Which is why it's sometimes annoying to see people treat paywalls as though they were moral disgraces.
Source: I help invest for the chairman of the company.
18 Trillion -- yikes! It's not until the 5th paragraph that we find out that this includes health insurance and that me and my employer wouldn't have to shell out for that anymore. Does it save me money overall? A question not asked. But they do make a big deal about that number and how alarmed they are at it, even if it it's designed to save money.
But instead on HN, my Facebook & any story about Bernie. His supporters automatically try to counter any kind of scrutiny of the guy, his positions & his plans. For crying out loud The guy is running for president, he's not a saint and he deserves every bit of scrutiny.
Not to justify it, but it kind of makes sense. Many of Bernie's supporters are finding a reason to participate in politics for the first time, or feeling cared about by the system for the first time, and when something threatens their new champion they feel like they themselves are threatened.
This definitely speaks to a wider phenomenon in society, where a lot of people had lost hope and are just now finding some, whether through Trump or Sanders. Taking that bit of hope away could be very destabilizing. There's also some interesting human nature in there, regarding conflating one's identity with one's beliefs.
On the back end, rather than Aetna shelling out money to the hospital so that you can get treated for free or cheaply, the government would do so - just like it already does for Medicare and VA.
So it is not $18tn additional burden - it is a similar burden, but not going through the hands of private insurers who take a cut.
Insurance is one of the things that a government can be very good at. It's not an area of great innovation, so the benefit of having it be a free market is relatively limited, and negotiation leverage is very important, so size is very beneficial. The natural tendency of the private insurers has been to consolidate and to look more and more like Medicare in terms of size. Except they also have a profit mandate, whereas Medicare doesn't, so they take a percentage of all spending and suck it out of the system. That portion isn't helpful to the users of the system.
http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories...
This is likely true, but I also expect it would be worth it in terms of social stability and progress. It's okay if your costs go up if you also get better health and education out of the deal, so earning power also goes up.
There are many who agree, so lots of voters will be voting to express that agreement. You can try to change my mind, but you must do so by solid argument, not by telling me my opinion isn't operative.
As for what every voter gets - a pull at a lever with minimal connection to person and no connection to policy.
edit: oops. Its 18 trillion over a decade. So 10% our GDP.
I'm even starting to think the electronics industry and software industries would benefit from being completely centrally planned.
History has shown that free markets fail to allocate well. And lots of socialist and communist countries have demonstrated that fully centrally planning an economy is possible and can be done well. Central planning rarely fails.
In the presence of non-rational behavior - such the the type of decisions people tend to make when making what they believe to be life or death decisions with extremely imperfect (and asymmetric) information - markets do not efficiently allocate resources. Throw in the fact that the decisions are frequently framed in terms of probabilities and made under duress and you've got a whole mess of psychological problems as well, even if the economic assumptions did hold (they don't).
That doesn't speak to a need for centralized planning per se, but it does mean that markets won't do the job correctly on their own.
But breaking away from the sarcasm, I agree that communism isn't useful. It's just there are already parts of the United States are mostly government controlled, so an argument that no parts should be falls flat on it's face.
But vice/heavy and sometimes wired even still have content that I'd throw $4/mo at.
3rd paragraph they break it down some -- 15 Trillion for health care over 10 years, or averaging 1.5 Trillion per year.
There were ~151 million Americans in the labor force and employed last month[1]. If they're the folks that will be paying, then it's something like $9,934 per year in taxes that need to be collected per tax payer, to support the (in 2013) roughly 316 million population[2] of the US with an additional roughly $4,747 in government spending.
(I'm using 2016 employment numbers because 2013 we were still recovering from the recession, unemployment was much higher, and it's better to play with conservative estimates.)
WHO[3] has 2013 numbers indicating Government spend on healthcare at $4,307 per capita, and total spend (govt. + private) at $9,146.
With 2013 numbers, we'd be bumping the public spending on health care to $9,054 per capita.
To note, in 2013, of the US private spending, $3,063 out of $4,839 is on insurance plans. The remaining $1,776 is the per capita out of pocket cost (again, for 2013).
I don't think I know of any single-payer systems around the world that covers all costs. UK, Germany, Sweden [3-5] all have expansive single-payer systems established. The out of pocket is indeed lower for these -- a few hundred to $700 ish per capita vs our $1,700.
