as a result of ACA?

I'm not sure how your question about how many people have pre-existing conditions is relevant. Whether someone couldn't get insurance before because of cost or because of pre-existing conditions doesn't make much of a difference. They're still not covered and couldn't get insurance if the ACA is repealed.

Interestingly, the proposed plan leaves pre-existing conditions, so the estimates of people who could lose coverage are those people who can't afford it, presumably.

Edit: Just saw this . In a video by CBS News, the Brookings Institution estimates 15 million may lose coverage under Trumpcare as proposed at this point on 3/10/17.

jadedog  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: Second attempt at painting

Very nice!

I like the colors in the third picture of the vase with the flowers.

How did you pick the colors if you can't see them?

Was glad to see that at Reddit today and was just about to post it. When I read the original article, I thought people had lost their minds and was losing faith in humanity. Faith restored for the moment.

    Dems are going to lose 5-7 Senate Seats and at least two governors in 2018. They are going to lose at least one more statehouse. And come 2020 when it is time for the Census and redistricting, you will cry in vain for the shitshow we have now compared to what is coming.

I'm curious where this information is from. I was just watching a Rachel Maddow piece where she says that Democrats are coming out of the woodwork to run for office in places where Republicans went unchallenged in the past. It's toward the end of this video.

Democrats See New Zeal Among New Candidates Rachel Maddow

I'm wondering if this information is already in your estimate.

jadedog  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: Thought Experiment

I did a search on colorblindness and art to see how other people who are colorblind do art. I didn't find anything that caught my attention, but I found this article that I thought was interesting.

A Cure for Colorblindess

If there was a cure, would you take it?

jadedog  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: Surprise!

I click nothing that says surprise in it. Maybe I'm learning something from the internet.

jadedog  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: Thought Experiment

I'm not understanding the exercise/challenge, but I'm pretty sure there are more colors than just black, blue and yellow. On my monitor, I see green and red, in varying shades turning to orange in some places.

What colors of the acrylic paint did you use?

Oh. As I'm reading this again, I'm thinking that your challenge was to try to harmonize colors without seeing them? Is that the challenge?

Based on my reading of the article, he's obscuring the issue. The hypocrisy of the democrats isn't his issue. Both the democrats and republicans have switched positions on a multitude of issues based on who was in the President's seat.

The issue for him is:

    The reality is that whistleblowers are a very valuable part of our democracy. They should be cherished and heralded and protected, regardless of which party controls the White House.

He wants whistleblowers who leak information to be heralded as heroes. He's in self-exile because of his participation in exposing some leaks and defending those people who leak information.

From that short article, he doesn't make it clear how sensitive information could be or should be protected and whether any country could be in danger from leaked information.

jadedog  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: 3 Questions with @Cedar

Thanks for the message.

You sound like a nice guy in your sound clip. I'm not surprised. You sound like a nice guy in your writing here as well.

I learned a new word from you. I didn't know what misophonia was. Thanks.

posts and shares 2/5