Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 271: Two Turds With One Stone

(+) Yeah! (+)

I suppose I have a renewed anger at Hillary when I realize the reason she has been sniping at Bernie recently may be due to the fact that Bloomberg was considering her for VP. Not sure how true those rumors are but it wouldn't surprise me if that was coordinated.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

1. The people with the most relevant expertise to analyze this are economists, not doctors.
2. If everything you say is 100% true and electing Bernie is going to save tens of thousands of lives and you see people getting turned off by mean tweets, would it not logically follow that, I don't know, these people not being a dick to everybody who disagrees with them? After all, it's saving lives!
I've been clear that I think there is massive risk in transitioning to M4A. It's an extremely complex task with a ton of potential for unintended consequences, and nothing that Bernie has done has convinced me that he can bring those risks down to a low enough level to justify it.

LOTM, I get the feeling that you didn't study economics in college. I did. There's a big difference between how models are tested in economics and in hard sciences. In hard sciences, it's regarded as critical that the experiment that tests the model comes after the model, and is replicable. In economics, especially macroeconomics, it often isn't possible to construct experiments capable of testing models and so they are "tested" with past data. Which means there is a huge danger of overfitting.

If you already know the data you need to explain, and you are trying to construct a model that makes sense intuitively and fits the data, that is a lot easier than constructing a model that can predict data you haven't seen yet. And it's even harder to make that replicable (so I can't just run a gazillion experiments until one of them fits one of my models purely from luck).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://www.people-press.org/2016/07/14/ voters-perceptions-of-the-candidates-traits-ideology-and-impact-on-issues/ (remove space)

Under "Perceptions of the candidates' ideologies"
It's probably not true anymore, but it absolutely was during the 2016 election.

What are you even talking about? It says 55% view Trump as extreme to 19% as Clinton.

That narrative isn't changed just because they couldn't decide how extreme he was in which direction. "Confused if liberal mixed or conservative" lol.

42% of Republicans felt Trump was extreme. Number is obviously over 60%for Dems because he is at 55% combined.

People thought Bernie was more extreme than Hillary also. Go figure.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I suppose I have a renewed anger at Hillary when I realize the reason she has been sniping at Bernie recently may be due to the fact that Bloomberg was considering her for VP. Not sure how true those rumors are but it wouldn't surprise me if that was coordinated.

Zero chance. Bloomberg probably floated that because he thought it could gain him some support, but without some questionable change of residency bullshit they literally can't even run together (electors can't vote for two people from the same state for both president and vice president, and both Bloomberg and Hillary are from NY).

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I suppose I have a renewed anger at Hillary when I realize the reason she has been sniping at Bernie recently may be due to the fact that Bloomberg was considering her for VP. Not sure how true those rumors are but it wouldn't surprise me if that was coordinated.

I'm willing to go on a limb here and say there's a 0% chance this is the case.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

There were multiple posters whose names I won't mention Lopen who frequented this topic during the 2016 election and kept telling Hillary supporters that they were being ridiculous and to stop freaking out because there's no way Trump would be that bad if he won.

lol

He wasn't that bad. Unfortunately Chris among you is the only one who can admit it under your he is evil shtick.

Remember you all were running for the border cuz this country would be a dumpster fire and the next Holocaust was gonna happen or some shit.

Here we are 3.5 years later with no new wars, leaving Afghanistan, no crazy dumpster fire, economy roaring, etc.

(Oh the funniest shit was the people freaking out to sell in the stock market cuz Trump won. Wonder how much money they lost lol.)


---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I suppose I have a renewed anger at Hillary when I realize the reason she has been sniping at Bernie recently may be due to the fact that Bloomberg was considering her for VP. Not sure how true those rumors are but it wouldn't surprise me if that was coordinated.

It's why Bloomberg was considering moving his home state lol.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Can't forget the media deciding that they needed to balance all of Trump's scandals put together with Hillary's fucking emails because god forbid someone baselessly accuse them of being biased for covering the scandals of the guy with a thousand of them just a little bit more.

https://i.imgur.com/CxCQq5t.mp4

Literally this except it's not a joke and it happened

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I suppose I have a renewed anger at Hillary when I realize the reason she has been sniping at Bernie recently may be due to the fact that Bloomberg was considering her for VP. Not sure how true those rumors are but it wouldn't surprise me if that was coordinated.