Those programs, if you have a gander, are more substantial for the massively lower government spend per capita on healthcare overall. If we're suddenly looking at $9k per capita govt spend, vs the 3-5 for these other states, I'm not sure that we've yet fixed something.
The selling point of the Bernie concept must be putting this initially more-expensive insurance plan in place ($3,xxx vs $4,747) with the goal that sometime after 10 years we'll have seen enough price suppression that our out-of-pocket goes down enough to break even, or start to reduce total costs, over the private-only market.
10 years is a really long time. And adding $9,900 / year on average to each taxpayer seems like a big number.
[1]: http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm
[2]: http://www.worldpopulationstatistics.com/us-population-2013/
[3]: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.country.country-USA?lang=e...
[4]: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.country.country-GBR?lang=e...
[5]: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.country.country-DEU?lang=e...
[6]: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.country.country-SWE?lang=e...
Depsite what most people say, this is the case for FoxNews, but you'd be hard pressed to convince any Liberal of this fact.
Also, people frequently confuse a "commentator" with a "journalist"
Commentator - Karl Rove
Journalist - James Rosen
No really sure what my point is... but having bias is the norm, not the exception.
This is however, a completely different question to how correct their opinion is. Judging that is a whole different ball-game.
Just that people tend to not see bias when it agrees with their personal notion of truth.
I'll have to apologize for not digging up good references because I don't have time. Several years ago there was a scandal in the Japanese press where one of the news outlets admitted to printing fictitous stories with an anti-nuclear agenda. This was before Fukushima (and I'm struggling to remember which news outlet it was, so I won't try to guess). I suspect that what is happening is that Reuters (and probably other news aggregators) are quite happy to take stories from established reporters on the ground. I think they do not rigorously check the facts, though. I have occasionally noticed other similar mistranslations, for example when the Japanese finance minister speaks at G8 summits, etc. Surprisingly often the report that gets picked up in the English news services is virtually the opposite of what is actually said.
My rule of thumb: If it is a contentious issue and it is happening in a country where English is not the main language, the odds that you will get an unbiased report in English media is virtually 0. The closer to home you get, the more likely you are to get good reports, but even then if you actually check the sources yourself you can find glaring errors in a shockingly large percentage of the stories.
People are people. People are busy. People don't check other people's work. Entertaining fiction sells better than complicated fact. It's really never going to work out. As long as you know that, it's fine.
Also, there's roughly 0 unbiased coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict at this point. You kinda have to just read multiple sides from different news outlets and try to sift through the bias yourself.
E.g. most recently, it's hard to tell from a headline about an IDF executing an unarmed guy lying on the ground with a headshot whether or not it's a fair interpretation of the situation.
No Agenda Show [1] (podcast) is pretty reliable source of information as they're 100% listener funded. They basically 'deconstruct' traditional news media, politics and world events and go above and beyond anything that will be ever produced by 'mainstream news'
The show is hosted by one of the 'founders' of podcasting.
What does help is getting some news from outside the country. At least that will give you a different view.
(Eg I remember all the German newspapers blowing in the same direction about something Deutsche Bahn did a while ago, while only the Neue Zurcher Zeitung (from Switzerland) dissented.)
All of which is taken, considered, and thrown out the window if Rupert wants a story that's mean to Obama run instead.
EDIT: Apparently I'm replying too fast. Note that I quoted Netflix, implying similarity and not identity. I can also see the potential problems concerning Net Neutrality, but I don't think it has to be a problem. If done properly, no throttling is needed as the news sites can still serve ads to non-paying customers. You're just distributing your money in 1 place instead of 10. It's solely for convenience.
There are many, many reasons.
One somewhat pedantic difference is Netflix deals with evergreen content. Any bundling of print journalism (especially with ISPs involved) is going to look closer to cable company bundling. Personally, infrastructure providers should not be in the business of selling content. I won't rehash those arguments here.
So, the ISP aside, the question becomes, who should you pay for a subscription to print journalism? Note that you already pay separately for a Netflix subscription; there would be no difference here.
