Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Oh, look, another Rethuglican spouting off at the mouth about Medicare being unsustainable and people getting $3 in services for every dollar they put in and fark it, let's just sick the liberal fact checkers on him. See, I told you...oh, he's right?   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 754
    More: Obvious, Medicare, fact checking, John Barrasso, average wage  
•       •       •

2708 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2013 at 12:24 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



754 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-20 01:43:11 PM  
Ok, for all of you who took debate, what is the name for the logical fallacy for what Matt is doing?

- Take a very complex subject and then over simplify it
- Point out that your over simplification doesn't work
- Then claim that since your over simplification won't work, neither does the original subject

Does that just get lumped in with strawman, or is there a better fit?
 
2013-03-20 01:43:11 PM  

MattStafford: runin800m: OK dude, I am pretty conservative and agree with a lot of what you say, I've even had people accuse me of being your alt, but come on. If you printed up a few trillion dollars and spent it, it would obviously and absolutely help the economy. Now, I disagree with the vast majority of people here in that I think the benefit of the government going into debt by a few trillion in order to put that money in the economy is decreasing as our debt increases, but it will still help the economy. The only question is a cost:benefit one. Does the benefit of the stimulation to the economy outweigh the cost of going into debt in order to do so?

It helps in the short term, of course.  Unless it is spent on productive projects, it hurts in the long term.


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 01:43:29 PM  

MattStafford: skullkrusher: the point is to stimulate. The point being that this initial stimulation results in a positive feedback loop that becomes self sustaining even in the absence of the liquidity injection. If the injection of cash did not help the economy gain traction, the economy would slump again once it is removed. There is a very famous example of this from the 30s.

What about the negative feedback loop that occurs when the stimulus is pulled back?  Do feedback loops only work in one way?


Read.
 
2013-03-20 01:43:29 PM  

max_pooper: Found it. If you don't want to read through the entire thread, just skip to page two and do an ctrl+f "degree". That's where he claims to have an economics degree with some bonus stupidity about how consumption is not good for the economy.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7549150/Remember-last-week-when-Gov-Bro wn -announced-that-for-first-time-in-20-years-California-was-no-longer-go ing-to-be-a-fiscal-laughingstock-Yeahabout-that?startid=82042658


I'll bet he has a GED in law and a black belt in medicine, too.
 
2013-03-20 01:43:41 PM  

Antimatter: I don't think he understand the concept of borrowing money. He thinks its the same as printing unbacked currency.


It isn't identical, but if the government has made it policy to print money to pay that debt off (which the Federal Reserve has) it is very similar.
 
2013-03-20 01:44:46 PM  

MattStafford: Antimatter: I don't think he understand the concept of borrowing money. He thinks its the same as printing unbacked currency.

It isn't identical, but if the government has made it policy to print money to pay that debt off (which the Federal Reserve has) it is very similar.


When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 01:44:57 PM  

MattStafford: skullkrusher: the point is to stimulate. The point being that this initial stimulation results in a positive feedback loop that becomes self sustaining even in the absence of the liquidity injection. If the injection of cash did not help the economy gain traction, the economy would slump again once it is removed. There is a very famous example of this from the 30s.

What about the negative feedback loop that occurs when the stimulus is pulled back?  Do feedback loops only work in one way?

 
2013-03-20 01:44:59 PM  
Sub:liberal fact checker

You use that word but I'm not convinced you know what it means.
 
2013-03-20 01:45:05 PM  

Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: There is a town that produces a variety of goods.  They have their own currency.  I print up a ton of currency, go to this town, and buy a bunch of their goods.  I leave the town with these real goods.

The town is better off after this happened.

Keynes, baby.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 191x177]
BUT IT WORKS IN MY MIIIIIND! WAAHH
AGREE WITH ME!!
PLEAAAASE!

Isn't that what people are arguing?  Injecting currency into an economy makes it stronger?  Does it not work in this example?

Yes, due to you trying to troll by claiming it doesn't - yes it does - and no.

Also, not actually an example.


Why does it not work in that example? Why would me injecting money into that economy not work?  What makes it different from monetary injections that do work?
 
2013-03-20 01:45:32 PM  

max_pooper: MattStafford: Antimatter: I don't think he understand the concept of borrowing money. He thinks its the same as printing unbacked currency.

