U.S. Politics: Wile E. Coyote edition

[Guest Raidne]

In honor of the impending fiscal cliff. Talk amongst yourselves.

[Fragile Bird]

Good name!

[Fez]

The argument here is not that costs are raised, but that they are shifted from the public to the private sector. The meat of it is that increases in private sector costs are estimated to double the amount of federal savings. Of course, that study is by the Kaiser Family Foundation - and they obviously have their own opinions about having the private sector bear the costs of insuring the elderly, no?

There is no date on the Kaiser study in the article you linked, but it appears to be pre-ACA.

So, this argument is fatally outdated and based on a report released by an interested industry party.

I didn't link to the KFF study, I linked to the CBPP study that used some of their numbers, however the KFF study is from July 2011. Also KFF has no affiliation with Kaiser Permanate or Kaiser Industries.

ETA:

I've heard this argument from you in full before with regard to Social Security, and I'm okay with it as regards Social Security. But this isn't being proposed for Social Security. It's being proposed for Medicare, and I agree with regard to Medicare. I don't want government-funded retirement health insurance.

So you're saying you want to eliminate Medicare? Because that's exactly what it is.

[Guest Raidne]

To Cyr: "Please tell me how H1B visa policies have changed since 1996 when it comes to universities, Ms Immigration Lawyer.."

Are you saying you came over to the U.S. on an H1B visa sponsored by a University? When your employment with that University was over, where did you go? Did you apply for a green card in the meantime? In other words, how were you able to say in the United States when you stopped working for a University?

With regard to the H1B, I can tell you that in 1996, the cap for the number of H1B visas was rarely met. In 2008, the entire quota was met in the first day. For the entire year. It didn't take more for the additional 20,000 spots for those with advanced degrees (misleadingly termed "exempt") to be filled either.

Of course, that's not a legal issue, and the information is freely available to anyone with a working knowledge of searching for things on the internet.

Anyway, higher education institutions are cap-exempt petitioners. In your case, as you've presented it, it's not about your qualifications - you wouldn't make it in today based on that alone - it's just because you who sponsored you. What I can't tell you, because you haven't given me enough information, is how you legally stayed after that and whether that process is different today.

[Guest Raidne]

So you're saying you want to eliminate Medicare? Because that's exactly what it is.

You don't say!

[Fez]

You don't say!

It's just that I never pegged you as the ideological sister of Jim DeMint. Sorry for giving you too much credit.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Are you saying you came over to the U.S. on an H1B visa sponsored by a University?

There are special visas for academics and a bunch of random other professions. If you are lucky enough to be in one of those very specific fields, you are set.

Here's a complete list:

http://en.wikipedia....ed_States_visas

If you don't happen to be something like a religious minister or "Certain international broadcasters" (I guess that's how Piers Morgan got in) you are not so lucky.

[Sixshells]

Let's take an example. 23-year old Pierre from France has a degree and a small internet business in Paris, which he hopes to grow over time. Frustrated at the slow pace of business and high taxes in France, he is hearing good things from friends he has in California about the friendly climate for startups over there. He decides to look into moving his business over there. What paths do you think he has to do so? Do you think he can go to the US embassy, outline his business plan, present his qualifications, and start the process rolling in a timely fashion? If so you are living in fantasy land. He has ZERO (count 'em) paths to do this. It simply isn't possible to do this.

Funny you should say that, since the latest jerck-circle of entreprenorial whining against the big bad French government and it's awful, awful taxes was lauched by a French start-up person based in the US. Just saying, he doesn't seem to have been disgusted by a difficulty of moving to the US.

[Guest Raidne]

Also KFF has no affiliation with Kaiser Permanate or Kaiser Industries.

Indeed. KFF hasn't been 1/3 shareholder in Kaiser Permanente since 1985. Perhaps "interested industry party" is overstating it, but the Kaiser family is still actively involved in KFF. Like, on the Board.

But thanks for the link - the KFF study says that we'd see an increase in total health care costs because of the mandate in the ACA - all 65-67 year olds would have to purchase other insurance, and - I guess? - stay on employer retirement plans longer, since that's where the bulk of that cost-increase comes from. Of course, that assumes that retirement plans would continue to just pay those costs, which they historically do not, when they become unmanageable.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Funny you should say that, since the latest jerck-circle of entreprenorial whining against the big bad French government and it's awful, awful taxes was lauched by a French start-up person based in the US. Just saying, he doesn't seem to have been disgusted by a difficulty of moving to the US.