Content is already bundled at the site level, eg a NYT sub gets you all the NYT articles. If we were to go up another level, eg buying a combined sub to NYT + WaPo + WSJ + Buzzfeed + HuffPo + <tabloid-blog> + etc -- then people would be complaining about the opposite, paying for content that they never read. Which is effectively the complaint that many people have with cable television.
The open question for these sites is is whether lower per-subscriber revenue, from a third-party bundling service, would altogether be greater than trying to solicit subscriptions on an individual basis. That might be the case, but sites also certainly don't want to straitjacket themselves in the manner of HBO, where bundling is their only form of allowable distribution.
Note that most cable networks would never be viable with an a-la carte model: it is only through massive bundling across millions of users that the smaller networks can achieve enough revenue. And not everybody can be HBO. That effectively rules out micropayments for most sites, and I still have my doubts that micropayments would even be feasible at the scale of the WSJ.
More importantly, that would be a major blow to net neutrality. I really don't want my ISP to be negotiating deals of what news I'm able to access.
I continue to use Internode almost solely because they provide a service I want. I've never heard anyone claim this is a net-neutrality issue.
If ISPs provided bundled premium / membership access to other sites I'd see that as a differentiating factor not a net-neutrality issue. So long as they weren't intentionally throttling other services, but they we would expect their bundled services to have higher QoS priority otherwise we'd complain the 'free' content was shoddy.
Personally, I view the whole net neutrality saga as a restriction on the freedom to enter in to contracts. But I'd probably change my mind as soon as it affected me personally. Biases hey.
Blendle (blendle.com) seems like it's aiming to be that
Articles probably make less money per person, but it's less customer hostile and I bet in the end makes these original content creators more money.
Jaron Lanier promoted that same basic scheme in You Are Not a Machine (2010).
It would also eliminate much of the incentive to bypassing paywalls.
<InsertJournalNameHere> has floors of smart, trained, inquisitive journalists who assemble real original data and break real original stories, and who try hard–through single, double, and triple verification–to ensure the accuracy of every single figure and fact they report.
> Which is why it's sometimes annoying to see people treat paywalls as though they were moral disgraces.
The reason people don't like the WSJ paywalls is because they behave differently for google (allowing the page to be indexed) than for the readers. Care to provide a source for 'Paywalls as moral disgraces' that would convince me it's not a strawman?
Several papers could not even get everyone's name correct.
Going this day from last year I picked a short strait factual story at random. http://www.wsj.com/articles/spanish-teacher-killed-with-cros... and reading the two comments I saw at least two possible innacuracy's vs http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/20/teacher-killed-... how many wounded and was second teacher shot or stabbed. Thinking about it the spin is the fact they are not rating the attack by a 13 year old as a criminal case. It also starts with "Madrid-" then says the attack is in Barcelona, which is odd but I am willing to let that slide. Feel free to dig into this one or pick something else.
PS: I started this first time around because I had seen several stories I knew about in a few papers and not a single one was completely accurate.
A location in the beginning of a newspaper story is taken to mean the location of the reporter, not the event.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100008723963904444643045775390...
WSJ is not even a shadow of what it once was.
I taped the news broadcasts that evening on multiple channels. Each TV news anchor recounted a different set of facts, all them wrong. It was an eye-opener for me. And it wasn't even a case of any agenda, it was just laziness and doing as little work as possible.
It makes me wonder how much we think we know about history from the history books is completely wrong.
It shocked me that such little effort was made to actually find out what happened before reporting it as fact to the public.
I actually think that they would be less likely to do that today with social media.
The next day we successfully (and safely) made it back to the campsite from which we'd started only to be met with reporters and cameras looking for the story. Basically, they wanted some quote, from somebody, that they could use to pin-point the delay onto a single person, and exaggerate the danger that we were in. The fact was that we decided to take the least risky option in the face of unpredictable, extreme weather. The reporters didn't think this was enough and there was a multi-week long witch-hunt to try to blame it on trip leaders, despite the fact that no-one was harmed (if we'd chosen to continue the climb out in the horrible conditions we faced, then someone would have very likely been harmed).
This was my eye-opener to how the media operate. Instead of "Group of young adventurers safe from freak storm" it became "Irresponsible trip leaders cause near-death of youths".
If it won't sell, it's not news.
Best investigative journalism: Tampa Bay Times & Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Ever heard of them?