It isn't identical, but if the government has made it policy to print money to pay that debt off (which the Federal Reserve has) it is very similar.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?


jeez dude, it's getting old now
 
2013-03-20 01:45:46 PM  

skullkrusher: MattStafford: skullkrusher: it would, actually. That injection of cash would stimulate demand which in turn stimulates more demand. The inflationary impact, if any, would not be immediately apparent. That's why it works to stimulate the economy out of recession but is not a good idea as a matter of continuing policy

It would help it in the short term, I agree.  It would actively hurt it in the long term, however.

I print up currency and hire a bunch of people to dig ditches and fill them back in.  They go out and use that currency to buy goods and services.  Demand picks up, production picks up, the economy is booming.

I stop printing money, and fire all of the ditch diggers.  They stop consuming.  Demand drops.  Production drops.  You return to the status quo, except you suffer the huge opportunity cost of all of those people digging ditches when they could have been doing something else.

the point is to stimulate. The point being that this initial stimulation results in a positive feedback loop that becomes self sustaining even in the absence of the liquidity injection. If the injection of cash did not help the economy gain traction, the economy would slump again once it is removed. There is a very famous example of this from the 30s.


We're just quibbling over the size and target of such a stimulus package.  How much is needed for an economy with a GDP of $15 trillion dollars?  I'd say 700 billion, with 1/3 of that being tax cuts, and the passage of which made it difficult to pass a much needed transportation infrastructure funding bill, was probably too small.
 
2013-03-20 01:46:10 PM  

skullkrusher: max_pooper: MattStafford: Antimatter: I don't think he understand the concept of borrowing money. He thinks its the same as printing unbacked currency.

It isn't identical, but if the government has made it policy to print money to pay that debt off (which the Federal Reserve has) it is very similar.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?

jeez dude, it's getting old now


I kind of like it. Its catchy!
 
2013-03-20 01:46:15 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I repeat: I understand that you fundamentally disagree with Keynesian economics, but is there some reason that you need to re-start every single thread pretending not to know what Keynesian's think, and re-asking the same questions over and over again?

We've been through this many times before.

Because until people understand that it is bullshiat, it needs to be restarted.


I think you dropped your lance, over there next to that windmill.


We are all very, very tired of hearing from you.  You're not even a troll, you're just stupid.  The economy does not work the way you think it does.  And will not work the way you think it should.
STFU and GBTW
 
2013-03-20 01:47:15 PM  

ShawnDoc: Ok, for all of you who took debate, what is the name for the logical fallacy for what Matt is doing?

- Take a very complex subject and then over simplify it
- Point out that your over simplification doesn't work
- Then claim that since your over simplification won't work, neither does the original subject

Does that just get lumped in with strawman, or is there a better fit?


To counter that argument, you would need to explicitly explain why the simplification does not work.  You can't simply say "that isn't how it works", you need to say "that isn't how it works because of X,Y, and Z".  Still waiting on that second part.
 
2013-03-20 01:48:04 PM  

MattStafford: Why does it not work in that example?


ShawnDoc: - Take a very complex subject and then over simplify it
- Point out that your over simplification doesn't work
- Then claim that since your over simplification won't work, neither does the original subject


You must have earned your economics degree from the FoxNews School of misunderestimating. Keynesian economics doesn't work that way and is vastly more complicated. But you already know this, which is why you're a troll.
 
2013-03-20 01:48:18 PM  
MattStafford: Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: There is a town that produces a variety of goods.  They have their own currency.  I print up a ton of currency, go to this town, and buy a bunch of their goods.  I leave the town with these real goods.

The town is better off after this happened.

Keynes, baby.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 191x177]
BUT IT WORKS IN MY MIIIIIND! WAAHH
AGREE WITH ME!!
PLEAAAASE!

Isn't that what people are arguing?  Injecting currency into an economy makes it stronger?  Does it not work in this example?

Yes, due to you trying to troll by claiming it doesn't - yes it does - and no.

Also, not actually an example.

Why does it not work in that example? Why would me injecting money into that economy not work?  What makes it different from monetary injections that do work?


It seems like this is something a person would learn while taking economics class in pursuit of an economics degree.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-03-20 01:48:59 PM  

Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: skullkrusher: the point is to stimulate. The point being that this initial stimulation results in a positive feedback loop that becomes self sustaining even in the absence of the liquidity injection. If the injection of cash did not help the economy gain traction, the economy would slump again once it is removed. There is a very famous example of this from the 30s.

What about the negative feedback loop that occurs when the stimulus is pulled back?  Do feedback loops only work in one way?

Read.


So are you suggesting that there is no negative feedback that comes when a government stops spending?  How does the government cut spending without creating a drop in demand and a negative feedback loop?
 
2013-03-20 01:49:58 PM  

MattStafford: Tomahawk513: MattStafford: There is a town that produces a variety of goods.  They have their own currency.  I print up a ton of currency, go to this town, and buy a bunch of their goods.  I leave the town with these real goods.

The town is better off after this happened.

Keynes, baby.

This is a great analogy to absolutely nothing that has happened, is happening, or ever will happen.

If the government printed money and gave it to a retired person, who then purchased something, isn't that pretty similar?  They bought goods from the town (rest of society) and then left (never produced anything in the society).  The actions of an elderly person spending freshly printed currency received by the government are identical to my actions in that town.  Unless you have a reason as to why they aren't.


The more appropriate question would be, can anyone but yourself NOT pick out a dozen holes in this argument?  Here we go:
1) The government isn't simply printing money, it's borrowing it.
2) The retired person likely did produce something during their lifetime.
3) Money spent by that person will generate tax revenue:
3a) Sales tax from buying a good or service.
3b) Business will pay payroll taxes to its employees.
3c) Employees will pay income taxes on their wages.
4) That retired person has paid into that system in the past; it is not simply the government printing money like a malfunctioning HP.
 
2013-03-20 01:50:31 PM  

MattStafford: skullkrusher: it would, actually. That injection of cash would stimulate demand which in turn stimulates more demand. The inflationary impact, if any, would not be immediately apparent. That's why it works to stimulate the economy out of recession but is not a good idea as a matter of continuing policy

It would help it in the short term, I agree.  It would actively hurt it in the long term, however.

I print up currency and hire a bunch of people to dig ditches and fill them back in.  They go out and use that currency to buy goods and services.  Demand picks up, production picks up, the economy is booming.

I stop printing money, and fire all of the ditch diggers.  They stop consuming.  Demand drops.  Production drops.  You return to the status quo, except you suffer the huge opportunity cost of all of those people digging ditches when they could have been doing something else.


Actually you've managed to show why wealth concentration amongst a tiny elite is a bad idea. Nobody has proposed this except for the GOP "job creator" mythology which you seem to adhere to.
 
2013-03-20 01:50:34 PM  

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: max_pooper: MattStafford: Antimatter: I don't think he understand the concept of borrowing money. He thinks its the same as printing unbacked currency.

It isn't identical, but if the government has made it policy to print money to pay that debt off (which the Federal Reserve has) it is very similar.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?

jeez dude, it's getting old now

I kind of like it. Its catchy!


I don't, it's really old. I've never put ANYONE on ignore and don't respect those who do, but pooper is making it seem more and more palatable.
 
2013-03-20 01:51:05 PM  

Fart_Machine: Oh come on. This guy is hilarious.


He's not the finest we've seen, but I have to admit now as this thread continues its getting progressively more entertaining

1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-03-20 01:51:25 PM  

skullkrusher: MattStafford: skullkrusher: the point is to stimulate. The point being that this initial stimulation results in a positive feedback loop that becomes self sustaining even in the absence of the liquidity injection. If the injection of cash did not help the economy gain traction, the economy would slump again once it is removed. There is a very famous example of this from the 30s.

What about the negative feedback loop that occurs when the stimulus is pulled back?  Do feedback loops only work in one way?


So if I'm following you correctly, you are saying that if the government instituted a jobs program, the economy would eventually get to a point where they could cut the jobs program with no negative consequences?

And what about the taxes to pay for that jobs program?  How does that affect the feedback loop?
 
2013-03-20 01:51:31 PM  
The Austrian School is autism expressed as an economic theory by libertarians who can't pass Calculus. ~Ishkur

http://www.fark.com/comments/7605430/82660250#c82660250

Interestingly enough, in ANOTHER thread that MattStafford threadshat in.
 
2013-03-20 01:53:26 PM  

MattStafford: So are you suggesting that there is no negative feedback that comes when a government stops spending?


No, I'm not, troll.

MattStafford: How does the government cut spending without creating a drop in demand and a negative feedback loop?


Continue until it is self-sustaining. Recovery from the US depression in the 30's didn't happen until after WW2. It would have taken longer had WW2 not occurred and necessitated the government spending on the war effort.

Troll harder.
 
2013-03-20 01:54:34 PM  

DamnYankees: Dusk-You-n-Me: mrshowrules: You should eliminate the age requirements.

Medicare for all would be fine by me.

We should.

