General Politics Thread

[saevel25]

http://nypost.com/2016/05/08/obamas-last-act-is-to-force-suburbs-to-be-less-white-and-less-wealthy/

This type of government involvement is just stupid. 

 

 

[Chilli Dipper]

14 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

http://nypost.com/2016/05/08/obamas-last-act-is-to-force-suburbs-to-be-less-white-and-less-wealthy/

This type of government involvement is just stupid. 

 

 

Meh. Gentrification is pushing the urban poor into the suburbs anyway.

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

http://nypost.com/2016/05/08/obamas-last-act-is-to-force-suburbs-to-be-less-white-and-less-wealthy/

This type of government involvement is just stupid. 

 

It just creates new ghettos in the suburbs because once Obama moves the welfare families and drug dealers into the nice neighborhoods the people that live there will move out and let them destroy it.  Most parts of Brooklyn and Queens were great and safe neighborhoods until low income housing was forced into those areas.  

[Chilli Dipper]

9 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

It just creates new ghettos in the suburbs because once Obama moves the welfare families and drug dealers into the nice neighborhoods the people that live there will move out and let them destroy it.  Most parts of Brooklyn and Queens were great and safe neighborhoods until low income housing was forced into those areas.  

That does not even come close to summarizing the issue at hand. The op-ed makes many valid criticisms of the administration's policies, but it undercuts those points by framing them under "the big, bad government and its social engineering won't leave well enough alone."

There is an urban housing crisis in this country, largely because of how urban renewal projects have a nasty side effect of pricing out the existing residents of surrounding neighborhoods as economic development causes property values to skyrocket. I live outside of Atlanta, and I studied urban policy in college: I see the effects every day. Slums and industrial blight are replaced by luxury condos, and newer, cheaper houses continue to sprawl on the suburban periphery. People move inward or outward from the older interior suburbs, and that creates a tenant void increasingly filled by lower-income families displaced by gentrification.

The federal government is struggling to react to a trend already set into place by the free market, as are local and state governments throughout the country. It's a problem that doesn't get a lot of attention because of the people it affects the most, and also because of how it forces us to rethink what members of both parties like to claim as one of the great American success stories of the last few decades.

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, Chilli Dipper said:

People move inward or outward from the older interior suburbs, and that creates a tenant void increasingly filled by lower-income families displaced by gentrification.

It's more of an economical issue really coupled with the housing bubble. Housing price growth in this country was obviously artificially inflated outside the normal economic appreciation due to subprime loans pumping up demand in the housing market. 

Dumping people into higher end neighborhoods is not the answer. That is again, throwing money at the issue and hoping it sticks. There needs to be a serious talk on how to re-establish the ability of those making closer to minimum wage to be able to have a sustainable life. The more things like Education, Housing, and Healthcare keep increasing at a high rate compared to the ability of people to earn living makes it tough for them to use these necessities to improve their lives. 

 

[Chilli Dipper]

8 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

It's more of an economical issue really coupled with the housing bubble. Housing price growth in this country was obviously artificially inflated outside the normal economic appreciation due to subprime loans pumping up demand in the housing market. 

Dumping people into higher end neighborhoods is not the answer. That is again, throwing money at the issue and hoping it sticks. There needs to be a serious talk on how to re-establish the ability of those making closer to minimum wage to be able to have a sustainable life. The more things like Education, Housing, and Healthcare keep increasing at a high rate compared to the ability of people to earn living makes it tough for them to use these necessities to improve their lives. 

 

Neither party has a good grasp on the problem, because it's easier to ignore it than to address how the revitalization of American cities has not been completely positive in its impact.

[sarena1594]

Just my two cents on the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare...