If you are an already successful businessman (ie rich) you are OK, there are exceptions for those with a lot of money to invest.

I do know a "Pierre", a small businessman who wanted to emigrate, although he is not from France. Trust me, there was no way for him to come over - he researched it carefully, and got a lawyer to look at it.

[Guest Raidne]

It's just that I never pegged you as the ideological sister of Jim DeMint. Sorry for giving you too much credit.

Way to raise the level of discourse. I'm Jim DeMint because I don't think government-paid insurance is the best way to provide health care for the elderly when Medicare costs 50% more per patient than the VA system. Shiny.

Medicare is devoid of proper incentives and does nothing to provide transparency to healthcare pricing. It's a broken system that results in the expenditure of billions of dollars toward things like letting the very, very old live very, very unfulfilling lives for a very, very short period longer than they would have lived otherwise.

Including people who could afford their own insurance! Yes, let's take the people who spend loads of money on healthcare, divorce their health costs from all market forces, and then pick up the entire check. Surely that will save money!

Is there anyone but you that is 100% opposed to any Medicare reform? I take it you did not support the Medicare-reform provisions of the ACA then? Or are all Congressional Democrats some relative of Jim DeMint's now?

And on that note, lastly, every woman who agrees with Jim DeMint, wherever they are, aren't his ideological "sisters." They are just people who agree with him. It doesn't really matter if they have penises or vaginas.

[Fez]

Way to raise the level of discourse. I'm Jim DeMint because I don't think government-paid insurance is the best way to provide health care for the elderly when Medicare costs 50% more per patient than the VA system. Shiny.

Medicare is devoid of proper incentives and does nothing to provide transparency to healthcare pricing. It's a broken system that results in the expenditure of billions of dollars toward things like letting the very, very old live very, very unfulfilling lives for a very, very short period longer than they would have lived otherwise.

Including people who could afford their own insurance! Yes, let's take the people who spend loads of money on healthcare, divorce their health costs from all market forces, and then pick up the entire check. Surely that will save money!

Is there anyone but you that is 100% opposed to any Medicare reform? I take it you did not support the Medicare-reform provisions of the ACA then? Or are all Congressional Democrats some relative of Jim DeMint's now?

And on that note, lastly, every woman who agrees with Jim DeMint, wherever they are, aren't his ideological "sisters." They are just people who agree with him. It doesn't really matter if they have penises or vaginas.

Yes, yes you are. Because prior to Medicare, less than half of seniors had any sort of health insurance. People died or were crushed with crippling medical bills when they didn't need to. Medicare can be strengthened, it should be strengthened, it is being strengthened by such reforms as the transition away from fee-for-service that are in the ACA. But these reforms are process-based only, with reforms on the provider end. Beneficary-based reforms, which are all that's being proposed by Republicans right now, are opposed by the entire Democratic caucus outside of a few blue dogs, and with good reason.

If you were a dude, I'd say you were Jim DeMint's brother, since you're not, I say you're his sister. Anyone who is opposed to the concept of Medicare either doesn't understand the program and just how important it is, or is an ideological throwback like DeMint.

[Guest Raidne]

Another problem is that elderly folks are kinda anathema to insurance pools since they tend to require the most care, so they really need to be in single-payer even if the rest of the country doesn't. Medicare is like single-payer for the elderly.

Right. Except that it's discounted to a cost lower than what you or I pay for health care. (And except for Medicare Advantage, which is a voucher system).

Yes, yes you are. Because prior to Medicare, less than half of seniors had any sort of health insurance. People died or were crushed with crippling medical bills when they didn't need to.

I care about all people who cannot get health care or are bankrupted by healthcare costs, not just elderly people, who, right now, pay less than everyone else while costing more. I don't think the elderly should pay more, as a percentage, of their health care, but I don't think there should be a two-tier system where the elderly can have knee replacement surgery for free, but a thirty year old needing replacement after a traumatic injury cannot.

[Sixshells]

If you are an already successful businessman (ie rich) you are OK, there are exceptions for those with a lot of money to invest.

