Voting against your interests or Now I Need Obamacare

terp said:

Here's the thing tjohn. We have a very complex set of rules. I think we could simplify things just a bit. Let's say you had a legal framework at the national level that protects everyone's liberty. Basically, you are free to worship, associate, say, do what you'd like up to the point where you start infringing on the rights of others.

At more local levels, you can apply other laws. Sprout seems concerned about noise ordinances. I don't know. My neighbors are pretty considerate. I'm not sure they don't bother me because they fear they are going to be penalized under some noise ordinance. So, for someone like me, I might choose to live somewhere that doesn't stress that. However, if I were, perhaps there were other localities that had such ordinances and they were strictly enforced.

Isn't that exactly what the Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights were meant to create?

Yeah but apparently there were loopholes. Commerce Clause, general welfare clause, etc.

Interesting that you take issue with this, but the Washington Post publishes a hit peice that cites a group like ProporNot and you're reaction is "whatevs"

ml1 said:

the opposition to DeVos was able to convince a couple of Republicans to join them. But it's just not a truthful way of describing the Sessions opposition as "comparative silence." It would be more accurate and truthful to say the opposition to DeVos was even louder than the opposition to Sessions. If not for DeVos, the opposition to Sessions would have been considered very forceful, particularly because he was a member of the Senate club. And senators typically give great deference to each other.

Stoughton said:

ml1 said:

"the left" was not "comparatively" silent about Jeff Sessions. You could have written that about Tillerson, Carson, and several others but not Sessions.

If we’re making sweeping generalizations, “The Left” did fight the Sessions nomination, but there was a key difference between his confirmation effort and that of DeVos. While The Left considered the beliefs and goals of both nominees to be odious, Sessions’ resume has the qualifications that you would want in an AG (U.S. Attorney, State Attorney General, Senate Judiciary Committee). DeVos was much easier to go after because she combined unpalatable beliefs with an appalling lack of relevant experience.

I don't even know what you're referring to. you'll have to point me to where I gave that article a "whatevs"

terp said:

Interesting that you take issue with this, but the Washington Post publishes a hit peice that cites a group like ProporNot and you're reaction is "whatevs"

ml1 said:

the opposition to DeVos was able to convince a couple of Republicans to join them. But it's just not a truthful way of describing the Sessions opposition as "comparative silence." It would be more accurate and truthful to say the opposition to DeVos was even louder than the opposition to Sessions. If not for DeVos, the opposition to Sessions would have been considered very forceful, particularly because he was a member of the Senate club. And senators typically give great deference to each other.

Stoughton said:

ml1 said:

"the left" was not "comparatively" silent about Jeff Sessions. You could have written that about Tillerson, Carson, and several others but not Sessions.

If we’re making sweeping generalizations, “The Left” did fight the Sessions nomination, but there was a key difference between his confirmation effort and that of DeVos. While The Left considered the beliefs and goals of both nominees to be odious, Sessions’ resume has the qualifications that you would want in an AG (U.S. Attorney, State Attorney General, Senate Judiciary Committee). DeVos was much easier to go after because she combined unpalatable beliefs with an appalling lack of relevant experience.

U totes whatevs cos u dont evn no

am I to understand that Terp is arguing that the presence of 27 different types of deodorant is because the consumer demands them? Does he know any such consumer?

and that it has nothing to do with trying to dominate the shelf space in the store?

ok.

those corporations are so nice to us.

how did we get by in the past with only 12 types of deodorant?

I'll never know.

Ha. Is this an actual attempt to take a shot at me?

Consumers have different preferences. That is why there is demand for different types of bread, cars, cake, shoes, shirts, clothes, cell phones, entertainment, etc. And yes deodorant.

And this has nothing to do w/ Americans having enough savings. I expect even someone as ignorant as Bernie Sanders would admit to that, if pressed.

drummerboy said:

am I to understand that Terp is arguing that the presence of 27 different types of deodorant is because the consumer demands them? Does he know any such consumer?

and that it has nothing to do with trying to dominate the shelf space in the store?

ok.

those corporations are so nice to us.

how did we get by in the past with only 12 types of deodorant?