Obamacare was a step in the right direction.  However, it was a very poor, disorganized, drawn out effort at best.  While I think we all agree that more people being covered by health insurance is a good thing (about 20M more people to put a number to it), Obamacare did nothing to reduce the complexity of our healthcare system.  It was a thousand page document - a document I doubt has been fully read and understood by many politicians - that stated the ACA's goals were to promote better consumer protection, better access to care, and more affordable care.  Though these goals were met to a certain extent, the plan does nothing to improve the U.S. quality of care and health outcomes, which are among the worst in the developed world when considering how much we spend on healthcare.  And the claims made earlier in this thread about the ACA saving us $400M per year are highly negligible, as the U.S. spends over $3 trillion per year in healthcare, or about 18% of GDP.  This is more than double the OECD average.  The fundamental problem that exists is the hundreds of for-profit, publicly traded payers in the system who are subject to analysts on Wall Street.  As someone about to graduate from business school and someone who believes that if regulated properly, Wall Street and its system of SIBs has its place in society, I do not think we should allow for-profit health insurance companies (much less ones that trade on the markets) to exist.  Take Germany - who operates on the Bismarck model (multi-payer system of regulated, non-profit, private insurance companies) of health insurance - or Britain - who operates under the National Health Service (NHS).  Both countries have developed economies, strong financial markets, and healthcare systems that aren't a burden to their citizens, doctors, government, or insurance companies (who are forced to compete on quality and formulary design rather than price to gain market share).  The U.S. should look more towards these healthcare systems to redesign its own.  

***Full disclaimer: I realize that it would be very politically improbable that the government would disallow private insurance companies on their exchanges, especially considering the millions on dollars lobbyists throw at politicians these days.  It would also be very politically difficult for the government to enact what would likely be a payroll tax (similar to our 2.9% Medicare tax) to pay for or subsidize universal health coverage.

It would be interesting to hear the opinions of TST members outside of the U.S.

Definitely willing to discuss, but like many have said, sticking to our discussion and passion for golf might be a better match for this site.

 

Edited May 9, 2016 by sarena1594
***U.S. spends $3 trillion per year in healthcare

[newtogolf]

12 hours ago, sarena1594 said:

Just my two cents on the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare...

Obamacare was a step in the right direction.  However, it was a very poor, disorganized, drawn out effort at best.  While I think we all agree that more people being covered by health insurance is a good thing (about 20M more people to put a number to it), Obamacare did nothing to reduce the complexity of our healthcare system.  It was a thousand page document - a document I doubt has been fully read and understood by many politicians - that stated the ACA's goals were to promote better consumer protection, better access to care, and more affordable care.  Though these goals were met to a certain extent, the plan does nothing to improve the U.S. quality of care and health outcomes, which are among the worst in the developed world when considering how much we spend on healthcare.  And the claims made earlier in this thread about the ACA saving us $400M per year are highly negligible, as the U.S. spends over $3 trillion per year in healthcare, or about 18% of GDP.  This is more than double the OECD average.  The fundamental problem that exists is the hundreds of for-profit, publicly traded payers in the system who are subject to analysts on Wall Street.  As someone about to graduate from business school and someone who believes that if regulated properly, Wall Street and its system of SIBs has its place in society, I do not think we should allow for-profit health insurance companies (much less ones that trade on the markets) to exist.  Take Germany - who operates on the Bismarck model (multi-payer system of regulated, non-profit, private insurance companies) of health insurance - or Britain - who operates under the National Health Service (NHS).  Both countries have developed economies, strong financial markets, and healthcare systems that aren't a burden to their citizens, doctors, government, or insurance companies (who are forced to compete on quality and formulary design rather than price to gain market share).  The U.S. should look more towards these healthcare systems to redesign its own.  

***Full disclaimer: I realize that it would be very politically improbable that the government would disallow private insurance companies on their exchanges, especially considering the millions on dollars lobbyists throw at politicians these days.  It would also be very politically difficult for the government to enact what would likely be a payroll tax (similar to our 2.9% Medicare tax) to pay for or subsidize universal health coverage.

It would be interesting to hear the opinions of TST members outside of the U.S.

Definitely willing to discuss, but like many have said, sticking to our discussion and passion for golf might be a better match for this site.

 

Overall i don't disagree with what you said but the real failure imo of Obamacare was his strategy of paying for it.  

