[luke warm]

 Winstonm, on 2012-July-14, 07:41, said:

If you will read closely, you will note the racism comment was not directed toward you.

i didn't think for a second it was directed at me ...

[hrothgar]

 mike777, on 2012-July-14, 19:49, said:

yes socialism is facist.geez or at least has many fascist elements....

this is the common definition...economic and political power in the same hand.

http://www.glouceste...socialism-.html

I studied Economics and Government for a long time and never seen such a definition in use.
I'd even go so far as to suggest that a definition that is unable to differentiate between socialism and fascism is badly flawed.

FWIW, the random Friedman link that you posted doesn't support your claim, however, it did bring the following to mind:

Quote

Wanda: But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: [superior smile] Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it! Let me correct you on a few things; Aristotle was not Belgian! The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself!" And the London Underground is not a political movement! Those are all mistakes.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2012-July-14, 22:48, said:

Who DOESN'T like getting stuff for free? The problem is when one feels they are ENTITLED to free stuff.

The only connection to aging I can think of is all the "senior discounts". I think these exist for a couple of reasons:

1) Seniors = retired people (traditionally). These people are often on fixed incomes, they can't afford high prices as well as people who are employed.

2) "respect for elders". If someone has lived a long, productive life and benefited society, they deserve some recognition and return.

In combination, we don't consider someone "deficient" for being unemployed because they're retired. They put in their time, and they're allowed to rest in their later years. Contrast this with young people who are unemployed and/or homeless -- I think most people assume that there's something wrong with them that they aren't able to get work: they're lazy, too picky, not searching aggressively enough, uneducated, etc. If you've been working for 50 years and decide it's time to stop, few would hold it against you.

Robert Samuelson writes several columns a year (sometimes it feels like several columns a week) explaining that greedy seniors are bankrupting the nation. His tone on this is way over the top, but we live longer and healthier, and I accept that there are some seriously legitimate questions in this regard.

When I was 8 or so I spent a few weeks on my cousin's farm. Much to my dismay, I learned that on a farm 8 year olds were given quite a bit of work to do. I was happy to get home to my urban paradise and my bicycle. At the other end of age, I doubt farmers thought the seeds were obligated to plant themselves after the farmer turned 65. I took one of these stupid tests in high school that indicated suitable careers and when it suggested farming for me it thoroughly confirmed my skeptical view of such tests.

But what, really, do we think is the right division of our obligation to take care of ourselves and society's obligation to our well being? I don't find this to be a simple question, and confusion on this matter is perhaps at the heart of our problems with the ACA. Generally speaking, my view of helping people is that a good part of the help should be directed toward their needing less help in the future. This probably does not apply to the aged though.

[Cthulhu D]

 hrothgar, on 2012-July-15, 06:43, said:

I studied Economics and Government for a long time and never seen such a definition in use.
I'd even go so far as to suggest that a definition that is unable to differentiate between socialism and fascism is badly flawed.

FWIW, the random Friedman link that you posted doesn't support your claim, however, it did bring the following to mind:

There are only three reasons to believe that Fascism is socialist (LOL) is because you are stupid, lying or ill-informed. I think Mike777 is a smart dude, so someone has lied to him. It's intresting - one of the great successes of the American right in recent times has been redefining everything bad from the right is 'leftist' and everything from the left as 'evil.' It is truly brilliant and just shows how good the right's propaganda machine is, so much so that they think Obama is a leftist (hahaha) rather than the centre right leader he is. Heck, 42% of Americans don't believe Obama was born in the united states. Again, either they are stupid, lying or ill-informed. I don't think 42% of Americans are that mentally deficient, so they are lying or ill informed. But it gets better 64% of Republicans buy into this! Why?

It's easy - they watch Fox News. Daily watchers of fox news are 50% more likely to believe that Obama was not born in the United states that watchers of other news media, and 200%(!) more likely than the people who are factually best informed about current affairs, NPR viewers. Fox is the #1 source of Televised news in the US now. What the hell is happening to the truth over there guys? How can so many people believe something so stupid?

