US Politics- Stay Gold, Pony Boy

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

`Scot,

1) Part of the reason premiums have risen is because a lot of these insurers, simply under priced their premiums.

2) Another reason is because the Republican Party took out the risk corridor provision causing some insurers to leave the market.

3) You assume that no cost control provisions were not put into place by the ACA. That is not true. How effective those provisions will be remains to be seen. We shall find out when the output gap starts to close.

4) Also by giving people access to insurance may not affect the actual demand for medical services all that much. People that now have insurance may opt for cheaper preventive medical care, rather than going to the emergency room when their situation becomes critical and they have no other choice.

OGE,

I appreciate all those points.  However, you didn't really answer my question.  Are health insurers raising rates with the sure knowledge that Goverment subsidies will get them paid?

[sToNED_CAT]

8 minutes ago, Mexal said:

This is bullshit. Private people who spent their career in the intelligence community, who lived in Russia, who worked the Russian desk, do have the contacts and know how to run an investigation. You ignore his career and only focus on the fact he's a private citizen now to make your argument. 

Let me ask you a question. Do you like the fact Trump is lock step with Putin? Do you like the fact they praise each other at every turn? Do you like that Trump uses Russian spokesman as proof to his trustworthiness? Do you like Trump talking shit about NATO (which a Russian spokesman agreed with) and working really hard to upset the balance of power in Europe with our long time allies Germany? Do you like the idea of Russia having sanctions removed and them being able to hack democratic institutions without consequence?

As a conservative, isn't this everything you should hate? Wasn't the main adversary of Rubio/Romney and other traditional Republicans Russia? Wasn't it the Conservatives who fought so hard during the Cold War to stop the Soviet machine? 

What has changed? And if something has changed, what do you see the world order looking like in 5 years?

Well, he might have some contacts in Russian govt, but those contacts don't typically just give info, especially such sensitive info to private entity. Espionage simply doesn't work that way... If it did many countries would be hiring private orgs to conduct espionage, had they been so effective. Public state espionage agencies are gorillas in the room, private orgs have to satisfy themselves just with scraps, or investigating banks or FIFA.

Putin is hugely overrated as "dictator" or some kind of menace generally. US had and still has allies who are far worse. It is funny to see somebody like McGraham calling Putin tyrant, while being BFFs with kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Hell even Egypt and Turkey, our allies are more repressive than Russia. Also Russia and US have in reality almost no real conflict of interests. Putin's threat to Baltic states and eastern EU is hugely overrated, there's no economic rivalry like vs China and before revolution in Ukraine US and Russia actually cooperated in Middle East (Iranian embargo, Libya). Long time allies Germany - well that has to be some kind of joke, because after Cold War the alliance was basically 1way affair - US helping in Yugoslavia and providing security and Germany and EU generally undermining US on every turn. Europe offered zero help vs China (south China sea), Iraq (not counting UK as part of EU), stabbed US in the back when they pulled out of Iranian embargo, nothing against North Korea, are trading with Cuba, fined US tech companies for ridiculous reasons, subsidized Airbus etc. What was the benefit of this alliance for USA in last 20 years? Few peacekeepers in relatively safe areas of Afghanistan?

So Trump will likely not fight for Ukraine to become part of EU. That's good, because it is not in American interest anyway and EU offered nothing for compensation.

Russia was american enemy during Cold War, Cold War is over US won 25 years ago and Russia is now just a shadow of former USSR. The priority is Islamist word and especially China. US can't engage Russia, islamists, North Korea and China all together, that would be stupid. There's need to set up priorities and Russia should be pretty low. That's pragmatism, if Trump sees it this way he's just smart.

Ideal new world order? Crimea recognized as part of Russia (they will never give it back anyway), Ukraine should remain politically and economically neutral (no NATO membership, equal trade with both Russia and EU), maybe Russians can purchase Crimea from them, ala Alaska, to make it all legal; ISIS crushed militarily (they are weak), new "moderate" sunni state created from eastern Syria and western Iraq to stop sectarian conflict and somewhat weaken Syria/Iraq (Iranian allies). That would free US hands to deal with Iran, NK and China either politically, economically or militarily. Frankly NK getting nuclear ICBM is far bigger threat for US than Russians in Crimea.

