Just give everyone a voucher and let them buy their own health insurance using it.
The amount of paperwork, and details to keep track of and calculate was absolutely unreal. I have BOXES full of paper from medicare, there was so much I could barely keep up.
The worst was the arcane and utterly confusing rules on eligibility: if this, or if that, or you live here, or there, for these dates, and that deadline. I felt like I needed an AI just to figure it all out (and in hindsight my understanding was completely wrong, and I chose the wrong option).
Sounds like you need a better system in the US. Maybe not so many different stakeholders in the system?
They have to compete with each other, if they were confusing no one would sign up.
> Sounds like you need a better system in the US.
It does work for most people, it's the edge cases that fail.
> Maybe not so many different stakeholders in the system?
Making medicare normal would require much higher taxes (medicare/medicaid hospital payments are below costs and are subsidized by commercial plans). People would then save money on commercial plans.
Net dollars would not change, or maybe go down, but the distribution would change, some winners, some losers.
- Banking regulations
- government backed healthcare
- gun control
- education system
They outspend nearly everyone on public health and education and yet still have outcomes in the lower half of the developed world for what those programs are supposed to address. And instead of actually owning up to the poor outcomes and trying to fix them they just blame blacks and latinos for pulling down the average.
That might be a good idea. In fact, it is very likely a good idea, for some global notion of 'good.' But people on Medicare would be, shall we say, vocal in their complaint.
If we stopped doing that hospitals could publish actual prices for procedures - same price for everybody, insurance or not. Then people could actually shop around and healthcare costs would drop.
But today prices have to be secret and impossible to understand or the way commercial plans fund medicare would collapse.
Handing out "free" money has worked so well for higher education. How will vouchers solve the problem of skyrocketing health care costs?
And parent even used the sarcasm tag. :-) Parent doesn't need it explained, but some American citizens apparently do: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/prescription...
Saying that there are some people ignorant of what they are voting for is not news. Stating that one side has ignorant voters carries implications that the other side is correct and right thinking.
"Stating that one side has ignorant voters carries implications that the other side is correct and right thinking."
No it doesn't. Why would you say that? I can't even.
Not that I think Trump will bring that. The office of President is not that important. But I'm talking about what a certain set of voters says they want, not what will actually happen if they vote that way.
It makes me think of Sam Altman's recent article about Trump. He said he was taking some risk by writing that, and some commenters here praised his bravery in taking a public stand on this. It's ridiculous. Bravery would be a prominent techie taking a stand for Trump. He's not going to suffer any consequences for publishing that. Nobody's going to knock on his door and haul him off at 3AM, or deny him entrance into any organizations, or even shoot him dirty looks on the street.
No, I don't feel comfortable writing this comment. For the record, I don't like Clinton or Trump. But it's better for the rest of the world for Clinton to lose.
I'm sorry, what? You can certainly call it prejudice. There's plenty of trump supporters who aren't bigots, but there's also a lot of them who are, and Trump's campaign has been majorly based on demagoguery, bigotism and xenophobia.
If you're voicing/implying support for someone whose campaign is built on racism, don't be surprised if you're getting dirty looks.
As for dirty looks, that's what they are. You're accusing "the other side" of projection when you yourself are interpreting a look as "I want to kill you". Jeez.
Edit:
> But it's better for the rest of the world for Clinton to lose.
I appreciate the conendrum the US is facing in this election cycle, but if you're going to make decisions based on their worldwide implications, you should ask around in the rest of the world. Clinton is an inconsequential establishment politician; Trump is a loose cannon who "won't rule out using nukes in Europe". As someone living in said Europe, I really wonder how you got to that conclusion.
And you weren't with me to see that look. It was incredibly hostile. No I don't think he literally wanted to kill me, but he had the same look as a person who would. (From movies)
Trump publicly stated his support for the Iraq war during an interview in 2002. He's since backpedaled claiming that he was against it "before it started" but all indications are that he was, at most, neutral on the war before it started (being against the war after it starts is kind of irrelevant).
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/19/donald-trump...
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-w...