I was disappointed in her over this. You're not even running and Trump is in office. Stop being over petty over a candidate who campaigned hard for you back in 2016.

Think hell freezes over before Bloomberg makes her his VP though.

---

https://twitter.com/abbydphillip/status/1230985873979854848?s=21

The timing on this is just *chefs kiss* perfect.

---

Bernie Sanders has no chill and I love him.

---

I especially appreciate how days after media outlets denied that Bernie's claim that his toxic online people might be caused by Russians (and I agreed with them that Bernie was incorrect)...they release a news story saying his campaign may be being helped by Russians. Fair and balanced!

---

KamikazePotato posted...

I especially appreciate how days after media outlets denied that Bernie's claim that his toxic online people might be caused by Russians (and I agreed with them that Bernie was incorrect)...they release a news story saying his campaign may be being helped by Russians. Fair and balanced!

KP, did you see the article that the donors are afraid to mess with Bernie because they think it will just make him raise more money than they are willing to spend?

---

red sox 777 posted...

LOTM, I get the feeling that you didn't study economics in college. I did. There's a big difference between how models are tested in economics and in hard sciences. In hard sciences, it's regarded as critical that the experiment that tests the model comes after the model, and is replicable. In economics, especially macroeconomics, it often isn't possible to construct experiments capable of testing models and so they are "tested" with past data. Which means there is a huge danger of overfitting.

If you already know the data you need to explain, and you are trying to construct a model that makes sense intuitively and fits the data, that is a lot easier than constructing a model that can predict data you haven't seen yet. And it's even harder to make that replicable (so I can't just run a gazillion experiments until one of them fits one of my models purely from luck).

I'm aware that it's not like the hard sciences and there are tons of assumptions going into these estimates. I'm sure there are massive error bars on all numbers being reported for any paper on the impacts of M4A (and indeed, the high and low end estimates for its cost are iirc off by almost a factor of two). But estimating the overall impact of a massive policy change like this is certainly not the expertise of doctors. They likely have valuable insight into the issue (e.g. "if we're getting medicaid reimbursement rates for everyone with a fixed same number of patients that will really hurt our hospital"), but to even try to put that all together you need some type of model.

The fact that it is hard to estimate the precise impacts is, in fact, one of the biggest reasons I'm against M4A. If its advocates are wrong about its impact, it could be disastrous.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I'm aware that it's not like the hard sciences and there are tons of assumptions going into these estimates. I'm sure there are massive error bars on all numbers being reported for any paper on the impacts of M4A (and indeed, the high and low end estimates for its cost are iirc off by almost a factor of two). But estimating the overall impact of a massive policy change like this is certainly not the expertise of doctors. They likely have valuable insight into the issue (e.g. "if we're getting medicaid reimbursement rates for everyone with a fixed same number of patients that will really hurt our hospital"), but to even try to put that all together you need some type of model.

The fact that it is hard to estimate the precise impacts is, in fact, one of the biggest reasons I'm against M4A. If its advocates are wrong about its impact, it could be disastrous.

Did you know no country that has gone to single payer has ever gone back?

---

I don't think I did but that sounds about right

(I also think that, as much as I'm rolling my eyes at it, the new Russia news story will have close to a zero effect on the upcoming primary. Still obnoxious to see.)

---

KamikazePotato posted...

https://i.imgur.com/CxCQq5t.mp4 (click to expand)

Literally this except it's not a joke and it happened

I definitely agree with this. I think that if you had eliminated all but, say, Trump's five biggest scandals and the media covered them for two months each instead of for three days they would have sunk in more and he would have lost.

---

I mean early voting has been going on in Nevada and had been even before the debate. It's why I think that for as amazing as Warren's performance was any boost it might give her would be muted because a substantial percentage of the vote was already in.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Did you know no country that has gone to single payer has ever gone back?