[sToNED_CAT]

And concerning healthcare reform - all reform on federal level are just doomed and would only lead to partisan fights for years, if not decades, while nothing substantial will be done. America is simply too ideologically diverse to adopt "one size fits all" approach. The best way would be for federal government to simply provide block grants to states based on their population size and say "here are the money, you must use them for healthcare, but you can choose any system you want". End of debate, the issue is of (federal) table and government can concentrate on true federal issues like trade, foreign policy and overall economy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

23 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

Well, he might have some contacts in Russian govt, but those contacts don't typically just give info, especially such sensitive info to private entity. Espionage simply doesn't work that way... If it did many countries would be hiring private orgs to conduct espionage, had they been so effective. Public state espionage agencies are gorillas in the room, private orgs have to satisfy themselves just with scraps, or investigating banks or FIFA.

Putin is hugely overrated as "dictator" or some kind of menace generally. US had and still has allies who are far worse. It is funny to see somebody like McGraham calling Putin tyrant, while being BFFs with kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Hell even Egypt and Turkey, our allies are more repressive than Russia. Also Russia and US have in reality almost no real conflict of interests. Putin's threat to Baltic states and eastern EU is hugely overrated, there's no economic rivalry like vs China and before revolution in Ukraine US and Russia actually cooperated in Middle East (Iranian embargo, Libya). Long time allies Germany - well that has to be some kind of joke, because after Cold War the alliance was basically 1way affair - US helping in Yugoslavia and providing security and Germany and EU generally undermining US on every turn. Europe offered zero help vs China (south China sea), Iraq (not counting UK as part of EU), stabbed US in the back when they pulled out of Iranian embargo, nothing against North Korea, are trading with Cuba, fined US tech companies for ridiculous reasons, subsidized Airbus etc. What was the benefit of this alliance for USA in last 20 years? Few peacekeepers in relatively safe areas of Afghanistan?

So Trump will likely not fight for Ukraine to become part of EU. That's good, because it is not in American interest anyway and EU offered nothing for compensation.

Russia was american enemy during Cold War, Cold War is over US won 25 years ago and Russia is now just a shadow of former USSR. The priority is Islamist word and especially China. US can't engage Russia, islamists, North Korea and China all together, that would be stupid. There's need to set up priorities and Russia should be pretty low. That's pragmatism, if Trump sees it this way he's just smart.

Ideal new world order? Crimea recognized as part of Russia (they will never give it back anyway), Ukraine should remain politically and economically neutral (no NATO membership, equal trade with both Russia and EU), maybe Russians can purchase Crimea from them, ala Alaska, to make it all legal; ISIS crushed militarily (they are weak), new "moderate" sunni state created from eastern Syria and western Iraq to stop sectarian conflict and somewhat weaken Syria/Iraq (Iranian allies). That would free US hands to deal with Iran, NK and China either politically, economically or militarily. Frankly NK getting nuclear ICBM is far bigger threat for US than Russians in Crimea.

So, because there are worse people in the world that makes Putin all sunshine and lollipops?  What concerns me is that Trump appears to be willing to simply abandon NATO and US commitments to Europe.  Right now I doubt Putin would make a move towards the Baltics or Poland.  After Trump is inaugurated, I would make no such commitment.

As for Russia on Crimea and the Donbass.  Putin can go fuck himself.
 

[LongRider]

17 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

The best way would be for federal government to simply provide block grants

And may the kickbacks, bribery and payola begin!

[Seli]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

Are companies raising individual premiums because they know the government will subsidize and thereby using this as a way to maximize profits the way "for Profit" colleges have?  If so how does that not make the subsidies problematic incentives for these health insurance companies?

In any sane system you don't subsidy demand without heavily regulating supply. Of course sadly the US is apparently allergic to regulation, to its own detriment.

[Einheri]

41 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, because there are worse people in the world that makes Putin all sunshine and lollipops?  