Source: Misinformation and the 2010 Election, A Study of the US Electorate, WorldPublicOpinion.org and Knowledge Networks, December 2010

Incidently, am I the only one who has read Umberto Eco? His 14 points defining Ur-Facism makes interesting reading in the context of the above.

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2012-July-14, 05:39, said:

TANSTAAFL

 Zelandakh, on 2012-July-13, 03:24, said:

However, one thing is clear. A universal healthcare system involves some people paying more than they currently do for little gain.

It sounds like we are in broad agreement then.

As for Fox News, are Americans really unable to realise the difference between a programme reporting the news and one trying to shape public opinion? This is a little like history class when you realise that you are no longer learning what factually happened in the past but rather understanding what is recorded and how the prejudices of the recorders affected their accounts. I have no problem with channels like Fox News personally, just do not try to pretend it is a serious news programme.

FWiiW, one of the few Americans with whom I have discussed such matters told me during the first election campaign that Obama was an African Muslim who took his oaths to swear into office on the Koran. What is more, they were listed as an independent voter. So to say that the Republican smear campaign was successful is an underbid. That such lies might still be believed is something I find absolutely incredible.

Finally, anyone who believes that any American politician in the running to be President is a Socialist really needs to take a good look at the world. Yes, in America perhaps being to the left of someone like David Cameron (UK) or Angela Merkel (Germany) might be considered extremely left wing. In the rest of the world there is a whole spectrum through Liberal, Social Democrat, Green and "modern Socialism" (perhaps some others I missed) before you reach the truly left wing socialaist parties. In political terms, Obama is far closer to Hitler than to Lenin. In most European countries he would be towards the centre of the party of the right (Conservative, Christian Democrat, etc).

[kenberg]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-July-16, 05:17, said:

FWiiW, one of the few Americans with whom I have discussed such matters told me during the first election campaign that Obama was an African Muslim who took his oaths to swear into office on the Koran. What is more, they were listed as an independent voter.

I live in this country and I haven't found anyone who believes this. I keep hearing that they exist, sort of like close encounters with aliens, but I haver not met them. Send him around, I'll straighten him out.

Look, I have met some weird fellow citizens. But I have met some weird Europeans, and even some weird Asians. So far, all the Australians I have met are relatively normal although at least one of my Australian friends is far more conservative than I am. He is from Tasmania so perhaps that explains it. (My attempt at humor, don't send the Tasmanian Devils after me).

[Winstonm]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-July-16, 04:26, said:

I don't think 42% of Americans are that mentally deficient

You must not have heard of Texas.

[Cthulhu D]

 Winstonm, on 2012-July-16, 05:58, said:

You must not have heard of Texas.

Did you see that the GOP Texas policy platform seriously has that they are against teaching critical thinking in classrooms, because it might cause someone to question authority? I am not joking in any way about that. This is what I absolutely do not understand about US politics. This is a self evidently totally absurd position, but more than one person had to agree with that. Also why is deregulating the pasteurization of milk even a thing? Maybe the doctrine of American exceptionalism that leads to rejecting totally that any European nation can provide a template for healthcare runs to rejecting anything European at all, and Louis was french? It's ridiculous.

 kenberg, on 2012-July-16, 05:53, said:

I live in this country and I haven't found anyone who believes this. I keep hearing that they exist, sort of like close encounters with aliens, but I haver not met them. Send him around, I'll straighten him out.

Look, I have met some weird fellow citizens. But I have met some weird Europeans, and even some weird Asians. So far, all the Australians I have met are relatively normal although at least one of my Australian friends is far more conservative than I am. He is from Tasmania so perhaps that explains it. (My attempt at humor, don't send the Tasmanian Devils after me).

Tasmania is kinda like a left wing version of Louisiana. Try not to think to hard about that.

The problem is that it's not some, it's FORTY PERCENT. Just contemplate that. American has collectively lost its *****, and to be honest Australia isn't that far behind - there is no grasp of rational discourse in public any more. The Obama is a SEKRET MUSLIM question is hardly the most damning on that poll.

