Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Record Numbers of Americans Want to Leave the U.S

news.gallup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–267 of 267 posts

Re: Record Numbers of Americans Want to Leave the U.S

#261

Post by rootusrootus »

leereeves wrote: post #254
rootusrootus wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you simply see it politically, then sure. I see progress as a fairly objective goal. We may differ on how, but surely we can agree on the facts and what the definition of better is.

A policy that's objectively better for one person might be objectively worse for another. I know several people whose health insurance became worse (more expensive for less coverage) due to Obamacare.

I believe that the government should focus strictly on macro outcomes. I.e big goals, like "more people covered by medical insurance" or "average life expectancy increase", etc. It's impossible at a high level to ensure that every last person gets a better outcome.

I'd also say that if anybody really did end up with more expensive policies with worse coverage, that's a continuing fault with our insurance companies. If they were functioning correctly, then an increase in policy premium after ACA would indicate that the consumer was not accurately assessing their own risk previously and thought their coverage was far more extensive than in reality. I haven't yet found an actual example of someone who really did get less coverage that cost more. Inevitably they are comparing an old plan that had basically no actual, effective coverage to one with far fewer loopholes.

Re: Record Numbers of Americans Want to Leave the U.S

#262

Post by AnthonyMouse »

baumandm wrote: post #223
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "subscribe to a service that would independently validate pharmacies" (meaning everything on the shelf at the pharmacy), validating schools, etc all comes down to recreating work that the govt does That's kind of the point. If the government is doing a crappy job and you can get your money back, go take it to someone else who can do a better job. Maybe even your state or local government instead of the feds. > and…

The idea that we can just take our tax dollars elsewhere and get better outcomes for less money doesn't seem realistic to me. At worst, these essential services just fall apart because not enough people would be willing to spend their tax refund on them. At best, we'll end up with the same thing because corporations are greedy and there's not really a good reason to have competition in pharmaceutical oversight. Do yo…

> At worst, these essential services just fall apart because not enough people would be willing to spend their tax refund on them.

That would imply that these "essential services" are worth less to people than the cost it takes to provide them. Especially when the primary customers for such a service would be doctors, so the typical patient wouldn't even have it as an independent cost separate from the doctor's visit.

> At best, we'll end up with the same thing because corporations are greedy and there's not really a good reason to have competition in pharmaceutical oversight.

Why would you not expect competition? We don't have a monopoly provider for credit reporting or product reviews.

> Do you really want to have to shop around for a service that tells you which drugs are safe?

Do you really want to not be able to? What happens when the FDA approves Vioxx or the dozens of other drugs they've approved, often on the market for decades, that will give you a heart attack or liver damage or cancer or birth defects?

Or even worse (since you can't opt-out), when they fail the other way and don't approve the only drug that would save your life?

Re: Record Numbers of Americans Want to Leave the U.S

#263

Post by kortilla »

rootusrootus wrote: post #200
kortilla wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>with recent evidence suggesting that a good chunk, say half, of the population has no interest in progressing. Has it crossed your mind that this half might not see what you want as progress but instead destructive?

If you simply see it politically, then sure. I see progress as a fairly objective goal. We may differ on how, but surely we can agree on the facts and what the definition of better is.

I see using nuclear to the fullest extent possible to displace all coal, gas, and wind generation as progress.

This view is directly at odds with the “progressive party” in the US that is convinced the only way forward is prayers that we will come up with an energy storage solution to make up for the instability of wind/solar while continuing to allow nat gas and coal in the interim while climate change marches on.

In my views, every time the government increases taxes and starts more individual and corporate welfare programs, that is the opposite of progress because it’s very rare that the government executes something effectively with self sustaining income.

Cap and trade is progress. Random bans on industries are not. And on and on.

So yes, we can certainly agree on facts, but I don’t think many people can agree on what the definition of better is because that’s definitely subjective.

Cortez and Sanders were elected on socialist platforms and they want nothing but massive government expansion of welfare programs that they see as “progress” and “better”. Their proposals so far have massive funding flaws and/or are ripe to fail in a short period of time (in my view) so I don’t see them pushing progress or anything better.

