![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
enders-shadow.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThis post got me thinking.
I am firmly in favor of:
A) A higher minimum wage in the whole US, and my home state of NY
B) Honesty in politics
While the OP I linked to is not exactly dishonest, it's not exactly honest either.
And this is not to put flak upon the poster there, but it's an example of political rhetoric that is used to leverage one side of a conversation, ignoring nuance.
the graphic in the linked to OP:
1) Doesn't seem to take into account state laws that raise min wage over fed laws
2) Doesn't take into account the vast difference in housing throughout a state
My objection is more with 2 than 1. 1 is easy to take care of, but 2 is not easy.
New York City is WAYYYY more expensive than Rochester or Buffalo, NY; or a large number of other places within the state I could name. Yet, this graphic gives us a number, presumably an average. But that average is way skewed. But how else should they do it? Give us on graphic for NYC and another for the rest of NY State? That wouldn't work either, because then you'd need to break it down for other cities and so on. So what do we do?
We must talk about things in the big picture without getting bogged down in details, otherwise we will have to talk for eons before we can understand what needs to be done. So while I agree that the min wage needs to go up, across the US, I have a problem with the info-graphics created to support that argument. They lack nuance, and as such, are deceiving. Even if they don't mean to be, and are honestly doing the best they can to compile and sort the data, the inevitability of misleading data is going to doom us all.
That said.
Happy saint patty's day.
Was I drunk when I wrote this? You decide.
I am firmly in favor of:
A) A higher minimum wage in the whole US, and my home state of NY
B) Honesty in politics
While the OP I linked to is not exactly dishonest, it's not exactly honest either.
And this is not to put flak upon the poster there, but it's an example of political rhetoric that is used to leverage one side of a conversation, ignoring nuance.
the graphic in the linked to OP:
1) Doesn't seem to take into account state laws that raise min wage over fed laws
2) Doesn't take into account the vast difference in housing throughout a state
My objection is more with 2 than 1. 1 is easy to take care of, but 2 is not easy.
New York City is WAYYYY more expensive than Rochester or Buffalo, NY; or a large number of other places within the state I could name. Yet, this graphic gives us a number, presumably an average. But that average is way skewed. But how else should they do it? Give us on graphic for NYC and another for the rest of NY State? That wouldn't work either, because then you'd need to break it down for other cities and so on. So what do we do?
We must talk about things in the big picture without getting bogged down in details, otherwise we will have to talk for eons before we can understand what needs to be done. So while I agree that the min wage needs to go up, across the US, I have a problem with the info-graphics created to support that argument. They lack nuance, and as such, are deceiving. Even if they don't mean to be, and are honestly doing the best they can to compile and sort the data, the inevitability of misleading data is going to doom us all.
That said.
Happy saint patty's day.
Was I drunk when I wrote this? You decide.
(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 03:03 (UTC)So?
The target group is small. The implications are large. That's why it's a bad policy.
How does something that only affects a small group have large implications? What are the implications, precisely?
(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 03:12 (UTC)Look at Obamacare, for example. The idea to get everyone insured even though only about 15% of people actually lacked insurance. Thus we put in a policy that will increase health care costs for everyone, increase the debt, etc.
(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 09:03 (UTC)I would like to personally know how removing the discrimination based on preexisting conditions or the cap on lifetime maximums have done either of these things. If people take care of health care problems when they're cheap instead of waiting until when it's expensive, and if more people are insured so that they pay for insurance themselves instead of the taxpayers footing the bill in the ER, is that not a source of reduced costs for both taxpayers and insurance owners? With these things in place, you can not claim that the bill was designed to do the things you mentioned. Honestly I haven't even gone over the finer points of the bill, and personally I think the individual mandate was a handout to the insurance industry, but there's no way anyone who wrote that thing designed it for adverse effects.
(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 11:24 (UTC)Did I say that?
I would like to personally know how removing the discrimination based on preexisting conditions or the cap on lifetime maximums have done either of these things.
By getting rid of preexisting conditions, you're putting more expensive people into the system, raising prices for everyone.
By losing the cap on lifetime maximums, you're increasing the per-person cost of insurance and raising prices for everyone.