As far as I'm aware no country nearly as large as ours or with an insurance system so entangled with employment has made that switch. No other country's single payer system is as expansive as what Bernie's proposing, either.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

As far as I'm aware no country nearly as large as ours or with an insurance system so entangled with employment has made that switch. No other country's single payer system is as expansive as what Bernie's proposing, either.

True, but none of them have the money or the resources we do either! If Slovenia can figure it out, I believe in us.

---

Plus the first year would only be adding people 55-64 to the program and expanding 65+ to include some more stuff, so really that first year is the big hiccup year.

---

One thing about the M4A debate that I'm super frustrated at when it comes up every debate and Biden/Buttigieg/etc. go "$30 trillion!!!!!!111" is how neither Sanders or Warren ever fire back with a detailed reply about how the actual comparison price tag should be the current amount going into the industry through insurance companies at present.

They touch on it peripherally with the stats about how the average family spend 12k on healthcare and how costs would go down but I feel like that - in the debates at least - neither has made it crystal clear that this isn't some $30t compared to the 0 of the status quo. The status quo cost is likely higher in (or at least in the relative ballpark of) the current system!

John Oliver's latest piece in Last Week Tonight (which got linked here earlier in the week iirc) did a good job diving into this and while I get they don't have the time he has to do so, it's also not like he spent the whole segment on that issue.

---

I don't think 'the transition to M4A will be difficult' is a good excuse for not starting the process. You know what else is going to be difficult? Getting started on that whole climate change reduction thing! Look where we are now with that.

(Yes I know it's not an exact comparison)

---

KamikazePotato posted...

I don't think 'the transition to M4A will be difficult' is a good excuse for not starting the process. You know what else is going to be difficult? Getting started on that whole climate change reduction thing! Look where we are now with that.

(Yes I know it's not an exact comparison)

True, people are dying now due to M4A not being started. Climate Change is more of a "People are going to super die in 50 years" sort of thing.

(editor's note: I know this isn't entirely accurate I am just being cute because I am so fed up with moderates)

---

My aunt: I felt bad for Bloomberg at the debate I liked him
10 year old cousin: everyone in my class wants to vote Bloomberg

This is what television does.

LordoftheMorons posted...

As far as I'm aware no country nearly as large as ours or with an insurance system so entangled with employment has made that switch. No other country's single payer system is as expansive as what Bernie's proposing, either.

That our system is so entangled with employment is more of a reason to switch, not less. Think about what it means to have employer-provided healthcare. It means that if you don't have employment, you don't get healthcare! How can that possibly be a good thing?

Yes, there's always risk whenever you change anything. But there is also risk from not changing. Risk is unavoidable.

And some people are much better able to bear risk than others. If people who have employer-based healthcare now - people with full-time employment with benefits - end up paying a little more for their healthcare for a while because socialized healthcare has a rocky transition period - they can bear it. People who don't have jobs are in a much more economically stressful position.

People who make in the 30-40k range are being asked to pay in many cases 25%+ of their income (40%+ of their after-tax income) on health insurance premiums alone, and that's if they don't get sick and have to pay astronomical copays and deductibles. That is an outrageous tax is what that is - legal scholars would call it a per capita tax, Republicans would call it a wealth tax, and Democrats should be calling it what it is - a poor tax. It is outrageous and needs to stop.


---

It's really weird that we have an apocalypse looming in the not-so-distant future and the old rich people who aren't going to be alive to see it happen care more about maximizing their personal profits than stopping it

Can't quite figure out why that's the case, maybe someone can help me with that logic?

---

i mean it's not cute at all because people are already also dying now due to climate change

---

So many anti-m4a arguments feel like

"Let's remove the bullet, it'll save his life."
"But it might also leave him paralyzed, so let's not do that and just stick a bandaid on it instead."
"...But that doesn't help at all."
"Yes, but I'm more comfortable with bandaids. If you want, I suppose I can meet you halfway and get the kind that have Scooby Doo on them."

---

Leafeon13N posted...