Obamacare depends on the 18-35 year old demographic participating in the plan because they are overall a large demographic that would pay a lot of money into the plan and utilize the least amount of care to offset the elderly and children covered under the plan.  The majority of the 18-35 demographic opted to pay the penalty rather than the high premiums and roll the dice without health care.    Without the 18-35 year old premiums the program cannot afford to cover the rest of those enrolled and the penalty doesn't come close to covering what they were expected to pay in.

With regards to health insurance companies being non-profit, I would tend to agree with that but if you look at their reported profitability, insurance companies are not getting rich under Obama Care.  Any of the cost reductions are eaten up by the high administrative costs built into the plan.  

ObamaCare was rushed and forced down our throats so Obama would have a legacy, he knew he'd lose majorities in the house and senate so begged, borrowed and stole to get it to pass.  At this point it's a failed program and hasn't addressed any of the real issues within our health care system.  

[sarena1594]

6 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Overall i don't disagree with what you said but the real failure imo of Obamacare was his strategy of paying for it.  

Obamacare depends on the 18-35 year old demographic participating in the plan because they are overall a large demographic that would pay a lot of money into the plan and utilize the least amount of care to offset the elderly and children covered under the plan.  The majority of the 18-35 demographic opted to pay the penalty rather than the high premiums and roll the dice without health care.    Without the 18-35 year old premiums the program cannot afford to cover the rest of those enrolled and the penalty doesn't come close to covering what they were expected to pay in.

With regards to health insurance companies being non-profit, I would tend to agree with that but if you look at their reported profitability, insurance companies are not getting rich under Obama Care.  Any of the cost reductions are eaten up by the high administrative costs built into the plan.  

ObamaCare was rushed and forced down our throats so Obama would have a legacy, he knew he'd lose majorities in the house and senate so begged, borrowed and stole to get it to pass.  At this point it's a failed program and hasn't addressed any of the real issues within our health care system.  

I agree - they vastly underestimated where the money would be coming from and though I'm not fully aware of the number, I have heard that some people have been able to avoid paying the penalty.  Do you know the validity of this?  Whatever the cause of its failure, I'm just disappointed that none of the candidates from either party seem to be presenting a concrete plan for how to fix it (not that we've heard too many concrete plans for other issues). 

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

With regards to health insurance companies being non-profit, I would tend to agree with that but if you look at their reported profitability, insurance companies are not getting rich under Obama Care.  Any of the cost reductions are eaten up by the high administrative costs built into the plan. 

Insurance companies are only making 5% profits per year. Their profit margins are not that substantial.

United Health Care is dropping out of many state run Obamacare markets. I believe this is because there is too much risk in Obamacare. Just as stated above, there isn't enough healthy people in the pool cover how low the government is demanding the premiums to be.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/12/08/obamacare-premiums-are-on-the-rise-but-dont-blame-insurers/#62af70b08d5e

Quote

So, why are these increases happening? While it may be easy to blame insurers, many of them are actually losing money despite the higher premiums. According to data from McKinsey, insurers selling plans on the exchanges spent $2.5 billion more than they brought in via premiums in 2014. Across the country, nearly two-thirds lost money on exchange plans last year, while 23% only barely stayed in the black.

 

[nevets88]

This isn't in response to any of the threads in this thread, just a general observation of what the presidency does to a person. It's like the fountain of youth, in reverse, on steroids. 44 was what, 46 when he started, now he's 54.

 

[sarena1594]

5 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Insurance companies are only making 5% profits per year. Their profit margins are not that substantial.

United Health Care is dropping out of many state run Obamacare markets. I believe this is because there is too much risk in Obamacare. Just as stated above, there isn't enough healthy people in the pool cover how low the government is demanding the premiums to be.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/12/08/obamacare-premiums-are-on-the-rise-but-dont-blame-insurers/#62af70b08d5e

 

Agree with you on the insurance bit.

Rising costs stem from a system where economic and health incentives are misaligned. There are relative winners and losers, and right now, the insurance industry is one of the losers.