[s3.amazonaws.com image 480x295]


I think you guys fail to understand how medicare actually works...

My roommate used to work for HCA in the billing department, and this is how medicare works (and why medicare is actually causing your premiums to go up on your private insurance):

Someone with medicare comes in, they don't pay a copay - everything gets billed the government.  The government says, okay, we're willing to pay this much, and sends that amount back to the hopsital. The hospital is typically out about 25% because medicare only actually covers 75% of the hospitals cost.  So then the hospital, trying to recoup those losses, passes it on to the insurance companies of the people who are privately insured.

So yes - the cost per person of people who are privately insured is going up - but a large part of that is because of medicare.  That's why you start seeing hospitals that are popping up that refuse to take people who have medicare (and are allowed to because they are for profit) and a whole bunch of the non-profit (that have to take medicare) failing.

The solution for this is for the government to regulate the costs across the board - not just say, "We are only paying this amount for medicare services".  Just because the costs of medicare services only get paid out by the government at a certain rate doesn't mean x-company that sells supplies is taking that into account.
 
2013-03-20 01:54:52 PM  

skullkrusher: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

WP? Sure you aren't confusing it with the Washington Times? WT is a pile of poop. WP isn't bad, relatively speaking.


Pretty sure.
 
2013-03-20 01:54:56 PM  

MattStafford: Epoch_Zero: MattStafford: skullkrusher: the point is to stimulate. The point being that this initial stimulation results in a positive feedback loop that becomes self sustaining even in the absence of the liquidity injection. If the injection of cash did not help the economy gain traction, the economy would slump again once it is removed. There is a very famous example of this from the 30s.

What about the negative feedback loop that occurs when the stimulus is pulled back?  Do feedback loops only work in one way?

Read.

So are you suggesting that there is no negative feedback that comes when a government stops spending?  How does the government cut spending without creating a drop in demand and a negative feedback loop?


Because by the time the government pulls back on spending *EPIC DRUM ROLL HERE*...

THE ECONOMY IS STRONGER AND CAN ABSORB AN INFLUX OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS!
 
2013-03-20 01:54:59 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Man you all are easy to troll


Meh.  It's the same people using the guy as a punching bag, thread after thread.  Let em go.

varifrank.com
 
2013-03-20 01:55:28 PM  

MattStafford: And what about the taxes to pay for that jobs program? How does that affect the feedback loop?


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-20 01:55:29 PM  
MattStafford:  i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-03-20 01:55:59 PM  

MattStafford: So if I'm following you correctly, you are saying that if the government instituted a jobs program, the economy would eventually get to a point where they could cut the jobs program with no negative consequences?

And what about the taxes to pay for that jobs program?  How does that affect the feedback loop?


Well, I can't speak for him but if the government instituted a jobs program that consisted of jobs that had some value, like repairing/investing in bridges/roads/public infrastructure and things of that nature, then the economy could get to a point where the negative consequences of cutting the jobs program would be less than the benefit that was gained from it.
 
2013-03-20 01:56:39 PM  

Tomahawk513: 1) The government isn't simply printing money, it's borrowing it.


Currently it is printing money, via QE, and it seems likely that that is only going to increase in the near future.

Tomahawk513: 2) The retired person likely did produce something during their lifetime.


Who cares?  We are talking about the effects of policy now.  His past actions are irrelevant.  If you are suggesting he saved money instead, then that is different.

Tomahawk513: 3) Money spent by that person will generate tax revenue:
3a) Sales tax from buying a good or service.
3b) Business will pay payroll taxes to its employees.
3c) Employees will pay income taxes on their wages.


That is exactly what would happen in the analogy with the small town, so I'm not sure why you would consider it a failure of the analogy.

Tomahawk513: 4) That retired person has paid into that system in the past; it is not simply the government printing money like a malfunctioning HP.


But the money that he paid into the system was already spent on other things.

The elderly person produced in the past, and attempted to save that money via the Social Security Trust Fund.  The SSTF loaned the money to the government, who spent it on whatever.
 
2013-03-20 01:58:22 PM  

lordjupiter: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Man you all are easy to troll

Meh.  It's the same people using the guy as a punching bag, thread after thread.  Let em go.

[varifrank.com image 250x192]


He deserves it. And comes back for more, asking us to continue. As friendly and accommodating farkers, how can we turn him away?
 