My aunt: I felt bad for Bloomberg at the debate I liked him
10 year old cousin: everyone in my class wants to vote Bloomberg

This is what television does.

We've already got stats saying that Bloomberg's favorability tanked after the debate, so while reactions like this are unavoidable it's thankfully not the majority.

---

2. If everything you say is 100% true and electing Bernie is going to save tens of thousands of lives and you see people getting turned off by mean tweets, would it not logically follow that, I don't know, these people not being a dick to everybody who disagrees with them? After all, it's saving lives!

I got some bad news for you ...

---

i am dumb and somehow missed obvious sarcasm because i am tired

---

xp1337 posted...

One thing about the M4A debate that I'm super frustrated at when it comes up every debate and Biden/Buttigieg/etc. go "$30 trillion!!!!!!111" is how neither Sanders or Warren ever fire back with a detailed reply about how the actual comparison price tag should be the current amount going into the industry through insurance companies at present.

They touch on it peripherally with the stats about how the average family spend 12k on healthcare and how costs would go down but I feel like that - in the debates at least - neither has made it crystal clear that this isn't some $30t compared to the 0 of the status quo. The status quo cost is likely higher in (or at least in the relative ballpark of) the current system!

John Oliver's latest piece in Last Week Tonight (which got linked here earlier in the week iirc) did a good job diving into this and while I get they don't have the time he has to do so, it's also not like he spent the whole segment on that issue.

It is the relevant comparison, but there are a couple caveats:

1. Even the 30 trillionish estimates that Sanders/Warren state are optimistic projections (and the revenue estimates are optimistic too). If youre too optimistic on both of them by 10% or something, suddenly you have a 6 trillion dollar hole. And these numbers could certainly be off by more than that!
2. You need a mechanism for actually recapturing the money that employers are currently spending on healthcare, and Im not sure this is quite so simple as just saying it goes right into taxes (e.g. employers are paying different amounts depending on the plans theyre offering; if you set it at the average rate, some of those companies probably cant afford it, and I would assume differential rates based on what they used to be paying would be ripe for a lawsuit). Maybe Im wrong here and somebody can convince me!
3. Particularly for Bernies plan, hes promising a lot more (covering literally everything is that no copays or deductibles) which starts the number off way higher. Count me skeptical that administrative savings and cutting out the relatively small profit margins of insurance companies are gonna make up the difference. Having no copays and deductibles also leads to moral hazard where people are more likely to have unnecessary procedures done, raising costs more.

---

Also, I saw my first Bernie attack ad yesterday

It wasn't pro anyone. It just had clips of the media saying Bernie can't beat Trump and then ended with a booming woman's voice going "BERNIE SANDERS IS UNELECTABLE."

---

I am for taking drastic action on climate change by the way. I just dont want dumb unrelated stuff like a job guarantee thrown in.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Having no copays and deductibles also leads to moral hazard where people are more likely to have unnecessary procedures done, raising costs more.

"Somebody might abuse it so nobody should have it" is still the dumbest argument that always comes up for pretty much everything.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

"Somebody might abuse it so nobody should have it" is still the dumbest argument that always comes up for pretty much everything.

Its also literally the argument the Right uses against all welfare in general, so theres that.

---

There won't be a moral hazard problem for unnecessary procedures if those have to paid for out of pocket. Broke your arm? The government will pay for it. Have cancer? Same. Want plastic surgery? You can pay for it yourself.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

"Somebody might abuse it so nobody should have it" is still the dumbest argument that always comes up for pretty much everything.

Its not someone might abuse it. Its a ton of people will abuse it, raising costs for everyone.

Heres a similar example. I dont know if Bernies everything is covered includes this (I hope not!), but lets say it included coverage for alternative medicine. Theres nothing to discourage this; its free! Say that, because of this, 10% of spending ends up going to shit that doesnt work. This benefits nobody; in fact, it hurts people because theyre putting off real treatment. And everybody pays more because of it! The same can occur even for procedures/meds with some merit when theyre being used at the wrong time (common example: a patient demands antibiotics for a viral infection).