If people take care of health care problems when they're cheap instead of waiting until when it's expensive, and if more people are insured so that they pay for insurance themselves instead of the taxpayers footing the bill in the ER, is that not a source of reduced costs for both taxpayers and insurance owners?
Not always, and not necessarily. "Taking care of health problems" also means a lot of unnecessary tests and such that can often end up being more expensive in the long run than treating something as it arises.
Honestly I haven't even gone over the finer points of the bill, and personally I think the individual mandate was a handout to the insurance industry, but there's no way anyone who wrote that thing designed it for adverse effects.
The individual mandate was not something the insurer wanted, and it sucks up here in Massachusetts, but since no one claimed it was designed for adverse effects, you're fighting a strawman and once again failing to read what people put in front of you.
(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 22:23 (UTC)A fair point, but often unnecessary tests derive from a for-profit model. If your claim is that the bill treats the symptoms but not the disease, I would agree.
The individual mandate was not something the insurer wanted
How do you figure? How would insurers not love having all these people being forced to get private insurance?
(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 22:44 (UTC)I've never heard that they're ordering more tests to make more profit. This is a new one for me, where are you hearing this?
I've never heard that they're ordering more tests to make more profit. This is a new one for me, where are you hearing this?
<i><How do you figure? How would insurers not love having all these people being forced to get private insurance?</i>
If they actually wanted these people on their insurance rolls, they would already have them on there.
(no subject)
Date: 20/3/12 01:03 (UTC)Why wouldn't they? Doctors have to make more tests to avoid liability. We bring out expensive machines even though the diagnosis has already been confirmed by the cheaper ones. As for the profit thing, they do it to get a payout from the insurers or satisfy various conditions. The fact that this surprises is weird, free market after all.
If they actually wanted these people on their insurance rolls, they would already have them on there.
Rofl. Yeah, they would just force people who can't afford insurance to get it. The reason 15% of the population don't have it is because THEY DON WANNA!!!
(no subject)
Date: 20/3/12 01:05 (UTC)The tests cost money, and may cost them more money. If anything, the idea that they're denying coverage to people to save money would follow up with this as well.
The fact that this surprises is weird, free market after all.
I didn't say it was surprising, I said it was a new one that I hadn't heard. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
Rofl. Yeah, they would just force people who can't afford insurance to get it. The reason 15% of the population don't have it is because THEY DON WANNA!!!
In some cases, that is true. But there must be a reason for the rest of them that they're not being put on the rolls if they're actually profitable, right?
(no subject)
Date: 20/3/12 06:27 (UTC)What? It doesn't cost the doctors any money. It doesn't cost the hospital any money. The only one paying for these things is the patient or the tax payer.
I didn't say it was surprising, I said it was a new one that I hadn't heard.
Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it new, oh All-Knowing-One.
In some cases, that is true. But there must be a reason for the rest of them that they're not being put on the rolls if they're actually profitable, right?
Yeah, the reason is they can't afford it. My god, you make it sound like people are getting insured purely on the insurance company's mercy. They're being so nice and insuring all these people, so everyone else must simply not want it!
In the other example, if there are clearly unprofitable people (aka they get sick a lot) then what is your solution if they just get refused for preexisting conditions from everywhere? Should they just die? Should the tax payer foot the bill in the ER, which as you know they pretty much just kick you out if you're not coughing blood already.
(no subject)
Date: 20/3/12 11:24 (UTC)A fair point, but considering how many people offer up opinions in this debate, one would have expected that to come up is all.
Yeah, the reason is they can't afford it.
The data doesn't back that up.
(no subject)
Date: 21/3/12 01:55 (UTC)What data?
(no subject)
Date: 21/3/12 02:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/3/12 02:08 (UTC)Let's see. 16.3% not covered for all people in the US 2010.
15.4m not covered $25k - 50k
8.8m not covered $50k - 75k
9.4m not covered $75k+
So maybe you have a point for the $75k as long as they're not living in an expensive place, and since 60% of the country is urban, that's not a longshot, but everyone below that just can't afford it.
(no subject)
Date: 22/3/12 11:28 (UTC)I'd pile the $50k people in there as well, but the point is the same overall.
(no subject)
Date: 20/3/12 05:11 (UTC)so presumably, going back just to grandparents, it's affected every family