Re: Record Numbers of Americans Want to Leave the U.S

#264

Post by kortilla »

rootusrootus wrote: post #261
leereeves wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A policy that's objectively better for one person might be objectively worse for another. I know several people whose health insurance became worse (more expensive for less coverage) due to Obamacare.

I believe that the government should focus strictly on macro outcomes. I.e big goals, like "more people covered by medical insurance" or "average life expectancy increase", etc. It's impossible at a high level to ensure that every last person gets a better outcome. I'd also say that if anybody really did end up with more expensive policies with worse coverage, that's a continuing fault with our insurance companies. I…

>I'd also say that if anybody really did end up with more expensive policies with worse coverage, that's a continuing fault with our insurance companies. If they were functioning correctly, then an increase in policy premium after ACA would indicate that the consumer was not accurately assessing their own risk previously

Nope, it means that the risk pools changed and now everyone has to pay significantly more because they are paying for people with existing conditions. The only people that didn’t end up paying more are the ones who receive subsidies they didn’t previously.

The old plans were better if you didn’t have a condition because you were pooled with cheaper people to care for. Loophole reduction only plays a small part in that.

ACA changed health insurance from being insurance into a country-wide health program for already sick people. Insurance is a terrible vehicle for that. It was a horrible compromise and single payer would have been worlds better once you’re already down the path of that level of government intervention.

Re: Record Numbers of Americans Want to Leave the U.S

#265

Post by kortilla »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #260
the_watcher wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Progressive (when used in the context of taxes), does not mean this. It means that contribution increases progressively with income. What you are describing are redistributionary taxes. A flat tax of 10% on all incomes could still redistribute all of what the rich pay to the poor.

> Progressive (when used in the context of taxes), does not mean this. It means that contribution increases progressively with income. That is the same thing once you account for where the tax money goes, which it is unreasonable not to do. For example, if you have a 25% tax that pays for a $10,000 UBI, there is a single marginal rate but the tax system is progressive because the effective rate is a curve. Someone at…

Counting in lifespans is pretty senseless though. If your beef is with that then it would be much more effective to charge women more for social security than men. Smokers should get a social security discount along with obese people. Use actuarial tables from life insurance companies if you want it to be fair based on what people are expected to get out of it. Finally, the rich don’t really outlive the middle class by enough of a factor to matter (especially compared to the ones above).

Re: Record Numbers of Americans Want to Leave the U.S

#266

Post by RhysU »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #158
kortilla wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s paid out based on how much you contributed. Flat rate doesn’t mean everyone pays the same thing, it means same percentage.

That's the problem. Progressive means taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It's possible to do that with flat taxes when they pay for a uniform benefit, so everyone pays 20% and everyone receives $10,000, because paying 20% is $50,000 for someone with a lot and $5000 for someone with a little. Social security doesn't do that. The rich get back everything they put in. Or more when you were forced to put money…

> The rich get back everything they put in.

Source?

Re: Record Numbers of Americans Want to Leave the U.S

#267

Post by uncoder0 »

omegaworks wrote: post #91
uncoder0 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really need to address the absolute cost of healthcare in this country before we can make any progress on nationalizing any portion of it. The pure costs are outrageous. We spend ~$10,000 per capita in 2017 vs ~$6,000 in Norway which has a similar per capita GDP. (PPP adjusted https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-... )

Absolutely, and that's one of the rationales for incentive changes enacted under ACA. Before ACA, health systems were incentivized fee-for-service, not outcomes based. Under ACA we shifted to try to offer Americans options for preventative care, to avoid the extreme costs of emergency services. According to the same site[1] cost growth has come down as more people take advantage of their coverage. 1. https://www.heal…

Yeah I was definitely hoping for a more aggressive overhaul in the cost side than what we saw with ACA but, it seemed to play out in typical DC fashion once the lobbyists got their teeth into it.
Post reply on HN