> A lot of anti-Trump people accuse Trump supporters of bigotry and exclusion, but I think that's projection on their part.
A lot of Trump supporters are really good at ignoring the obvious terrible things about Trump and his campaign and latching onto the one or two things they like about him. You can't honestly claim that there is no bigotry or exclusion in Trump's campaigning. He's called for a ban on Muslims entering the country. He's called for building a huge wall along the Mexican border and deporting 11 million immigrants. Plus, you know, the "rapists and murderers" comment about Mexicans entering the US.
If you think that Trump is the better candidate in spite of his obvious shortcomings, you should have the honesty to say so, rather than pretend his shortcomings aren't real.
Also, when trump completely fucks the US economy, the rest of us will get fucked no matter how much we do or don't care about your neck of the woods.
Second-hand anecdotes of people claiming they'll vote for Trump just to see the system come down is not data.
Without data, it may be such a minority of people that it's not worth significant consideration in a discussion. I'm apt to believe it's an extreme minority given it's an extreme view.
In any case you're probably right. Most people who voted to exit the EU probably weren't uninformed. Google data only represents correlation. General buzz about brexit is a more likely explanation for the search trends. Occam's razor dominates.
The government benefits the people enormously. Yes, it has a lot of problems, but we're way better off with it than without it. I can totally understand a desire for reform, but simply tearing it down is insane.
Unfortunately, in the US, both parties colluded to work for their corporate sponsors, not the people who vote for them, so they both need to be disrupted somehow.
Most voters understand it, and that explains the anti-establishment voting in this election (Sanders/Trump)
The EU has been a scapegoat in Britain for decades. The elites used it to justify many a policy that would hurt the middle class, while pushing for more and more liberalization once in the EU parliament.
The average guy in Britain is just as much at fault here for not following what has been happening. They kept reading their fucking tabloids, the reality-check will be harsh and gruesome.
No, it's not a compelling reason for the UK to leave. It was a compelling reason for the average Briton to learn and educate himself. Now they shot themselves in the foot. Well done!
If anything vote simply reaffirms that EU favoring side either failed to communicate properly why it was good to stay or worse, failed to recognize or acknowledge real issues that existed and take action to explain them or fix them. As in, far too often the exit crowd was portrayed and ignorant, bigoted, or worse, and you do not convince people your side is right when you attack them
plus it benefits the EU to make it all doom and gloom because this loose grouping was never bound to be successful without more tight knit integration, something they knew they could not sell.
I had the feeling that they forced countries to do the right thing, for example granting human rights. Even here in Germany we had laws that let you lock up people forever.
What was the bad stuff that happend in the EU?
The "crisis" was mostly due to the "elected" governments of the countries which have now financial problems.
What the EU did in the last years was mainly telling "the people" that they elected a bunch of assholes that milked their countries dry.
The Leave campaign was a mix of fear of foreigners, fear of unaccountable bureaucracy and a vision of a Britain that had "taken back control".
The purely negative vision lost.
(There are also those that say that the Eurozone was doomed to failure because of the imbalances in the countries involved with no mechanisms to rectify those imbalances - making the fact that the EU stepped in and replaced two democratically elected governments an inevitability. So it engineered a bad situation then punished the losers in that situation for falling into it. But I don't know enough about economics to argue that point)
Now the law is coming back and a argument of the supporters is that its about EU integration and cost.
The law is very clearly against western principles, surveillance for everybody even if they did nothing.
This is just one example, the EU is used to push threw laws that can not get threw on National level and then get imposed top town.
The EU gets much better coverage then they deserve because people are into the idea of "Europe United, No War" but nobody really knows or cares much beyond that.
> The "crisis" was mostly due to the "elected" governments of the countries which have now financial problems.
Maybe you should look at this graph:
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451688169e20176155c5...
The left the question about debt open (legally) but gave the impression that it would be common. The market assumed so, and this provided false incentives for all the governments. When the debt was not common, as you can see, the bond yields spread again and some of the nations were not able to role over their debt.
Instead of fully committing to the idea of not sharing debt and letting Greece default, they don't allow that and keep Greece limping along. This is the worst of all ways because nobody knows what to expect form the EU.