I'll never know.

mystery solved. I googled it and found out it's an article from 3 months ago that was debunked before I had a chance to read it. In retrospect, perhaps I should have read it anyway and then issued my official MOL statement condemning it. Or distancing myself from it. Or both.

I realize now that one's credibility can take a hit if one doesn't comment on every single news story.

ridski said:

U totes whatevs cos u dont evn no

Bernie knowledge on economics > terp

i'll take this as my final answer, Regis.

It's more about whistling past the graveyard when it fits your world view. It just comes across as a little odd when you take the time not only to parse the words of an article that puts someone you don't like in a positive light. You even went to the trouble to look up articles to back up your parsing.

It leaves me wondering if this guy maybe used bad grammar and that's why his account at the huffpo has been disabled. Are you an editor there?

Actually, it looks like his account has been disabled. Perhaps they were just being hasty and just trying to pull the article.

One of your better efforts.

hoops said:

Bernie knowledge on economics > terp

i'll take this as my final answer, Regis.

The Austrian/Libertarian is passing judgement on economic knowledge?

That's rich.

You guys are a step above supply-siders, but just barely.

I didn't have to "parse" anything. The premise was in the title of the article, for jeebus' sake -- "DeVos and Sessions’ clash over transgender students shows how liberals misplaced their outrage"

And it literally takes two minutes to google articles suggesting the premise is incorrect.

you're reading stuff into my posts that I didn't write and didn't intend, which is fairly typical of your arguments with me. My dispute was not with what he wrote about DeVos. It was about his incorrect characterization of "the left."

and the HuffPo thing is not related to anything I've written.

terp said:

It's more about whistling past the graveyard when it fits your world view. It just comes across as a little odd when you take the time not only to parse the words of an article that puts someone you don't like in a positive light. You even went to the trouble to look up articles to back up your parsing.

It leaves me wondering if this guy maybe used bad grammar and that's why his account at the huffpo has been disabled. Are you an editor there?

Actually, it looks like his account has been disabled. Perhaps they were just being hasty and just trying to pull the article.

@terp sounds like a few conservatives I know. The conversations (if you can call them that) are cyclical and questions rarely answered. They love to quote stats from newspaper columns or blurbs from pundits instead of thinking on their own in real world scenarios that concern them. And not that this is @terp because I don't know him/her but the handful of "terps" I know, are barely getting by but the optimism of being rich one day (in their mid 40's mind you) is what keeps them voting the way they do. They hustle away in a cubicle, trashing their job and the people they work for, not focusing on the fact that in less than 10 years, their job will either be eliminated or given to a robot.

terp said:



Consumers have different preferences. That is why there is demand for different types of bread, cars, cake, shoes, shirts, clothes, cell phones, entertainment, etc. And yes deodorant.

Does consumer demand drive the creation of multiple types of deodorants or does the creation of multiple types drive demand?

It's a little of both. Having competing brands is certainly a driver of product quality. On the other hand, at some point, the brand diversification just becomes silly. Still, this is one of the lesser problems of our economy.

LOST said:

terp said:



Consumers have different preferences. That is why there is demand for different types of bread, cars, cake, shoes, shirts, clothes, cell phones, entertainment, etc. And yes deodorant.

Does consumer demand drive the creation of multiple types of deodorants or does the creation of multiple types drive demand?

Interesting observation. I must say that I think you must have a slanted POV if you think I don't address questions around these parts.

For the record. I'm lucky. I kind of love my job. If anything it might be too much of a good thing as I tend to put in quite a few hours. I really like the people I work with. Recently i have found that I am quite popular at work. I can only speak for me though. I try not to paint with too broad a brush, so i won't speak for all "the terps" out there.

I am not afraid of the robots. Think of how awesome it would be if most of current processes could be automated. Its a great thing that we had anscestors that didn't submit themselves to their fears. If they were all as small minded as the passage below we'd still be hunter gatherers. But we'd all have jobs. So, I guess there's that.

kibbegirl said:

@terp sounds like a few conservatives I know. The conversations (if you can call them that) are cyclical and questions rarely answered. They love to quote stats from newspaper columns or blurbs from pundits instead of thinking on their own in real world scenarios that concern them. And not that this is @terp because I don't know him/her but the handful of "terps" I know, are barely getting by but the optimism of being rich one day (in their mid 40's mind you) is what keeps them voting the way they do. They hustle away in a cubicle, trashing their job and the people they work for, not focusing on the fact that in less than 10 years, their job will either be eliminated or given to a robot.

