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

No One Goes There Anymore

noonegoesthereanymore.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 322 posts

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#191

Post by lotsofpulp »

Retric wrote: post #158
lotsofpulp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US government healthcare spend is huge, it is not tiny compared to military. $1.1T according to this source in fiscal year 2018: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-much-does-... This website states in 2018, the federal government spent $582B on Medicare, and $389B on Medicaid, plus all the tax exemption for employer sponsored health insurance and ACA subsidies to individual buyers, etc. https://www.the…

That 630B ish is figure is more spin than reality. Excluding say the coast guard is reasonable if you’re talking offensive military capacity but “Defense” should reasonably include CIA, NSA, border security, and anti terrorism expenditures etc. Further, related pensions and VA benefits are clearly part of the overall defense budget. Exact interest on past military spending is arguable, but those bills still need to b…

No matter how you cut, a very large portion of taxes paid goes towards healthcare. 30% for social security, 30% minimum for healthcare. Military and interest costs therefore are clearly not the bigger portions of spending.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305...

> The government expects to spend $4.829 trillion in 2021.1 Almost 60% of that pays for mandated benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

> Social Security will be the biggest expense, budgeted at $1.151 trillion. It's followed by Medicare at $722 billion and Medicaid at $448 billion.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#192

Post by TLightful »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #178
jerome-jh wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From this side of the Altantic, it looks like the US economy is organized so that the lower working class only earns just enough to live. No wonder they are homeless when illness, disability or bad luck strikes. I am not implying this applies to OP.

I worked at an international company where we frequently had employees from other countries visit the US for a while. Some even chose to relocate to the US. These were almost all technical people, raised on the Internet, social media, and discussions in comment sections. It was fascinating to see how bad they expected America to be according to Internet comments and news articles. Many of them were shocked to realize…

Wouldn't touch the USA with my worst enemies barge pole.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#193

Post by rayiner »

sandworm101 wrote: post #104
lifeformed wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you say hundreds of billions of dollars isn't worth taking about, compared to trillions. $150B is 15% of $1T, a sizable chunk. And the total income of US billionaires being just $130B doesn't quite capture the complete picture, when their combined wealth is in the trillions, and their assets keep growing.

>> when their combined wealth is in the trillions, and their assets keep growing. Because capital gains, ironically, do not apply to gains in capital assets. They have to "realize" the gains as "income", usually by selling the asset. So a millionaire (stockholder) can become a billionaire without ever paying a cent in capital gains tax. Only when they sell the stock is it subject to taxation. This allows them to pay…

Why do you care how much paper money someone has? As you recognize, they can’t do anything with that—buy houses, yachts, lobbyists, etc.—without realizing the gains. So why does it matter what they are worth in paper?

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#194

Post by metalliqaz »

ido wrote: post #184
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at an international company where we frequently had employees from other countries visit the US for a while. Some even chose to relocate to the US. These were almost all technical people, raised on the Internet, social media, and discussions in comment sections. It was fascinating to see how bad they expected America to be according to Internet comments and news articles. Many of them were shocked to realize…

I don't buy it, due to first-hand & second-hand experiences of friends and relatives I have in the US. Let me give you one example: my friend(and at the time business partner)'s wife got cancer in the US. It was fairly "mundane"/common cancer that got treated and everything was alright at the end. He was working as a software developer (normal employee, not self-employed - our venture was a side project) with the afo…

Yep.

That's because in Germany, "healthcare" is about caring for your health.

In the US "healthcare" is about keeping laborers productive. Anyone who can generate value for capital will get the care they need to remain productive. When the cost of that care exceeds the value they generate, they are not covered. Public assistance programs are really just the bare minimum that is necessary to keep the following QOL issues from popping up in view of the upper class: homeless overrunning the streets, shantytowns and slums, rioting, black markets.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#195

Post by lonelappde »

sokoloff wrote: post #169
fhars wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, yes, the good old supply and demand theory of health: if you can‘t pay for your healthcare, you obviously have no need for it, because needs are only things you are willing and able to pay for.

It’s more like “if the cost to serve a broad population P is $X, I don’t think it’s screwing them to say ‘the price cannot be lower than $X’ because we are a health insurance company, not a charity.” I think you’re arguing that perhaps health outcomes should not be funded by private for-profit insurance companies and I’d agree, but while it is, this outcome seems grounded in actuarially sound math.

How is charging X more for Y's behavior not screwing X?

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#196

Post by duckMuppet »

magicalhippo wrote: post #30

When I see about half my paycheck going to taxes it feels a bit rough. But then I think of stories like this, and how easily it could have been me with an illness requiring expensive medical treatment and possibly preventing me from working regular jobs. And so I pay my tax with pleasure, knowing that if something were to happen to me or my fellow citizen, at least there wouldn't be millions of dollars in hospital bi…

https://www.econtalk.org/vanessa-williamson-on-taxes-and-rea...

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#197

Post by JohnBooty »

knorker wrote: post #173
Smaug123 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll quote Doreen from elsewhere in this thread: > I didn't get a diagnosis until my kids were like 11 and 14, I think. I didn't have to think about that aspect, in part because my first child was the result of failed birth control.

Ah, yeah that adds information (not in the article) to this case. But note that I have downvotes on my comment. I'm not surprised. I think I'm being respectful here, but people take as a personal attack when the choice to have biological children is in any way questioned. So this woman did not have that information available to her at the time. Like I said I know people that did.

Yeah, questioning peoples' biological choices is pretty bad stuff and you should avoid it.

I understand the concern over somebody with a hereditable condition "maliciously" reproducing. That would certainly be pretty bad.

What's also pretty bad is assuming that the author did such a thing, or feeling that the author owed you an explanation.

I'm childfree; pretty much the opposite of some kind of rabid "everybody should have kids!" breeder type.

But my default reaction to somebody having a child is that it was some kind of reasoned choice on their behalf and that they don't need to justify themselves to me. Especially after the fact. Where is the logic or humanity in questioning the value of having a child once the child already exists?

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#198

Post by LudwigNagasena »

mthoms wrote: post #100
exabrial wrote: post #66

> While homeless, my sons and I routinely tried to find out-of-the-way public tables. Food at restaurants is marked up thousands of percent to cover costs of buildings, rent, power, human capital. The raw materials to make your food are pennies and are available to the average consumer. This is straight BS. There -are- people that truly have issues that lead them to a homeless condition, but this person is not one of…

>There -are- people that truly have issues that lead them to a homeless condition, but this person is not one of them Interesting that you determined all that from reading a single blog post and have no ideal what her diagnosis is. Very classy.

Constantly eating out would cost me as much or maybe more than my rent. So I can relate to the feeling of this coming off as a rant of a crazy person with self-image issues.

Re: No One Goes There Anymore

#200

Post by [deleted] »

ryandrake wrote: post #117
imjustsaying wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was wondering this as well. I couldn't find the thesis and for a moment I wondered if this was posted as an example of an AI-generated post.

I read the whole thing and can’t figure it out either. Maybe there isn’t supposed to be a point. Just stream-of-consciousness words on a blog. Performance art? When the first thing someone tells me upon meeting me is that they have a medical condition, I think “uh oh, heeeere we go.” First of all, it’s none of my business. Second, why do you want me to know this? What am I supposed to do with that information? Is thi…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN