U.S. Politics: Feelings Trump Facts

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I'm using "death panels" sarcastically here.  But though it sounds cold hearted, I don't think everyone should be entitled to spend taxpayer money on the $1 million/year experimental therapy that may or may not work.  And yes, quality of life goes into the calculus, just as it does now with transplant lists (to my understanding).  Scarce resources should be allocated, and that means sometimes people will die a little sooner than they would if they got the very last available therapy no matter the expense.  I'm not advocating state sponsored euthanasia and that isn't the logical conclusion of my suggestion.  And, hint, it's already happening to a greater rather than lesser extent inside insurance companies. ETA - quality of life can cut both ways.  A knee replacement may not be strictly necessary to preserve life, but may have a HUGE benefit in terms of quality of life and that should be taken into account.

I don't disagree with this, at least in principle. It's possible that a single-payer system (if we had one) might not cover every procedure and treatment under the sun, so there would still be some place for private insurance.

[The Wedge]

58 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's one of the troubles they highlight, but I was shocked to hear that 50% of people between the ages of 50 and 64 have no savings at all.

Oops, then.

Anyone ignoring their own pockets for retirement in the past 30+ years has had the opportunity to take care of setting up a plan, whether through work or through an IRA of some sort. 

I wonder how many of these folks are 'conservatives' who blather on about personal responsibility, yet completely ignored their own futures.

Anecdotally, I started putting 10% into the offered 401k when I was 23 years old.  It has put away a LOT more without a lot of thought than I ever would have trying to save it on my own. And I'm hardly a 'conservative.'

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

47 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Sure. But the fallacy is that it's not about who gets treated when: in a socialized system, everyone gets treated all the time, but some specific treatments are not deemed cost-effective enough to be paid for by society.

No.  That's not true of any medical system.  No medical system has unlimited resources.  There are always choices made by physicians that impact patients' health.  That's what triage is... treating the worst off with the best chance of success. 

[Kalbear]

Wanted to get back to this from the prior thread:

Quote

See my last of three motivations.  "Wanting to help people" is feeling good about helping.  And you pick and choose who you help.  Again, that is going to distribute funds potentially quite inequitably to causes or individuals that may not be in the most need.  Think about the ice bucket challenge.  ALS is horrible, but it wasn't necessarily the thing that needed the most funding at that moment (mind you, sounds like they have done great things with the money, but in terms of distribution of resources was it the best use)?  There is a sort of "commons" problem with healthcare in the modern world.  We can argue about how we got where we are and whether it was righteous (hint, I don't think it was righteous, and if I could go back a century I would have done things differently), but we are where we are.  From your perspective, what are you willing to fund?  Anything?  What organizations, limitations?  How should charities be monitored?  I know you will say not at all, but how do we achieve transparency into their workings without a government requirement that they are transparent?

As an example, Seattle Children's hospital and specifically the cancer treatment center is absurdly well-off as far as funding goes. The donor's lists for SCC are incredible. It is one of the nicest buildings I've ever been in - not hospital, simply a building. The care is exemplary. They have a ton of money put aside to help those who can't afford it, either. 

Because sick kids makes people donate. Especially sick cancer kids.

Does this do the most good for the most people? Almost certainly not. Not remotely close. It does do good, so yay, and it's a great resource, but it's also not at all accessible to most of Seattle's population on an easy basis (one hospital is in a swanky area near the university; the other is in downtown Bellevue, which is basically yuppie and techie central), it focuses heavily on hard to treat, rare illnesses for children, and it has to spend its money as a nonprofit or else lose its status - so it's constantly expanding and doing all sorts of things.

It certainly makes people feel way better - how much better can you feel than 'I helped save the life of a sick child with cancer'? - but I strongly suspect that putting that money out there to help more people would, well, help a lot more people and make society as a whole a lot better.

[Maithanet]

11 minutes ago, The Wedge said:

Anyone ignoring their own pockets for retirement in the past 30+ years has had the opportunity to take care of setting up a plan, whether through work or through an IRA of some sort.

Uhh?  What?  Surely you're aware that LOTS of jobs in America do not include a 401k.  And plenty of people who aren't saving for their retirement do so because they are just scraping by, and setting 10% aside for retirement would mean going without electricity or heat all winter.  It's no surprise people are thinking short term when they have such limited options.   

[The Wedge]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

Uhh?  What?  Surely you're aware that LOTS of jobs in America do not include a 401k.  And plenty of people who aren't saving for their retirement do so because they are just scraping by, and setting 10% aside for retirement would mean going without electricity or heat all winter.  It's no surprise people are thinking short term when they have such limited options.   

I get this, but I started my retirement savings when I was just scraping by. Heck, I was cutting every corner I could to pay off debts while paying rent, etc. It was not easy, but I lived without any luxuries to get there. I had to adjust to living on what I netted after taxes and deductions.

A percent or two is a place to start. There are ways to do this without an employer offered 401k. 

I understand this is not easy, but more than the 50% quoted above should have some sort of retirement savings set aside.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

That's one of the troubles they highlight, but I was shocked to hear that 50% of people between the ages of 50 and 64 have no savings at all.

Yes, it is shocking. And I think there are variety of interrelated issues here, like growing wealth inequality and because I think a lot of people fear investing because of some of the bullshit out there.

[Week]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/congress-can-now-cut-the-pay-of-individual-civil-servants.html

Quote

This week, congressional Republicans gave themselves the power to slash the annual salary of any individual federal worker to as low as $1 — and the budget of any individual federal program right down to zero.

Quote

The rule appears most disconcerting when viewed in the context of the incoming administration’s apparent hostility toward the independence of the civil service.

Last month, Trump’s transition team sent the Department of Energy a questionnaire, which asked agency officials to list the names of employees and contractors who “had attended any” United Nations climate conferences “in the last five years,” worked on domestic efforts to limit carbon emissions, or “attended any Interagency Working Group meetings” to design the measurement known as the “social cost of carbon,” a metric often used by the Obama White House to justify its regulations of carbon output.

The team also requested a list of “which programs within DOE are essential to meeting the goals of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.

This does not seem ominous at all...

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah that whole switchout to 401ks in lieu of traditional pensions is going to hit the fan. Many of the folks who advocated the change are now apologizing...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/01/03/even_the_people_who_pushed_the_401_k_think_it_s_been_a_huge_mistake.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Yeah the people who created 401Ks were a part of the podcast in the link.

 

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  That's not true of any medical system.  No medical system has unlimited resources.  There are always choices made by physicians that impact patients' health.  That's what triage is... treating the worst off with the best chance of success. 

Nevertheless, everyone gets some form of treatment eventually if the system is socialized ; that's the whole point, almost by definition. What varies is the quality of the treatments available (and in some places, how long it takes to get them). Officials may sometimes choose cheaper, slightly less-efficient options, which would, mathematically shorten some poor elderly people's lives. But unless we're talking about third-world countries in which resouces are very limited, there is always some form of treatment offered, and there is always the option to pay for the expensive treatment yourself if it is not reimbursed.
Are we actually disagreeing or aren't we just having a trouble with semantics here?

[aceluby]

36 minutes ago, Week said:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/congress-can-now-cut-the-pay-of-individual-civil-servants.html

This does not seem ominous at all...

 

Pretty standard Republican play IMO.  And when shit inevitably hits the fan....

Blame Obama.

[OldGimletEye]

\

Just now, Week said:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/congress-can-now-cut-the-pay-of-individual-civil-servants.html

This does not seem ominous at all...

 

I hope the Republican health care "plan" provides coverage for heat stroke.  We are all going to need it. But, it probably wont.

[Swordfish]

4 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I'll have that conversation with you, on a slightly modified basis.  I don't think that the government should impose the burden of equal care on all of its citizens.  We can talk about a basic level of care, but I'd honestly be all about the death panels deciding whether care for a particular individual was worth it given quality of life, life expectancy and similar concerns.  Then if the person could pay out of pocket or had private insurance for more, fine.

it's absolutely imperative if anyone really has any hope of any form of UHC being sustainable in this country.

But good luck getting people to buy into it, instead of simply politicizing it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

52 minutes ago, Week said:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/congress-can-now-cut-the-pay-of-individual-civil-servants.html

This does not seem ominous at all...

 

Why wouldn't Congress have that power.  It, Constitutionally, has the power of the purse. It can fund or not fund anything it allows.  It is the "power of the purse".  I'm sure it's disturbing to people in the civil service, but this isn't particularly shocking and well within the power Congress wields.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

39 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Nevertheless, everyone gets some form of treatment eventually if the system is socialized ; that's the whole point, almost by definition. What varies is the quality of the treatments available (and in some places, how long it takes to get them). Officials may sometimes choose cheaper, slightly less-efficient options, which would, mathematically shorten some poor elderly people's lives. But unless we're talking about third-world countries in which resouces are very limited, there is always some form of treatment offered, and there is always the option to pay for the expensive treatment yourself if it is not reimbursed.
Are we actually disagreeing or aren't we just having a trouble with semantics here?