Supply creates demand. Ingenuity creates supply. If there is no demand, the supply will disappear.

Think about smartphones. Nobody knew they wanted one until they existed. Now, there are smartphones at different price points. But this killed most of the flip phone demand. So, you don't see much of those anymore.

The same can be said of deoderant. You can try to predict, but you don't really know if there's much demand for organic clover scented stick deoderant until there's a supply of it.

LOST said:

terp said:



Consumers have different preferences. That is why there is demand for different types of bread, cars, cake, shoes, shirts, clothes, cell phones, entertainment, etc. And yes deodorant.

Does consumer demand drive the creation of multiple types of deodorants or does the creation of multiple types drive demand?

At least we're not a hysterical prick.

drummerboy said:

The Austrian/Libertarian is passing judgement on economic knowledge?

That's rich.

You guys are a step above supply-siders, but just barely.

Terp,

What is unprecedented, however, is that we have reached a point where machines can build machines and machines will be able to self-improve more and more. So, while I would agree that every generation of Luddite has been wrong so far, I don't think that Luddite's being wrong is some unbreakable law of physics.

I'm that long ago there was a guy at the buggy whip factory that made a similar point.

tjohn said:

Terp,

What is unprecedented, however, is that we have reached a point where machines can build machines and machines will be able to self-improve more and more. So, while I would agree that every generation of Luddite has been wrong so far, I don't think that Luddite's being wrong is some unbreakable law of physics.

I don't know. I think the computer age is something different in the human experience. In the not too distant future, we won't need truck drivers, for example.

terp said:

I'm that long ago there was a guy at the buggy whip factory that made a similar point.

tjohn said:

Terp,

What is unprecedented, however, is that we have reached a point where machines can build machines and machines will be able to self-improve more and more. So, while I would agree that every generation of Luddite has been wrong so far, I don't think that Luddite's being wrong is some unbreakable law of physics.

I agree. It's something different. And our grandchildren will look back and say "can you believe they had to work 40+ hours a week? Just like we say about our ancestors when we look back and wonder what childhood was like when one had to work.

Tim Ferris be damned. This is how most get to the 4 hour work week.

tjohn said:

I don't know. I think the computer age is something different in the human experience. In the not too distant future, we won't need truck drivers, for example.

terp said:

I'm that long ago there was a guy at the buggy whip factory that made a similar point.

tjohn said

Terp,

What is unprecedented, however, is that we have reached a point where machines can build machines and machines will be able to self-improve more and more. So, while I would agree that every generation of Luddite has been wrong so far, I don't think that Luddite's being wrong is some unbreakable law of physics.

I found this column by Tyler Cowen was relevant to this thread: "Industrial Revolution Comparisons Aren't Comforting"

Nut graf:

So will not the jobs being displaced now by automation and artificial intelligence lead to new jobs elsewhere in a broadly similar and beneficial manner?
...
As economics, that may well be correct, but as history it’s missing some central problems. The shift out of agricultural jobs, while eventually a boon for virtually all of humanity, brought significant problems along the way. This time probably won’t be different, and that’s exactly why we should be concerned.

Here's a story about one of those people who voted for Trump despite benefiting from Obamacare. She did not think he would really repeal it. Who votes for someone hoping they are lying?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obamacare-trump-voter-20170224-story.html

terp said:

Supply creates demand. Ingenuity creates supply. If there is no demand, the supply will disappear.

Think about smartphones. Nobody knew they wanted one until they existed. Now, there are smartphones at different price points. But this killed most of the flip phone demand. So, you don't see much of those anymore.


The same can be said of deoderant. You can try to predict, but you don't really know if there's much demand for organic clover scented stick deoderant until there's a supply of it.

One could have imagined a device like a smart phone years before we had them. They are just an advanced type of cell phones and Dick Tracy had something like that 70 years ago. I guess one could have imagined deodorant before it was created.

But here's the thing. All deodorants work pretty much the same way except you can have a spray, roll on, or rub on. Three types. There may be some other variations but besides for competition in price what's the purpose of dozens of choices.