No, but you got to admit that it's a bit hypocritical to criticize Putin and Russia while at the same time completely ignoring your own so-called allies, no?

What concerns me is that Trump appears to be willing to simply abandon NATO and US commitments to Europe.  Right now I doubt Putin would make a move towards the Baltics or Poland.  After Trump is inaugurated, I would make no such commitment.

As a Euro myself (and from one of the countries bordering Russia no less), I would be completely fine with this. It’s about time that we Europeans take our big boys pants back on and start taking more responsibility for our own security. Our united GDP dwarfs that of Russia, as does our population, and there is no reason Russia should be a threat to us if we actually started spending as much on our defence as you and Mr. Russian Taxpayer do (heck, most  Euro nations are not even close to the measly 2% of GDP that NATO recommends  as bare minimum).

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

I appreciate all those points.  However, you didn't really answer my question.  Are health insurers raising rates with the sure knowledge that Goverment subsidies will get them paid?

Scot,

Lets say, people that get sick but don't have health insurance and don't go to the emergency room. They just die.

Then the government comes in and gives these people a subsidy to buy insurance. Whether the insurance market is a purely competitive market or if it isn't, you'd expect the premiums to rise, ceteris paribus.

The word for today is Ceteris Paribus.

But, if you do cost containment on the individual market or on other markets, because of spillovers, then the impact of the subsidies are likely to be less.

I feel a bit like Jeff Spicoli here, talking to Charles Jefferson's little brother. Like, "make up your mind dude, is he going to shit or is he going to kill us."

It's kind of like you want to have it both ways, it seems to me. One one hand you want a total free market approach to healthcare, but then turn around and say you want to single payer.

Maybe the answer here is: "First we're gonna do a free market approach, then we're going to do single payer"

I'm not opposed to single payer obviously. But if you implement single payer, then you're likely to run into the same sort of issues as you would with the ACA. If you want to contain healthcare inflation, then you have to decrease demand or expand supply or do a combination of both.

Some supply side expansion here is possible because there is little reason to think that the supply side of the market acts like a perfectly competitive market. And some demand side containment is probably important too. People like Betsy Devos might have to pay a higher price for face lifts and people like Donald Trump might have to pay more for cosmetic toupee surgy. But if that means Billy or Jenny from the block, who may have been born poor, and guilty of the crime of being average in ability, doesn't die from an abscess tooth, then I'm cool with it.

Finally, I'd note the Ceteris Paribus condition here, before the ACA was passed was that people simply went to the emergency room, if they didn't have insurance. If there are substitution effects from the ACA where people use their health insurance in lieu of going to the emergency room, then that will offset some of the rise in premiums. A point I made earlier.

[Mexal]

10 minutes ago, Einheri said:

As a Euro myself (and from one of the countries bordering Russia no less), I would be completely fine with this. It’s about time that we Europeans take our big boys pants back on and start taking more responsibility for our own security. Our united GDP dwarfs that of Russia, as does our population, and there is no reason Russia should be a threat to us if we actually started spending as much on our defence as you and Mr. Russian Taxpayer do (heck, most  Euro nations are not even close to the measly 2% of GDP that NATO recommends  as bare minimum).

Yes but you don't have a united Army nor do you have the aggression that Putin does. Putin is a dictator. His goal is to drive a wedge between alliances that don't benefit him and his country. He's aggressive and wants to destabilize a democratic Europe. Europe just isn't equipped, at this point, to fight that if the US backs him instead of them. Not sure you're going to enjoy a situation where the US and Russia work together to further each other's goals and leave Europe to fend for itself.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Einheri said:

As a Euro myself (and from one of the countries bordering Russia no less), I would be completely fine with this. It’s about time that we Europeans take our big boys pants back on and start taking more responsibility for our own security. Our united GDP dwarfs that of Russia, as does our population, and there is no reason Russia should be a threat to us if we actually started spending as much on our defence as you and Mr. Russian Taxpayer do (heck, most  Euro nations are not even close to the measly 2% of GDP that NATO recommends  as bare minimum).