2013-03-20 01:58:23 PM  

MattStafford: skullkrusher: MattStafford: skullkrusher: the point is to stimulate. The point being that this initial stimulation results in a positive feedback loop that becomes self sustaining even in the absence of the liquidity injection. If the injection of cash did not help the economy gain traction, the economy would slump again once it is removed. There is a very famous example of this from the 30s.

What about the negative feedback loop that occurs when the stimulus is pulled back?  Do feedback loops only work in one way?

So if I'm following you correctly, you are saying that if the government instituted a jobs program, the economy would eventually get to a point where they could cut the jobs program with no negative consequences?

And what about the taxes to pay for that jobs program?  How does that affect the feedback loop?


no, there are negative consequences to cutting off the jobs program. The point, however, is to have the organic economic growth to the point where the net impact is positive.
 
2013-03-20 01:58:41 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Continue until it is self-sustaining. Recovery from the US depression in the 30's didn't happen until after WW2. It would have taken longer had WW2 not occurred and necessitated the government spending on the war effort.


So continue spending until it is self sustaining.  How much stimulus is required for it to be self sustaining?  What about the taxes that are eventually taken out to pay for that government spending?  Does that not produce a negative feedback loop?
 
2013-03-20 01:59:17 PM  
reidreport.com

"Hey Matt Stafford, if I gave you a trillion dollars to spend, can you spend it on Friends of Hamas and tell that whore Ann Coulter to drown in a bathtab made of my taint sweat? Thanks."
 
2013-03-20 01:59:25 PM  

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: max_pooper: MattStafford: Antimatter: I don't think he understand the concept of borrowing money. He thinks its the same as printing unbacked currency.

It isn't identical, but if the government has made it policy to print money to pay that debt off (which the Federal Reserve has) it is very similar.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?

jeez dude, it's getting old now

I kind of like it. Its catchy!


like herpes
 
2013-03-20 02:00:44 PM  

runin800m: Well, I can't speak for him but if the government instituted a jobs program that consisted of jobs that had some value, like repairing/investing in bridges/roads/public infrastructure and things of that nature, then the economy could get to a point where the negative consequences of cutting the jobs program would be less than the benefit that was gained from it.


And I agree with that, 100%.  Borrowing money and using it for valuable jobs is a good thing.  I'm on record as being in favor of spending borrowed money on education, infrastructure, R+D, and several other productive projects. I'm curious as to how it works when that money isn't used for valuable jobs, but for straight consumption, a la Social Security.
 
2013-03-20 02:00:45 PM  
Honestly? I don't have a problem if Medicare isn't self-sustaining, just like I don't give two shiats if the Post Office operates at a loss. That's the point.

Government does these things because the private sector can't. I would much rather go bankrupt as a country funding healthcare for our most in need instead of going bankrupt bombing and dieing in some shiat hole in the Middle East.
 
2013-03-20 02:00:52 PM  

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: max_pooper: MattStafford: Antimatter: I don't think he understand the concept of borrowing money. He thinks its the same as printing unbacked currency.

It isn't identical, but if the government has made it policy to print money to pay that debt off (which the Federal Reserve has) it is very similar.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?

jeez dude, it's getting old now

I kind of like it. Its catchy!

like herpes


Look, I already said I was sorry. How many times do I have to say it!
 
2013-03-20 02:00:56 PM  

Via Infinito: skullkrusher: Via Infinito: Sorry subs. Washington Post is on my no-clicky list. Nice try though.

WP? Sure you aren't confusing it with the Washington Times? WT is a pile of poop. WP isn't bad, relatively speaking.

Pretty sure.


the WP endorsed BO
 
2013-03-20 02:01:39 PM  

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: max_pooper: MattStafford: Antimatter: I don't think he understand the concept of borrowing money. He thinks its the same as printing unbacked currency.

It isn't identical, but if the government has made it policy to print money to pay that debt off (which the Federal Reserve has) it is very similar.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?

jeez dude, it's getting old now

I kind of like it. Its catchy!

like herpes

Look, I already said I was sorry. How many times do I have to say it!


I'm just reminded of it each time I sit down.
"It's probably just hemorrhoids", my ass!
 
2013-03-20 02:02:41 PM  

MattStafford: when that money isn't used for valuable jobs, but for straight consumption, a la Social Security.


Because people on social security do not purchase anything with their cashed checks, everyone knows old people bury their money in tin cars in the back yard.

*facepalm
 
2013-03-20 02:03:22 PM  

skullkrusher: no, there are negative consequences to cutting off the jobs program. The point, however, is to have the organic economic growth to the point where the net impact is positive.