From a doctor's perspective: most doctors have high student debt and pay through the roof for malpractice insurance (not to mention the cost of litigation if it arises).  They have an incentive A) to perform as many tests as necessary to protect themselves, no matter how expensive the tests are B) to cure their ailing patients as quickly as possible (in most cases) and C) to negotiate for their own economic incentive.

From a patient's perspective: everybody wants to be healthy, yet there are so many who neglect the preventative measures to do so.  Rather than practice preventative medicine, we wait to get sick, get hurt, etc. before visiting a doctor.  We receive treatment (e.g. surgery, Rx) and are willing to pay for it because health is and should be a top priority.  Of course there are some people who live very healthy lives and are rather unlucky, but by and large, IMO we need to be more proactive about our health rather than reactive.

From a pharmaceutical/medical device perspective: please investors on Wall Street (high earnings, good margins, large drug pipeline, patent exclusivity, etc.)

From an insurance companies perspective: please investors on Wall Street while also being compliant with new regulations.  In doing so, insurance companies are stuck increasing their pool of more expensive individuals and charging higher premiums to everyone to do so.  At the same time they're being squeezed by A) the doctor's B) the patient's demand for medical services C) the rising cost of healthcare, which is prescribed by the oligopolistic nature of big pharma and biotech.

The graph below compares indexes that track the pharmaceutical industry (in red) and the insurance industry (in turquoise).  Clear winners: pharma and doctors (the doctor part is a guess, but I'm guessing salaries for specialists have dramatically increased since the recession). Clear losers: insurance and us, the patients.

 

46 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

This isn't in response to any of the threads in this thread, just a general observation of what the presidency does to a person. It's like the fountain of youth, in reverse, on steroids. 44 was what, 46 when he started, now he's 54.

 

The facial expression in each picture says it all 

[Strandly]

One of the more annoying things, for me, in politics are people from the same family running for office.  Bush?  Clinton?  Kennedy?  What the hell is the deal with these people?  It blows me away that we have 350 million people in this country and somehow this tiny, tiny group of people think they deserve to run it (apparently forever?).  I'd like to think most folks would have the decency to realize the fortune of being president for a while and then step aside graciously but these people are the opposite of that.

I don't know if it's arrogance or greed or some other thing but the more I see these people linger like a rotten fart the more I want to see them run off like the extremely bad house guests that they are.

With this many people in the country and the potential for finding great leaders there is absolutely no reason we need to keep picking these duds every election cycle.

[Golfingdad]

2 hours ago, nevets88 said:

This isn't in response to any of the threads in this thread, just a general observation of what the presidency does to a person. It's like the fountain of youth, in reverse, on steroids. 44 was what, 46 when he started, now he's 54.

 

Yeah, it's a stark difference.  No doubt having probably THE most stressful job on the planet will do that to you.

Google "presidents aging in office" and look at the images - many of W, Clinton, Reagan and more, all show a similar transition.

OTOH, what would the difference look like in a normal persons photos from age 46 to age 54?  More grey hair and more wrinkles, probably? ;)

[Chilli Dipper]

4 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Yeah, it's a stark difference.  No doubt having probably THE most stressful job on the planet will do that to you.

Google "presidents aging in office" and look at the images - many of W, Clinton, Reagan and more, all show a similar transition.

OTOH, what would the difference look like in a normal persons photos from age 46 to age 54?  More grey hair and more wrinkles, probably? ;)

Rocco Mediate (a year younger than the President), 2008:

 

Rocco Mediate, 2016:

[Gunther]

2 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Rocco Mediate (a year younger than the President), 2008:

 

Rocco Mediate, 2016:

That's some low-stress livin these past 8 years.  Good on him.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Rocco Mediate (a year younger than the President), 2008:

 

Rocco Mediate, 2016:

Touché. :P

1 hour ago, Gunther said:

That's some low-stress livin these past 8 years.  Good on him.

I'll say.  Hope I look that good when I'm 50-whatever.