The ECB has also not helped the case by conducting monetary policy so badly, that it has lead to something so bad that its only comparison is the the Great Depression. Their are multiple nations in Europe that are doing worse then they did in the GD. The GD on a global scale was far worse then what happened this time, but Europe is the outlier and that has mostly to do with the EMU and the ECB mismanagement.
Its unbelievably hard for Greece to service debt and reform while also having a NGDP that is dropping like crazy. No nation on the planet could deal with that. Greece is poor but they are not flexible, so going the forced price/wage deflation route is also not gone be easy (thats essentially what some of the Balics did).
To be fair to the ECB, even if they did do everything perfectly, they would still not be able to do a perfect job. Their is broad agreement about that in the research area of common currency zones. The problem of uniformity is quite real. Compare the NGDP of Germany and Greece. Germany in the same monetary union has a growing NGDP, the NGDP of Greece is lower then it was in 2008.
The EU and specially the EMU has totally disgraced the hole project of european union. Now the nations hate each other, calling "them" lazy or nazis in newspapers. When the project was mostly about Free Trade and Free Movement it was growing together.
Now we could get into a hole lot more issues such as the other horrible protectionist polices and the cartel enforcement that they do. Their are many other issues but this post is already to long.
tl:dr; The EU(specially EMU) is a horrible institution that is horribly managed in almost every way, specially everything that relates to economics.
Sure there's the immediate market shock of a decision the market didn't expect, but we can't say for sure that end result in one, two, or five years will be more negative than positive for those Britons.
Many of those highly educated will migrate to the continent. The working class voters who sided with Leave have shot themselves in the foot.
Au contraire, mon frère. There were compelling reasons for the UK to leave the EU, they're just clearly reasons you either don't know about or don't care much about.
To give one example, the Five Presidents report from 2015 made it clear that there would be a push towards greater integration of the Eurozone, and there were fairly clear implications for what this would mean for the UK.
https://euobserver.com/economic/129218
""The world’s second largest economy cannot be managed through rule-based cooperation alone," says the report, drawn up by the heads of the European Commission, the EU Council, Eurogroup, the European Parliament and the European Central Bank (ECB)."
"The eurozone “will need to shift from a system of rules and guidelines for national economic policy-making to a system of further sovereignty sharing within common institutions, most of which already exist and can progressively fulfil this task," it adds."
""In practice, this would require member states to accept increasingly joint decision-making on elements of their respective national budgets and economic policies.""
"These changes should be possible witin the current EU treaty but other ideas such as eurozone finance ministry by 2025 are likely to require treaty changes.
“Euro area member states would continue to decide on taxation and the allocation of budgetary expenditures according to national preferences and political choices. However, as the euro area evolves towards a genuine EMU, some decisions will increasingly need to be made collectively while ensuring democratic accountability and legitimacy.”"
So with all that in mind, you can see that 'rule-based co-operation' was seen as not effective enough, and that moves were being made to set up a EU Treasury, which would control taxation throughout the Eurozone. The UK would clearly have been marginalised at this point, as the Treasury would be incentivised to make sure investment from Eurozone countries stayed within the Eurozone. However, even with this compromised position, they wouldn't have been able to strike new trade deals on their own terms as the responsibility for doing so had been taken over by the EU.
This is just one example of many, and I'd say the democratic issues in the EU were even more problematic than the financial ones. You can try to pretend that Leave voters were uninformed if it makes you happy, but there were legitimate concerns about the EU, including concerns that had nothing to do with racism.
This othering of the EU is really lazy. The EU was never some ominous foreign entity.
Plus, get better education if that's the problem. My civics teacher was quite adept at explaining the EU. For historic reasons there is some ugly cruft, but it's nevertheless not that hard to understand.
I suspect 99% could not name more than five people in the EU machine, including Nigel Farage as a free point.
The EU is absolutely other people to the UK.