But the very nature of the jobs program means that the growth isn't organic, it is artificial.

If the government hired a bunch of unemployed people to dig ditches and fill them back in, a bunch of other unemployed people could start making a living providing services and selling those guys goods.  But once the government stops the ditch digging program, the economy collapses.  In fact, the ditch digging program actually prevented any organic growth from happening.  The artificial growth used real resources and labor that could have been used to create actual, organic growth.
 
2013-03-20 02:03:52 PM  

skilbride: DamnYankees: Dusk-You-n-Me: mrshowrules: You should eliminate the age requirements.

Medicare for all would be fine by me.

We should.

[s3.amazonaws.com image 480x295]

I think you guys fail to understand how medicare actually works...

My roommate used to work for HCA in the billing department, and this is how medicare works (and why medicare is actually causing your premiums to go up on your private insurance):

Someone with medicare comes in, they don't pay a copay - everything gets billed the government.  The government says, okay, we're willing to pay this much, and sends that amount back to the hopsital. The hospital is typically out about 25% because medicare only actually covers 75% of the hospitals cost.  So then the hospital, trying to recoup those losses, passes it on to the insurance companies of the people who are privately insured.

So yes - the cost per person of people who are privately insured is going up - but a large part of that is because of medicare.  That's why you start seeing hospitals that are popping up that refuse to take people who have medicare (and are allowed to because they are for profit) and a whole bunch of the non-profit (that have to take medicare) failing.

The solution for this is for the government to regulate the costs across the board - not just say, "We are only paying this amount for medicare services".  Just because the costs of medicare services only get paid out by the government at a certain rate doesn't mean x-company that sells supplies is taking that into account.


This is a long way of saying that Medicare is better at negotiating prices than private insurance companies.
 
2013-03-20 02:04:33 PM  

MattStafford: But the very nature of the jobs program means that the growth isn't organic, it is artificial.


ok, just cut it out now.
 
2013-03-20 02:05:10 PM  

Lunchlady: Honestly? I don't have a problem if Medicare isn't self-sustaining, just like I don't give two shiats if the Post Office operates at a loss. That's the point.

Government does these things because the private sector can't. I would much rather go bankrupt as a country funding healthcare for our most in need instead of going bankrupt bombing and dieing in some shiat hole in the Middle East.


I'd like to find out who the first guy was that decided that the idea "government should be run like a business" was a good one and either cockpunch him or piss on his grave.
 
2013-03-20 02:05:37 PM  

Lunchlady: Honestly? I don't have a problem if Medicare isn't self-sustaining, just like I don't give two shiats if the Post Office operates at a loss. That's the point.

Government does these things because the private sector can't. I would much rather go bankrupt as a country funding healthcare for our most in need instead of going bankrupt bombing and dieing in some shiat hole in the Middle East.


The problem with medicare though specifically is that it is the one program the government has that can cause a business that otherwise would be profitable (or at the very least, break even) to take a loss as well.  

To take your post office example, the post office exists, as do Fedex and UPS.  When you want better service, you go to FedEx and UPS.

Medicare doesn't have a version of that though, you go where-ever you want, and then that company gets stiffed on the cost of their bill.  That would the be the equivilant of saying, "Hey UPS, this guy is poor, so only charge him 37 cents on this letter even though it's going to cost you $1.... because the government said so!"
 
2013-03-20 02:06:42 PM  

skullkrusher: Dr. Whoof: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: isn't the point of Medicare to give people more than they pay for?

I thought that was usually how insurance worked, yeah.

The concept of shared risk pooling is too difficult for Cletus to understand, so let's end Medicare.

if the average person is getting $3 back for every $1 put in, that's not very effective risk pooling.


If you read the chart Carefully, this is that for every $1 a person earning $44k a year puts into the system, that same person eventually gets out $3, "assuming" that congress continues to vote to stop payment cuts every year like they have done in the past.

This completely ignores that Medicare unlike Social Security is intended to be a progressive taxation system, so yes, just like every other tax out there, the average person making $44k a year pays little into the system.
 
2013-03-20 02:07:06 PM  

skilbride: Medicare doesn't have a version of that though, you go where-ever you want, and then that company gets stiffed on the cost of their bill.  That would the be the equivilant of saying, "Hey UPS, this guy is poor, so only charge him 37 cents on this letter even though it's going to cost you $1.... because the government said so!"


It's called bargaining. No hospital operating without government subsidies has to accept Medicare. It's their choice.
 
Displayed 50 of 754 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report