I don't care about the hypocrisy.  In a realpolitik world it is not relevant.

Europe has depended upon the US for defense for some time it can't change that posture overnight.  Trump can withdraw US support overnight giving Putin room to act.  That's a problem.

[Einheri]

4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Yes but you don't have a united Army nor do you have the aggression that Putin does. Putin is a dictator. His goal is to drive a wedge between alliances that don't benefit him and his country. He's aggressive and wants to destabilize a democratic Europe. Europe just isn't equipped, at this point, to fight that if the US backs him instead of them. Not sure you're going to enjoy a situation where the US and Russia work together to further each other's goals and leave Europe to fend for itself.

We don't need to be aggressive (as in carrying out an aggressive foreign policy). We only need to make it crystal clear to anyone that if they try something against us we will retaliate massively. Yes, we are currently not united, and much of the reason for this is that most Euro countries doesn't see any point to this as long as we enjoy our presence under the US nuclear umbrella. A US withdrawal from Europe (as unlikely as that is, at most Trump will probably just try to bully some of the freeloaders to step up their game) might be development needed for us to finally come together, and dictator or not, Putin has no chance of destabilizing a united and powerful Europe.

[Einheri]

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't care about the hypocrisy.  In a realpolitik world it is not relevant.

OK, so you're admitting that you don't actually care about Russia's misdeeds, but are just bringing them up in order to accomplish some goal, like damaging the reputation of a potential rival? I guess that's fair enough. I can respect realpolitik.

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, Einheri said:

We don't need to be aggressive (as in carrying out an aggressive foreign policy). We only need to make it crystal clear to anyone that if they try something against us we will retaliate massively. Yes, we are currently not united, and much of the reason for this is that most Euro countries doesn't see any point to this as long as we enjoy our presence under the US nuclear umbrella. A US withdrawal from Europe (as unlikely as that is, at most Trump will probably just try to bully some of the freeloaders to step up their game) might be development needed for us to finally come together, and dictator or not, Putin has no chance of destabilizing a united and powerful Europe.

Russia has nukes, Norway, not so much.  A bit a of a asymmetrical issue there methinks. Being a part of NATO and having the US's nuke evens that out a bit. 

[Einheri]

3 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Russia has nukes, Norway, not so much.  A bit a of a asymmetrical issue there methinks. Being a part of NATO and having the US's nuke evens that out a bit. 

True, and we should definitely get some (or more like a lot), so that we no longer have any need of the US nuclear umbrella.

[Dr. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, Einheri said:

We don't need to be aggressive (as in carrying out an aggressive foreign policy). We only need to make it crystal clear to anyone that if they try something against us we will retaliate massively. Yes, we are currently not united, and much of the reason for this is that most Euro countries doesn't see any point to this as long as we enjoy our presence under the US nuclear umbrella. A US withdrawal from Europe (as unlikely as that is, at most Trump will probably just try to bully some of the freeloaders to step up their game) might be development needed for us to finally come together, and dictator or not, Putin has no chance of destabilizing a united and powerful Europe.

I'm very very very far from being all that knowledgeable about European policy and ability, but I'm really unclear how you think this will all happen.  While the US and Russia are allying and the US is turning away from Europe and the UK is sitting on the fence a bit, exactly how quickly do you think a Europe can mobilize?  And why would you want this?  

[Mexal]

22 minutes ago, Einheri said:

We don't need to be aggressive (as in carrying out an aggressive foreign policy). We only need to make it crystal clear to anyone that if they try something against us we will retaliate massively. Yes, we are currently not united, and much of the reason for this is that most Euro countries doesn't see any point to this as long as we enjoy our presence under the US nuclear umbrella. A US withdrawal from Europe (as unlikely as that is, at most Trump will probably just try to bully some of the freeloaders to step up their game) might be development needed for us to finally come together, and dictator or not, Putin has no chance of destabilizing a united and powerful Europe.