[Zelandakh]

 kenberg, on 2012-July-16, 05:53, said:

But I have met some weird Europeans,

Hey, I am not European, I am English! (ok, I just wrote this to link back with the American thread)

Oh yes, and talking of Texas, the American concerned lived just across the border. Perhaps you need to take a road trip across the Bible Belt, Ken...

[blackshoe]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-July-16, 05:17, said:

II have no problem with channels like Fox News personally, just do not try to pretend it is a serious news programme.

A channel is more than one program. That said, I'll grant that objective unbiased news reporting is lacking on the channel. OTOH, it's lacking on every other channel as well. Journalism in the old sense of "objective unbiased reporting" seems to be a dead art.

I watch Fox on occasion. On occasion I watch various local and national news programs on other channels. In doing so, I keep in mind what "Deep Throat" said to Agent Scully: "Trust no one".

[kenberg]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-July-16, 08:17, said:

Hey, I am not European, I am English! (ok, I just wrote this to link back with the American thread)

Oh yes, and talking of Texas, the American concerned lived just across the border. Perhaps you need to take a road trip across the Bible Belt, Ken...

I was thinking about this on the way home from getting my hair cut. The barber explained to me that global warming is caused by our space program. It seems that rockets make holes in the ozone layer ....

I didn't ask him about Obama, I didn't want to be scalped.

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2012-July-11, 15:40, said:

having said all that, i'm definitely against it in the form of the ACA... it does not do what it says it would do, and it does not do it far more expensively than rumored... before i'm accused of making the good the enemy of the best, read the above paragraph... the best is all there is, there is no "good"

The ACA is far from perfect. But it is definitely "good" compared with healthcare in the US before it: Here's How the Affordable Care Act Saves Lots of Money

Quote

I was out to dinner on Saturday night with a friend who is rather pessimistic about compromise in our government. He believes that the chances for passing anything that might reduce spending on health care in the future are near zero. There's just one problem with his outlook. We've already passed a law that does a great deal to reduce future health care spending.

I have argued many times that I don't think the Affordable Care Act does enough to contain costs. I still believe that's true. But let's not ignore the fact that it does a lot. More, in fact, than anything else passed by Congress and signed into law by a president in quite some time.

Right off the bat, we need to remember that the Affordable Care Act makes significant cuts to future Medicare spending. Reductions in overpayments for Medicare Advantage constitute almost $140 billion in savings over a decade. Changes in the fee-for-service reimbursement schedule add up to almost $200 billion. That's an enormous amount of money, so large that it scared many people into thinking that Medicare would be severely curtailed. Running against Medicare cuts helped sweep the Republicans into power in the House of Representatives in 2010. Often, such arguments came from the same people now decrying the Affordable Care Act for not cutting health care spending enough.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are lots of other payment reforms (PDF) that should "bend the curve" for Medicare in the next decade. Hospitals will be punished for re-admissions for certain conditions. This is expected to save $8.2 billion. Refusing payments for hospital-acquired conditions should save another $3.2 billion. Accountable care organizations, for better or for worse, are expected to save almost $5 billion in the first eight years as well.

Folks who claim that the ACA does not save money compared with the previous "system" either don't know what they are talking about or are so blinded by their desire to displace Obama (for whatever reason) that they ignore the facts.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2012-July-20, 06:28, said:

Folks who claim that the ACA does not save money compared with the previous "system" either don't know what they are talking about or are so blinded by their desire to displace Obama (for whatever reason) that they ignore the facts.

well i remember when one of obama's arguments was, it will be under a trillion bucks (which it was - the estimate came in at $900B)... soon thereafter the cbo reported that the initial estimates were wrong and that it would be closer to $1.8T... now they're saying it's up to about $2.5T... so i think talks of "savings" need to be taken with a salt lick

[Winstonm]

I think it is important to get the most accurate, nonbiased numbers possible when discussing the ACA. Here is the latest I could find. In part it reads:

Quote

The Estimated Net Cost of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Is Smaller Than Estimated in March 2011. CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period.

