Jump to content

Neomalthusian

non-Liberal
  • Content Count

    1,479
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Alaska

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In the past I've defended "skinny" health plans in theory based on the relative cheapness of premiums. Sure, the coverage is "skinnier" and it won't cover much, but that's because you're paying piddly in premiums, and they tell you the coverage limitations. But how do we know if the apparently low premiums are in fact low enough that the "skinny plan" might actually an OK deal, assuming caveat emptor regarding coverage limitations? Loss ratios. The real indication about whether a short-term, ACA-non-compliant a.k.a. "skinny" health insurance plan is "junk" or not can be found not in complaints about what the plan admittedly doesn't cover, but by how much of the revenue the insurer spends on claims. In the case of these plans, turns out it's $0.39. One example (Cambia-BCBS) is as low as $0.09. That's how we know these are "junk" plans. So. Whatever I may have said in the past in theoretical defense of ACA non-compliant short-term "skinny" health insurance plans, I stand corrected. These are junk plans. Short-term health plans pay out only 39% of premiums on care, report finds
  2. This canard again. Ford didn’t succeed by raising his workers’ pay until they could afford his cars. He succeeded by transforming the assembly process such that the cost of cars dropped by seven-eighths in less than a decade.
  3. You don't fight for what's right by launching false claims about companies that cause people to have a poorer understanding of issues. That's what she's doing lately because she believes that rhetoric will yield campaign success. Whether (despite the firebrand rhetoric) she would actually support decent and effective policy once in office or not is a bit of a different question. If I were to bet on it, I think she would ultimately support more moderate and effective policy rather than radical and disruptive policy. But that's a guess. I can't be sure. The more vitriolic her anti-private sector rhetoric gets, the less sure I am.
  4. Yes I realize she never literally stated that, I didn't attribute a quote to her to that effect, but if you assess her rhetoric and talking points compared to the others in the field, probably not even Sanders comes across as more anti-corporate than Warren, because despite being so hard left, Sanders has always seemed more professorial about his stance. Warren is firebrand and uses the sort of speech mannerisms with her rhetoric to really agitate and excite people. But some of that rhetoric is pretty severely dishonest and contributes to stupidity and extremism among her followers.
  5. Warren's approach is to be the most anti-corporate candidate of the pack. Are there plenty of examples of corporate malfeasance out there? Absolutely, of course. But she will go way past the actual examples, and in fact there appears to be almost no limit to how much she will warp the truth about corporations in general for being to blame for the world's ills. Some of the attacks she launches against corporations and the private sector are just blatantly ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Is she smart enough to realize that? Yes, I think so. But she's not attempting to be intellectually honest. Her strategy is to inflame anger and resentment, including via false and misleading claims if necessary, to ride a wave of anti-corporate anger into the White House. That's her strategy. It's not honest, and some of it makes listeners dumber, literally, because they believe falsehoods she's spouting. Just on the issue of health care, if it were Warren vs. Biden, I'd be out in the streets championing Biden. I just feel health care is too important of an issue to be stating things that make people dumber about it, which is what Warren has been doing lately. Biden has articulated policy for how to improve health care and insurance and he is spot on. Warren is just trying to make people pissed and stupid. Could Warren win, my criticisms notwithstanding? Yeah, probably. But that's a different question.
  6. These strikers are lying about why they're on strike. Every source admits they are asking for all sorts of monetary concessions, which makes their strike a pure economic strike. However, our nation's labor laws are never enforced against the union side, so they are permitted to blatantly lie about why they're on strike, and allege that it's all about some sort of unfair labor practice the employer allegedly committed. The difference matters, but in this country we permit unions to ignore the law. https://www.labornotes.org/2012/08/making-sure-strike-centers-unfair-labor-practices
  7. People like Warren are banking on there being enough people like you out there, who can't possibly understand the actual issues and will obediently foam at the mouth when she attacks insurance companies with lies and firebrand rhetoric. I'm not a big fan of Biden, personally, but he is on the right track. Warren's a psychopath.
  8. As usual, you delete all the content because you have no ability to argue against any of it.
  9. And when it comes to health insurance companies, a true propagandist.
  10. Don't fall for Warren's idiotic anti-insurance company propaganda. Specifically, Warren said this in the debates: "Insurance companies last year sucked $23 billion in profits out of the system. How did they make that money? Every one of those $23 billion was made by an insurance company saying no to your health care coverage." 1) The ACA basically eliminated the ability to profit from denying coverage. They have to spend at least 80% of revenue on claims or refund the difference. There will always be isolated cases of disputed or denied coverage that make the news, but denial of care is not the norm and it's not how insurance companies profit. 2) The GD United States Government contracts with insurance companies to administer Medicare. If they're so evil, why do we do that? 3) Insurance companies administer a ton of self-insured plans, the parameters of which are set up by the entity that's self-insuring. So a company works with an insurance company to design a self-insured plan and the company tells the insurer, "let's not cover specialty drugs, they're way too expensive and too easy for patients to just request, preferred and generics are fine." When an insurance company (which manages the self-insured plan on behalf of the employer) comes back and reminds a patient "specialty drugs aren't covered," that is not an insurance company profiting from denying coverage. That is an insurance company stating the rule built into the plan design by the employer. 4) Insurance company profit is not why our health spending is so high. $23 billion is 0.6% of the nation's health spending. Warren is trying harder than anyone to keep people dumb and angry. I don't personally like Biden or his chances to beat Trump, but from a pure policy standpoint, his plan to fix a few key glitches in the ACA are the best thing put forth thus far.
  11. Where's the lecture? You asked if I was bothered and I said not really, that the only thing that bothers me are made-up myths to pretend we can explain what we still struggle to explain.
  12. A little, but not hugely. The only thing that bothers me is when people make up imaginary fairy tales to explain what can't really be explained.
  13. GN-z11 is a galaxy calculated to be about 13.4 billion years old, so this calls into question some of the basic assumptions about distant objects we can detect, and whether we can trust our eyes and assumptions. There are a number of things about distant space that call basically everything we think we know into question (e.g., dark matter, dark energy, etc.).
×
×
  • Create New...