No chance? Aren't there a number of elections upcoming that matter like in France, Germany, Netherlands? I don't know the details behind them at the moment, but I have to imagine if the wrong person gets elected in those countries, especially after what has happened with Brexit and Trump, that Europe could start down a pretty ugly path?

[mormont]

2 hours ago, sToNED_CAT said:

There's no real shit out there on Trump.

How soon we forget. There are copious examples of 'real shit out there on Trump' that came up during the election campaign, and where there is some, there is inevitably more.

You seem very confident that you know how the intelligence world works, by the way. Where does that confidence come from? I'm curious.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, sToNED_CAT said:

Putin is hugely overrated as "dictator" or some kind of menace generally. US had and still has allies who are far worse. It is funny to see somebody like McGraham calling Putin tyrant, while being BFFs with kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Hell even Egypt and Turkey, our allies are more repressive than Russia. Also Russia and US have in reality almost no real conflict of interests. Putin's threat to Baltic states and eastern EU is hugely overrated, there's no economic rivalry like vs China and before revolution in Ukraine US and Russia actually cooperated in Middle East (Iranian embargo, Libya).

Eh, I think you have to throw all of that out of the window when it has become apparent that he fucked with our election. Yes, the Saudis are terrible, but are they actively trying to screw with us in terms of spycraft and the like? Putin is a different animal and deserves to be considered and treated as such.

[Chaircat Meow]

10 minutes ago, Mexal said:

No chance? Aren't there a number of elections upcoming that matter like in France, Germany, Netherlands? I don't know the details behind them at the moment, but I have to imagine if the wrong person gets elected in those countries, especially after what has happened with Brexit and Trump, that Europe could start down a pretty ugly path?

It is very hard to imagine a situation where you had a unified EU nuclear force capable of matching Russia's, even if military integration proceeds at an increased pace now that the UK is leaving. There is no political body in the EU with the legitimacy to use/control it. I can't really see France giving a say in what happens to their nukes to Greece or Latvia.

 

Agree with StonedCat mostly.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, sToNED_CAT said:

Long time allies Germany - well that has to be some kind of joke, because after Cold War the alliance was basically 1way affair - US helping in Yugoslavia and providing security and Germany and EU generally undermining US on every turn. Europe offered zero help vs China (south China sea), Iraq (not counting UK as part of EU), stabbed US in the back when they pulled out of Iranian embargo, nothing against North Korea, are trading with Cuba, fined US tech companies for ridiculous reasons, subsidized Airbus etc. What was the benefit of this alliance for USA in last 20 years? Few peacekeepers in relatively safe areas of Afghanistan?

You're showing a touching naivety about the way the world works. All US policies aim at promoting US interests because it's not a benevolent superpower that helps other countries out of sheer generosity ; US diplomatic or military pressure almost always aims at very specific gains, whether economic or geostrategic.
When US interests do not align with that of its allies, said allies have no reason to participate in what are quite often imperialist policies. Why would the EU help the US against China, Cuba or Iran when the EU is only interested in trading with these countries? If the US wants to play the hegemon, then it should assume the cost of doing so. Not our business I say.
Case in point is Iraq, whose invasion in 2003 was a terrible idea. And yet the US's allies often did pay for that, without any benefit in return. For instance, France was pressured into paying $5,5 billion through the renegociation of the Iraqui debt (I don't have the numbers for other countries) because it didn't participate militarily. US companies were able to benefit from Iraqui oil, but the destabilization of the country proved disastrous for everyone in the long run, and European countries especially. Classic case of imperial bullying from where I stand.
The only thing the EU should contribute to is its own defense, because of a possible threat from Russia. But more than defense, what the EU needs is greater unity.
As for trade wars... Come on. The US is a very agressive country as regards trade policies. Do you think the US never fines European companies for ridiculous reasons or subsidizes (directly or indirectly) some of its industries? And what about using the NSA to spy on European governments and companies to win trade deals? Gimme a godamn break.
The US got plenty from its alliances in the last 20 years, save for all the times when it screwed up because some moron at the helm wanted to play the world emperor. But don't blame the EU for what Dubya did, or what Trump will do.