Now if you have copays/deductibles, theres incentive not to do this. And on average, everybody is now paying less because it cuts down on unnecessary spending. And Im not saying that copays/deductibles need to be nearly as large as they are now, or that they cant, e.g., scale with income or something. They serve an actual purpose in helping to correctly align incentives.

---

Having no copays and deductibles also leads to moral hazard where people are more likely to have unnecessary procedures done, raising costs more.

what kind of unnecessary procedures are we talking about here? I dont know anyone who wants to be at a hospital anymore than they absolutely need to.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Its not someone might abuse it. Its a ton of people will abuse it, raising costs for everyone.

Heres a similar example. I dont know if Bernies everything is covered includes this (I hope not!), but lets say it included coverage for alternative medicine. Theres nothing to discourage this; its free! Say that, because of this, 10% of spending ends up going to shit that doesnt work. This benefits nobody; in fact, it hurts people because theyre putting off real treatment. And everybody pays more because of it! The same can occur even for procedures/meds with some merit.

Now if you have copays/deductibles, theres incentive not to do this. And on average, everybody is now paying less because it cuts down on unnecessary spending. And Im not saying that copays/deductibles need to be nearly as large as they are now, or that they cant, e.g., scale with income or something. They serve an actual purpose in helping to correctly align incentives.

That's why you need the other half of socialized healthcare - a single payer that controls what is paid for and what is not.

Or as Sarah Palin would call it, a death panel.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

what kind of unnecessary procedures are we talking about here? I dont know anyone who wants to be at a hospital anymore than they absolutely need to.

Sorry, edited in a better example which I believe is actually fairly common: somebody demanding antibiotics for a viral infection (which they dont help with).

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Also, I saw my first Bernie attack ad yesterday

It wasn't pro anyone. It just had clips of the media saying Bernie can't beat Trump and then ended with a booming woman's voice going "BERNIE SANDERS IS UNELECTABLE."

I swear Hillary Clinton really needs to get a hobby at this point.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Sorry, edited in a better example which I believe is actually fairly common: somebody demanding antibiotics for a viral infection (which they dont help with).

This isn't covered through Medicare now.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Sorry, edited in a better example which I believe is actually fairly common: somebody demanding antibiotics for a viral infection (which they dont help with).

That does not cost a lot. And does not need to be prescribed.

---

Uh that's not how any of that works. You don't get to demand anything, and a doctor is not going to prescribe something that know at best won't help and at worst could hurt.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Sorry, edited in a better example which I believe is actually fairly common: somebody demanding antibiotics for a viral infection (which they dont help with).

Wouldnt the doctor just not prescribe them then?
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Its not someone might abuse it. Its a ton of people will abuse it, raising costs for everyone.

Heres a similar example. I dont know if Bernies everything is covered includes this (I hope not!), but lets say it included coverage for alternative medicine. Theres nothing to discourage this; its free! Say that, because of this, 10% of spending ends up going to shit that doesnt work. This benefits nobody; in fact, it hurts people because theyre putting off real treatment. And everybody pays more because of it! The same can occur even for procedures/meds with some merit when theyre being used at the wrong time (common example: a patient demands antibiotics for a viral infection).

Now if you have copays/deductibles, theres incentive not to do this. And on average, everybody is now paying less because it cuts down on unnecessary spending. And Im not saying that copays/deductibles need to be nearly as large as they are now, or that they cant, e.g., scale with income or something. They serve an actual purpose in helping to correctly align incentives.

Where it is gonna skyrocket is mental health costs.

The more I think about it, the more I am shaky on it and the details are probably where it is gonna lose me at.

If this isn't 100% covered medical then what is the point. If it is 100% covered, then people are going to be going for any old thing regardless of the actual need.

---

It needs to skyrocket due to mental health costs tbh, people are dying way too much due to mental health issues in this country.


---

Where it is gonna skyrocket is mental health costs.

sounds good. people are always talking about how we have a mental health crisis in this country after some dude shoots a bunch of people.
---

People don't remember that Bernie is going to be saving like 4 trillion a decade by the time he gets through with the defense budget. It's cool y'all, we got this.

---