Please note, the cost estimate is for a decade, not a yearly cost.

[kenberg]

The CBO report cited by Winston and the CNN report cited by Passed both make interesting reading. It is not immediately clear how to reconcile these documents.

First, with regard to savings and/or costs: Moving a cost from one place to another does not, of course, reduce costs. Here is from the CNN:

Quote

the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Affordable Care Act reduced the long-term fiscal gap by 2% of the gross domestic product over the next 75 years. That's about 25% to 33% of what is necessary to stabilize the debt in the long run. Granted, some of that deficit reduction comes from new taxes. But some of it also comes from reduction in future spending.

I regard it as important to sort through "comes from new taxes" and "comes from a reduction in future spending".

A further point on taxes and spending: I pay a Medicare premium that goes to Medicare. I pay taxes that go somewhere. If/when taxes get raised, the revenue will go into a big pot and there are many demands on the resources from that pot. And further, what new taxes? Are we speaking of part of the ACA that has been enacted (eg the penalty that is now, by Supreme judgment, a tax) or are we speaking of tax increases that perhaps will or perhaps won't be enacted in the future?

There is a more basic issues, almost (Luke Warm might approve) a philosophical one: When we praise, or oppose, ACA, what are the criteria? I can easily think of three, for starters: Good or bad for me, good or bad for the most vulnerable among us, good or bad for the economy of the nation. Perhaps all three criteria are in alignment. As Jake Barnes might say, wouldn't it be pretty to think so.

[luke warm]

 kenberg, on 2012-July-21, 06:15, said:

When we praise, or oppose, ACA, what are the criteria? I can easily think of three, for starters: Good or bad for me, good or bad for the most vulnerable among us, good or bad for the economy of the nation. Perhaps all three criteria are in alignment. As Jake Barnes might say, wouldn't it be pretty to think so.

which is why, if one goes back to my very first post on universal healthcare, i always stated that *if* that is the goal then there's only one efficient, effective way to do it... yes, it is a philosophical discussion (as, my pardons ken, most are)

[phil_20686]

Everyone should remember that ten year projections are basically completely mythical. Stuff happens. In ten years computer technology and dna could have halved the cost of medicine for common conditions, by allowing early intervention for alzhimers, parkinsons, and other expensive conditions. Or new medicine could make these simply treatable with a pill.

To understand the scale of poor projections, understand that the federal reserves one year economic projection, has now been down graded significantly in all of the last six quarters. Since the near term is the most compounded, this will automatically make the ten year projection from two years ago hopelessly optimistic. Everyone should read this article: Evan Soltas

[WellSpyder]

 phil_20686, on 2012-August-10, 12:57, said:

To understand the scale of poor projections, understand that the federal reserves one year economic projection, has now been down graded significantly in all of the last six quarters. Since the near term is the most compounded, this will automatically make the ten year projection from two years ago hopelessly optimistic. Everyone should read this article: Evan Soltas

Your comments (and the article) are a useful reminder of the dangers of forecasting. I have been involved in economic forecasting in one way or another in either the UK Treasury or the private sector more or less since you were born, I suspect, and I have seen this sort of pattern of continually postponed "jam tomorrow" forecasts on a number of occasions, not just in response to the current economic crisis.

It is worth bearing in mind, though, that difficulties in forecasting the short-term timing of any recovery do not necessarily make medium/long-term forecasts even more inaccurate. In fact, the historical tendency for recessions to be followed by periods of relatively rapid growth as the economy "catches up" with some sort of trend again means that it is quite possible to produce a reasonable view of the medium term even if short term developments prove very different from what was expected. (Of course, that doesn't mean that medium-term forecasts of recovery will be vindicated - spotting when underlying potential growth trends change isn't easy, and as you point out technological developments may also produce a future that no-one predicts.)

[blackshoe]

So are we screwed or not screwed or just maybe screwed?

[blackshoe]

So are we screwed or not screwed or just maybe screwed?