I do know a "Pierre", a small businessman who wanted to emigrate, although he is not from France. Trust me, there was no way for him to come over - he researched it carefully, and got a lawyer to look at it.

So, if the guy from your example is not that successful, why would it be different in the US? In what way are the conditions in his country blocking him than would not be the case in the US?

[Kalbear]

More people need to be on Medicare, not fewer.

I also find it deeply amusing that folks are lecturing cyr on immigration rules. This must be how raidne feels when I try to lecture her on Supreme Court decisions.

[Guest Raidne]

More people need to be on Medicare, not fewer.

This is a matter of perspective to some degree. I reject the notion that the elderly should get better health care. I do not reject subsidized health insurance for everyone. However, I have a concern regarding transparent pricing - the fact that the same medical procedure might cost $500 to $10K without any explanation - that needs to be addressed before the taxpayer just starts picking up the bill for everything, no questions asked, which is often what happens now, under Medicare as it currently exists.

I also find it deeply amusing that folks are lecturing cyr on immigration rules law. This must be how raidne feels when I try to lecture her on Supreme Court decisions.

We haven't even established whether or not Cyr is an immigrant, or if he's been on a non-immigrant visa the whole time he's lived here.

People don't become experts on family law by getting married and having kids.

[TerraPrime]

So, if the guy from your example is not that successful, why would it be different in the US? In what way are the conditions in his country blocking him than would not be the case in the US?

I would look at it from a different angle.

I'd say that if someone is willing to bring some capital into my country to start a business, they're welcome to try. What do we have to lose? Give them a temp VISA, like the equivalent of H1B, and let them try for 3 to 5 years. If it takes off, we'll get the tax. If it doesn't, the expenditure pumped money into our economy and we deny his/her application for permanent residence status at the end of the temp VISA. Seems like a win-win to me.

Also, in my experience, any foreign national studying or working in the U.S. who do not possess an adequate grasp of the immigration laws is asking for troubles. Very few employers, even the ones who regularly hire foreign nationals, are there to look out for your interests. I've had quite a few stories of foreign students getting screwed over because they were not up to speed on the laws and lapsed in some aspects of their immigration status. Most foreign nationals who come here for school and then stay for a job and eventual immigration do know a significant amount about immigration laws of the U.S. - we have to, in order to simply survive the system.

[Brienne the Beauty]

So, if the guy from your example is not that successful, why would it be different in the US? In what way are the conditions in his country blocking him than would not be the case in the US?

If all you want are people who are either a ) already successful, or b ) possess rare and high-level skills, then US immigration is already working perfectly. Americans might consider whether their own ancestors were rich or successful or possessed of unique talents when they moved to the USA. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" - what hogwash, right?

[naz]

@Naz: I think offering tuition aid across the board is impossible, because the way to fund this would likely be scholarships [funded] via tuition payments. I don't we can predict things to 100% accuracy, but I think we can be somewhat confident that a nursing degree will have a higher chance of benefiting the workforce than a theology degree.

Sci,

When I say across the board, I don't mean "everyone" (although that would be nice); I mean offering tuition aid without regard to chosen major.

Re: the bolded part, I respectfully and completely disagree. Using your example, what if the government gives a grant to a nursing student who then drops out and becomes a ditch digger while the theology student goes to work for a ministry, becomes a community organizer, and helps people in low-income neighborhoods with job training and other benefits?

I can't see using major field of study as a good way to decide who's going to become a more productive member of society and who isn't. Let private organizations offer scholarships that way; not the government.

eta: I'd like to cast a Summon Iskaral spell and find out exactly what metrics there are, if any, for predicting the extent to which a person will be a productive member of society.

[Shryke]

With regards to the fiscal cliff:

A "Grand Bargain" ain't happening. Not the one some seem to fear here.

The deal struck to raise the debt ceiling put the GOP over a barrel. Most didn't realise it at the time. (Gingrich, surprisingly, was probably the first to clue in). The cuts hurt the GOP more then the Dems and the Dems can just reverse most of the bad parts in a new bill in January. The clock is ticking down on the GOP and they know it.

Boehner is posturing in a desperate attempt to keep his job. He lost seats in the house, lost the popular vote and now looks to be on the verge of loosing the tax argument.