Rippounet,

In any system where triage is necessary, therefore any medical system without a doctor and full facilities for every individual in the system (any system), there will be medically sound choices that necessitate one patient get more attention than another.  It is not possible for everyone to always get any treatment they want at any time. 

When the choice is to give one patient mere palliative care and another genuine treatment in an effort to heal, how is that not triage where one patient benefits at the expense of another patient?

[Week]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why wouldn't Congress have that power.  It, Constitutionally, has the power of the purse. It can fund or not fund anything it allows.  It is the "power of the purse".  I'm sure it's disturbing to people in the civil service, but this isn't particularly shocking and well within the power Congress wields.

 

It is reasonable to manage the budget of agencies. It is not reasonable to cut the salary of individuals without reason. This, as far as I understand, would allow for - essentially - purging of ideologies (Obama appointees) which I consider problematic. That's not how government works. Appointees ought to be guaranteed their full term unless they have moral, ethical, or other force majeure that should remove them from office.

This is a rule that has been dormant for 30+ years - but nowit should be brought back? The question isn't whether the Congress should have that power (though they shouldn't) - it's why do they think that it is needed now?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Week said:

It is reasonable to manage the budget of agencies. It is not reasonable to cut the salary of individuals without reason. This, as far as I understand, would allow for - essentially - purging of ideologies (Obama appointees) which I consider problematic.

This is a rule that has been dormant for 30+ years - but nowit should be brought back? The question isn't whether the Congress should have that power (though they shouldn't) - it's why do they think that it is needed now?

No clue why it's needed now.  I'm saying this is clearly within the power granted to Congress particularly for funds that they have allocated.  I don't see an out for this one.  It's why Congress can attach any strings it wants to Federal money given to the States.  I can see why people don't like it, I just don't see where Congress lacks the power to do it.

You say "it is reasonable to manage the budget of agencies" but suppose Congress cut all funding for the Congressional Budget Office.  Wouldn't that be cutting the salaries of every employee of that office?  

[Week]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No clue why it's needed now.  I'm saying this is clearly within the power granted to Congress particularly for funds that they have allocated.  I don't see an out for this one.  It's why Congress can attach any strings it wants to Federal money given to the States.  I can see why people don't like it, I just don't see where Congress lacks the power to do it.

No clue? Come on Scot. Not even the foggiest of ideas? No concern over this as "this is clearly within the power granted to Congress"?

 

Is that viewpoint of a strict Constitutionalist where morality and ethics are dictated by what the Constitution allows - right? Honestly asking because I am - a bit - surprised at the blase response.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Week said:

No clue? Come on Scot. Not even the foggiest of ideas? No concern over this as "this is clearly within the power granted to Congress"?

 

Is that viewpoint of a strict Constitutionalist where morality and ethics are dictated by what the Constitution allows - right? Honestly asking because I am - a bit - surprised at the blase response.

The remedy is political, not legal, that's my only point.  Unfortunately, the Republicans will have control over the White House, the HoR, and the Senate after 1/20/17.  

The reaction isn't blase, I simply don't believe there is any legal way to stop them.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, The Wedge said:

I get this, but I started my retirement savings when I was just scraping by. Heck, I was cutting every corner I could to pay off debts while paying rent, etc. It was not easy, but I lived without any luxuries to get there. I had to adjust to living on what I netted after taxes and deductions.

A percent or two is a place to start. There are ways to do this without an employer offered 401k. 

I understand this is not easy, but more than the 50% quoted above should have some sort of retirement savings set aside.

Life happens man. Take my mom for example. She was a practicing dentist and lost everything in the process of divorcing my dad, so she had to start her life over at 45. Now she made good money and is fine now 20 years later, but there's a lot of people in similar situations who don't have the same career opportunities. 

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yes, it is shocking. And I think there are variety of interrelated issues here, like growing wealth inequality and because I think a lot of people fear investing because of some of the bullshit out there.

Growing inequality is a huge factor, but I'd guess that one of the biggest reasons would be the recession. So many people lost everything.