Imagine there were only 3 models of smart phone. Aside from price why would there be 27+ choices.

Here's a better one. Why are there so many brands of gasoline? At the corner of Springfield Ave and Vauxhall Road I have three choices, but they are all the same thing. The only differentiation is price.

One issue is that Obamacare worked better in some states. NJ expanded medicaid, but in states that didn't there aren't decent options for a lot of people. One major flaw with expanded medicaid is if someone has a million in assets (cash on hand), but no income, they can get medicaid and cheaper care than many workers who are struggling to make ends meet and have to get a marketplace plan (or have an employer plan) That needs to be changed. If a person has assets (excluding the home they live in and 1 car per driver) there needs to be a reasonable premium/copays. Sure they shouldn't be paying $1000/month for premiums and deductibles as that will bankrupt them quickly (but begs the question as to why they don't get a job) with the other living expenses. but they should at least be paying more towards their healthcare. Maybe something like $250/month, $1000/year deductible, and $20 office visits/20% prescriptions (for someone with a million cash on hand).....and then have higher or lower rates depending on assets.

nan said:

Here's a story about one of those people who voted for Trump despite benefiting from Obamacare. She did not think he would really repeal it. Who votes for someone hoping they are lying?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obamacare-trump-voter-20170224-story.html

From the article linked: For a short time, Watson thought she’d found relief when an insurance company agreed to provide coverage. But when she tried to use the plan, she discovered it didn’t cover major medical costs, a trap many consumers fell into when insurers were subject to less oversight. Insurers now must cover a basic set of benefits, though GOP leaders are calling for such mandates to be scaled back.

Years ago (long before Obamacare) a co-worker and her spouse had a plan they had bought on their own. Our employer didn't offer coverage, her husband was self employed, buying their own plan was their only option for coverage. They researched it as best they could, a representative from the insurance company even came to their house, went over what was covered with them. They thought they had a good plan. Her spouse ended up in the ICU for a month due to a very bad case of pericarditis caused by an acute infection, and was told that he'd be looking at months of medical care once he was well enough to be released. They hit the lifetime benefits cap in two days, nothing else would be covered. This poor woman would show up to work, wondering if her husband was going to make it but also wondering if they were going to lose the roof over their head. She was so angry, they had tried their best to buy good coverage, but had been misled.

jmitw said:

One issue is that Obamacare worked better in some states. NJ expanded medicaid, but in states that didn't there aren't decent options for a lot of people. One major flaw with expanded medicaid is if someone has a million in assets (cash on hand), but no income, they can get medicaid and cheaper care than many workers who are struggling to make ends meet and have to get a marketplace plan (or have an employer plan) That needs to be changed. If a person has assets (excluding the home they live in and 1 car per driver) there needs to be a reasonable premium/copays. Sure they shouldn't be paying $1000/month for premiums and deductibles as that will bankrupt them quickly (but begs the question as to why they don't get a job) with the other living expenses. but they should at least be paying more towards their healthcare. Maybe something like $250/month, $1000/year deductible, and $20 office visits/20% prescriptions (for someone with a million cash on hand).....and then have higher or lower rates depending on assets.

This certainly wasn't true in my grandmother's case. She never went on medicaid, but we were planning ahead for that possibility because she had outlived her assets. We were told there were very specific limits to how much money and property could be in her name to qualify for medicaid.

Who has a million dollars in cash laying around? And reports no income? Aside from drug dealers...

jmitw said:

One issue is that Obamacare worked better in some states. NJ expanded medicaid, but in states that didn't there aren't decent options for a lot of people. One major flaw with expanded medicaid is if someone has a million in assets (cash on hand), but no income, they can get medicaid and cheaper care than many workers who are struggling to make ends meet and have to get a marketplace plan (or have an employer plan) That needs to be changed. If a person has assets (excluding the home they live in and 1 car per driver) there needs to be a reasonable premium/copays. Sure they shouldn't be paying $1000/month for premiums and deductibles as that will bankrupt them quickly (but begs the question as to why they don't get a job) with the other living expenses. but they should at least be paying more towards their healthcare. Maybe something like $250/month, $1000/year deductible, and $20 office visits/20% prescriptions (for someone with a million cash on hand).....and then have higher or lower rates depending on assets.