How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness • Hacker News Board

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#161

Post by cryptarch » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 7:28 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #113

Joof wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hasn't worked for single payer healthcare yet. Nobody brings up that almost every other country's government pays less than the US.

If you're a wealthy person anywhere in the world and you have a really terrible disease you're probably going to come to the US to get care. Why? Because we have the highest quality healthcare in the world. There's a reason why there was some mild drama over Danny Williams (Premier of Canadian province) hopped the border to have heart surgery in the US. We're the best. What we lack is healthcare access for the poor.…

The US does not have a monopoly on high quality health care, and what use are the best experts if they're too expensive? It's not like you can have your pick of the US top experts as long as you're insured in the US.

I live in the Netherlands and our healthcare system is pretty damned good. I pay €92 (~100 USD) a month for my healthcare plan, which covers most anything (I only sometimes have to pay ~€50 for dental checkups out of pocket, but dental/jaw surgery is insured again). It even covers eyewear and contraceptives!

Our population is healthier, which probably helps keep costs down. I do wish our air quality was better, but there was only 10km's of road left that did not fulfill the EU maximum emission goals in 2015.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#162

Post by ProAm » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 7:28 PM UTC

organsnyder wrote: post #146

ProAm wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, that's like asking a scientist to collect false facts and report on it every year? Is that still good science? No. Will the scientist still get funding and look like he is doing something meaningful? Yes. Is society better off because of his work? No.

They're not "false facts". We're interested in the change of the metric from year to year. Unless there are other factors gaming the statistics, the change over time is valid and useful.

> Unless there are other factors gaming the statistics

Would you not consider people who gave up looking for work because they cannot find employment as unemployed?

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#163

Post by rhizome » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 7:30 PM UTC

organsnyder wrote: post #36

ProAm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So its like the US unemployment rate?

When was the US unemployment rate definition changed? I know there are debates around whether the rate we normally talk about is the most important indicator, but the definition has remained the same for decades, AFAIK.

1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey#1994...

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#164

Post by ryanwaggoner » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 7:31 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #115

tn13 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> . The US has known for at least a decade that spending more on IRS agents would earn more money than it would cost. Isn't that proven to be a mostly false notion? Lower taxes tend to bring in more revenue and create more employment.

> Lower taxes tend to bring in more revenue and create more employment. Two responses: 1) A bit of an irrelevant point, since we're not talking about RAISING taxes, we're talking about collecting taxes that are due under current rules. (You can argue that's an effective tax increase, but I doubt people/companies that aren't following the rules are a good basis for policy - with lower taxes they'll still cheat) 2) But…

Our top marginal rate is 39.4%, not 38. And that's only Federal income tax. Add in 3.8% Medicare and top marginal rates at the state / city level approaching 15% for some locations and top marginal income tax rate on earned income approaches 60% for some (wealthy) individuals. Not to mention sales tax, property tax, capital gains, etc.

Whether that's too high or too low is a separate discussion. But saying we're at 38% just isn't true.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#165

Post by cryptarch » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 7:31 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #158

DanBC wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? Because we have the highest quality healthcare in the world. If we ignore the fact that the US is in the 10 OECD nations with lowest life expectancy. There's a bunch of over-testing, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment in the US. These make customers feel like they're getting good service, even though they're being harmed by it.

>If we ignore the fact that the US is in the 10 OECD nations with lowest life expectancy. We have among the lowest life expectancy because we have among the highest obesity. That has almost nothing to do with healthcare access. >There's a bunch of over-testing, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment in the US. These make customers feel like they're getting good service, even though they're being harmed by it. If you real…

Do you think obesity is not significantly increased by overmedication?

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#166

Post by opo » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 7:31 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #136

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appreciate the response and POV. Based on the info you shared here, I think you're someone who could definitely work with more left-leaning people to find common ground, which is sadly missing from the people actually making decisions. My question would be: without government intervention, what incentive do mega corporations have to allow unions to continue? What prevents them from making their own rules, which preve…

It's noting that a significant factor in the creation of US-style right-wing libertarianism was an attempt by economically right-wing individualists to straddle the political left-wing gap by reaching out to left-libertarians on shared issues (left wing libertarianism pre-dates right-wing libertarianism by almost a century). E.g. Rothbard being a prominent example, with his "Left and Right - A Journal of Libertarian…

No, it more accurate to say that the "Left and Right - A Journal of Libertarian Thought" was an attempt by libertarians to highlight the fact that the one dimensional left/right line is obviously a very incomplete model of political thought. As your link quotes from the opening editorial:

"Our title, Left and Right, reflects our concerns in several ways. It reveals our editorial concern with the ideological; and it also highlights our conviction that the present-day categories of left and right have become misleading and obsolete, and that the doctrine of liberty contains elements corresponding with both contemporary left and right. This means in no sense that we are middle-of-the-roaders, eclectically trying to combine, or step between, both poles; but rather that a consistent view of liberty includes concepts that have also become part of the rhetoric or program of right and of left. Hence a creative approach to liberty must transcend the confines of contemporary political shibboleths."