And the people who were representing them are, well, mostly still David Cameron. One of the sad things about the EU is that it could never completely shake this thing many supranational organizations have, i.e. that the top-dogs are the heads of the respective member-state governments (and maybe their ministers if it’s about more narrow areas of expertise). Without them nothing can happen. They are still centrally important and involved everywhere and most everything that’s decided is done with consensus and not majority rule.
The people implementing the details are truly not that important. Do you know (many) people below the minister level in your country? It’s not relevant.
People I can think of in the EU off the top of my head: Jean-Claude Junker, president of the commission. Martin Schulz, president of the parliament. Julia Reda, cool European MP from Germany. Beatrix von Storch, racist European MP from Germany. Martin Sonneborn, European MP from Germany, member of a satirical joke party.
I'm sort of jealous. They had a referendum on Scottish independence and they honored the outcome. I'd love to have an up/down national vote on abortion, gay marriage, gun background checks.. At best here in the US, you're voting for a derivative, you're electing someone on the wish/hope that they support your issues if they get a chance or opportunity to of if they're willing to use political capital to actually propose the issues.. With something like abortion, it's at least 2 derivatives removed, you're voting for someone who will hopefully select a court justice (should they get to) that will align with your issues should the opportunity ever arise for them to make a judgement on it. And what's more perverse, there are a lot of single issue voters that take that multiple derivative issue situation as the only issue that matters.
It'd be an interesting experiment if nothing else.
It's possible to get readmitted, but only with the consent of every single member state.
Britain always pushed for more liberalization. See where it led them. They were able to push for what their GDP needed, alright.
Otherwise, this happens.
Also, "raw emotion", direct democracy (in Switzerland, for example) can work very well. Direct democracy may not scale well, hence we need representation, but big issues should be left up to the people to be voted on.
In the end, I believe, the people in the UK voted against not so much the idea of EU, but rather expressed their frustration with the EU's inability (unwillingness?) to fix its problems. It's been brewing for a while.
But then thinking back to the US Constitution, it was voted in by the state legislatures without a direct vote, too. Somehow that seems OK back then, but an affront to democracy in today's world. How times change.
Why should something like this be any different?
But, on Brexit specifically, the British people elected a government that made a campaign promise to hold exactly such a referendum, and to abide by its results.
I do think when I was in high school I learned more about the rest of the world than they do. And that is sad.
At least doing auch lobbying and drafting was possible. This would be unthinkable in the EU. The disconnect to even the highly involved politically aware person in the EU to the power structures is huge. In manu cases purposefully and by design so. After all, the EU was born oit of a price pact essentially stablished though conglomerate economic interest. (steel, coal, electricity, transport, machinery).
Writing the state bill turned out to be easier than we would have thought but it took a lot of presentations and having the right people listening the presentations. She actually had surprising cooperation from a democratic state chairwoman of education and a republican state senator.
The cause is funding for afterschool STEM competitions for disadvantaged schools.
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/
It's worse than not knowing stuff, most UK people have negative knowledge of the EU since their heads are full of lies.
Barely anyone fully understands what it does.
Most Brits don't know how their cars or trains work either , but they don't give up and walk.
He says "I'm a bit shocked to be honest.. <Presenter: What about?> I'm shocked about both... I'm shocked that we have actually voted to leave. I didn't think that was going to happen. My vote, I didn't think was going to matter too much because I just thought we were going to remain."
Maybe this short clip is missing context... maybe he says later on in the conversation that it was a protest vote... but all this clip shows is that he's surprised they won?
It's common to vote for something you believe in, knowing the opposition will win anyway. That doesn't imply it's a protest vote, that you don't really want what you're voting for.
However effectively the Brexit vote is an expression of sovereignty of the populace. It's about power. Why? Because some parliament members are afraid to oppose the outcome.
Of course some things are different from the Swiss direct democracy. First the votes aren't ordained by politicians as a gamble but are set in motion by predefined rules in constitution and law. Second, the federal minister (Bundesrat) who has «lost» a vote doesn't retire like Mr. Cameron. Quite the opposite: everybody expects that he obeys the people and takes over to try to find the best way. Like a child who has to obey its parents and can't retire if he disagrees.