This is availability bias.
Good journalism is all over the place. If you're looking at CNN and MSNBC and Fox News and lamenting the state of journalism vs. fluff in the modern era, you're looking in the wrong places! You're literally singling out the shitty news and assuming that represents everything.
I guarantee if you go to your local paper or local news station and check out their investigative journalists, you'll find some incredibly talented, passionate people who report on real stories.
Yes, the economics are such that for every in-depth investigative piece, you have a ton of press release reports, and fluff. But that's true on blogs as well.
Same goes for what news stories they cover. It has to align with the narrative that the editors are trying to push.
It's arguably a necessary part of the news media because they have to choose which stories to put in front of you and which people to quote given limited space. Pretending that we can experience everything that goes on in the world from reading a paragraph or two on a situation involving hundreds if not more is not entirely realistic.
So now you get things like this where Vice corrects a CNN story. This is exactly the type of correction that the old media places would do to the new media stories, and then new media (and those who looked to them for news) would just call them sore losers.
Please don't mistake this one instance (or even the few instances that are probably already jumping to mind) as being indicative that CNN and its ilk are less reliable than Vice and its ilk. I'd be willing to wager that on average, the old media places are still quite a bit more reliable than the new media places. Things may indeed be changing, but I don't think we're there yet.
Edit: I just wanted to say: All that said, I still don't think CNN is necessarily a good source of news. It was a lower rung even before any changes due to new media's rise.
The credit of this article goes the the writer and not Vice. Vice has a long history of history of making up stories for content.
People like to think NPR or BBC are different, but they're not. They spit out whatever is handed to the in government/company press releases.
Al Jazeera is a non-profit ran by the Qatari government. It was never meant to be profitable. It did shut down because oil prices went down and the Qatari government had to make some cuts.
Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and to a lesser extent the NY Times are all still reputable, even if they all still produce occasional junk. I don't believe there is a single reputable news source on earth, if the qualification is never producing junk articles.
The worst thing they found (as far as I can see) is that the government required Apple to have a recycling program. What a horrible thing the first article was hiding from us.
Dell have an equivalent page: http://www.dell.com/learn/us/en/id/corp-comm/us-goodwill-rec...
"$137 million divided by 4.7 million is ... $29.14.
More than 4.7 million contributions means, at most, 4,749,999 -- or else the campaign would round up to 4.8 million. Even with that higher number of donations, the average is $28.95. Which is more than $27."
This is laughable...but I haven't yet decided if it's in a good or a bad way. I mean, really? they are complaining about a 1-2 dollar difference from what BS says?
Yes, it is. I know a number of liberal journalists who work at the WSJ and would never work at Fox and definitely wouldn't give a conservative tilt to their stories.
I know someone on staff at the Wsj, and know their political views. I have seen their reporting and it is generally balanced. Yes, the papers always have an editorial line they are following, but it's not necessarily biased to push a view, but more so to match their buyers. Running a newspaper is not a public service for the Wsj.
The big surprise for most people is that people at institutions like Wsj and ny times try and be as professional as possible. They aren't acting like click bait interns at gawker.
their agenda and the political leanings of their new master is clear
http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories...
To me it says that people who thought the Internet would kill journalism were wrong.
I don't think there ever was a time when news sources were unbiased. In fact, I think in the past journalists were just much less worried about being perceived as biased.
A good post by Aaron Swartz on this subject: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/newobjectivity
CNN has been a joke for a long time.
Media outlets report a single study or conclude something and all of a sudden the world decides the science is done there's no reason to discuss things anymore.
Then the moment someone says something differing from this opinion he is wrong. Even tho he may be proving something factual.
Mass media has ruined a lot of things :(
I don't think I'm being too extreme when I say that, apart from maybe PBS, there is no reputable source of news in America. If you don't believe me, pick a random story, watch it as it gets rewritten a million times through Reuters, then check back on the facts of the story one year later. A news story gets twisted to promote some narrative that will sell papers, and when the facts of the story are finally verified (usually not by the news themselves, but lawyers or courts or whoever), the story is dropped and never reported on again.
Again, if the only thing a reporter had to do was read the report to find the facts of the case to verify what is and isn't true, what the fuck is even the point of a news agency?