Those who talk about "US-style right-wing libertarianism" should realize that this is a too simplistic label as Rothbard tried to say decades ago. For example:

• not only has the libertarian party always supported gay marriage but the first presidential candidate was an openly gay man

• libertarians are opposed to the war on drugs

• libertarians opposed the Viet Nam war

• libertarians generally favor regulated legalized prostitution

etc etc etc

Whatever "right wing" is supposed to mean, I doubt it means these positions.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#167

Post by Tenhundfeld » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 7:33 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #151

Tenhundfeld wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, the US has many of the leading (highest quality) medical specialists, which you would expect from the richest country with the best research university system. That does not mean the US has the highest quality healthcare in terms of health outcomes for the population. If anyone reading this believes we (the US) have the highest quality health outcomes, please do some research with an open mind. We're not ter…

> For example, IIRC, we're quite middling/mediocre in life expectancy, infant mortality, heart attack mortality, % of diabetics with managed care, efficiency of spend, etc. Life expectancy, infant mortality, and heart attack mortality are directly related to our culture more than access to health care. Go look at our obesity rates. Do you think not having to pay a copay to go to a doctor would fix that?

OK, I'm done debating this with you.

You seem to have an unfalisfiable belief that our mediocre health outcomes are due to problems in our general culture. In other words, all of the good outcomes are due to us having the highest quality healthcare, and all of the bad outcomes are due to culture.

I disagree. I believe that a) our healthcare system is part of our general culture and b) deficiencies in our healthcare system contribute to our health outcomes.

I don't think we'll bridge that gap in the HN comment section. Have a great weekend. Cheers.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#168

Post by Jach » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 7:33 PM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #106

NewCathargo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the best argument for UBI I've heard yet. It gives people an option to "exit" shitty societies. Unfortunately you'll find a good portion being spent on 20th century drugs, which suck immensely. But if the people in power are willing to take that risk, then it might be a positive thing. One glaring flaw is that humans are a social species and calculate rank and favors and grudges almost autonomously. Receiving…

>Unfortunately you'll find a good portion being spent on 20th century drugs, which suck immensely. There's the hardest part about UBI. Its the same thing that makes our welfare systems so awful right now as well. The terrible fear that if we give people money... they might spend it on stuff we don't think they should .

It's not even a fear: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21... (and https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/economic/conf/gr...) The overwhelming majority of prime-age men on welfare spend most of their time on consuming multimedia, doped up on pain medication like Oxycontin. As beautiful as I personally find the ideal of letting people be free from economic concern beyond their basics (if they want more they can get a job) and free to pursue inexpensive but time-consuming creative passions and work on bettering themselves (it's my own dream I aim to achieve by becoming effectively retired in my early 30s), it's not a realistic outcome for most and can't be used as the basis of argument for why the working class should thus support people whose first complaint against work is simply lack of desire.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#169

Post by cryptarch » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 7:37 PM UTC

st3v3r wrote: post #56

douche wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was very disappointed that ordinances to restrict panhandling in medians were overturned in Portland, ME in recent years. There's no need of that. If you are willing to work, there is always work to be done for a decent wage, (although possibly less than the absurd level minimum wage has climbed to).

Anyone who claims the minimum wage level is absurd has clearly never tried to live on it.

Are any of housing, hygeine products, food, clothing , transportation or internet expensive, or is it just healthcare costs that are out of control?

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#170

Post by ergothus » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 7:37 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #128

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appreciate the response and POV. Based on the info you shared here, I think you're someone who could definitely work with more left-leaning people to find common ground, which is sadly missing from the people actually making decisions. My question would be: without government intervention, what incentive do mega corporations have to allow unions to continue? What prevents them from making their own rules, which preve…

Without government intervention it would be harder for mega corporations to exist in the first place. The broadest example is how insane our patent and copyright laws are right now. I do support monopoly laws and think we don't drop that hammer nearly enough.

I'm not quite sure I follow...You're saying the govt should break up monopolies more (I agree), but without the govt we'd have fewer monopolies?

So far as I know, pure free-market capitalism always tends towards monopolies or oligarchies absent some level of intervention. It is simply too hard to be a well-informed consumer, and we consumers prioritize our short term convenience over societies (or even just our own) long term benefit.