I think the fear narrative in America is just completely out of whack. Besides gun shooting and ICE, there are no real threats.
The politicians have made it seem like there is a lot of there is so much threat but realistically normal people just exist. Stop filling for fox news and maga hate messaging.
Let me fix that for you. This is all happening because the institutions in America failed to deliver for working-class people for over four decades, and Americans got fed up, elected a billionaire willing to be a bulldozer of those institutions and the systems that work for knowledge workers, twice.
Who knew that cutting taxes while keeping government spending high AND lowering interest rates could result in so much free money going around? That coupled with the dollar losing 10% of its value in a year, of course stocks are higher than before. Inflation and dollar losing value = winning!
>Who knew that cutting taxes while keeping government spending high AND lowering interest rates could result in so much free money going around?
That's been going on for many presidents in a row, in no way unique to Trump. Bush and Obama take the cake.
>That coupled with the dollar losing 10% of its value in a year
Is this some new virtue signal on BlueSky? USD is still trading in its channel at above historic averages. This is like saying the US market is crashing because we had a -2.5% day on Tuesday. Look at DXY and zoom out. It's been flat since May.
>of course stocks are higher than before. Inflation and dollar losing value = winning!
Three consecutive years of solid double digit market growth that has outpaced inflation and dollar valuation. Tell me you know nothing about financial markets without telling me you know nothing about financial markets.
> That's been going on for many presidents in a row
You were attributing your "knowledge worker 401(k)" growth to Trump though?
> Is this some new virtue signal on BlueSky?
No, I'm not on BlueSky or any social media. Is this a poor attempt at some Trumper "own"?
> USD is still trading in its channel at above historic averages.
Look at the chart after "liberation day" in April. It's been down since then and stayed there. Not a very good sign for his policies.
> Three consecutive years of solid double digit market growth that has outpaced inflation and dollar valuation
I agree, Biden did well with covid recovery. Not sure how electing Trump did much for us other than cause a market crash in April (and subsequent dip buying) and weaken the USD?
> Tell me you know nothing about financial markets
Oh, I know plenty and I'm actually bullish on stocks because there is so much free money going around. It would be stupid not to have your money in assets with such high inflation on the horizon. I just find it funny that you're touting bad policy as a win when his whole campaign was about "Biden's inflation" causing high prices and Republicans are supposedly for being fiscally responsible yet the OBBB goes against that.
>You were attributing your "knowledge worker 401(k)" growth to Trump though?
You were attributing the "cutting taxes while keeping government spending high AND lowering interest rates" specifically to Trump though?
>No, I'm not on BlueSky or any social media.
Yet you suffer from the same brainrot.
>Is this a poor attempt at some Trumper "own"?
Is this a poor attempt at some pantifa "own"?
>Look at the chart after "liberation day" in April. It's been down since then and stayed there. Not a very good sign for his policies.
Yes, it is still trading in its channel at above historic averages. A regression to the mean, the same drop happened under Biden in 2022. Not a good sign for [Biden's] policies.
>Not sure how electing Trump did much for us other than cause a market crash in April (and subsequent dip buying) and weaken the USD?
Of course you're not sure because you're financially illiterate. We're hitting all time highs again.
>Oh, I know plenty and I'm actually bullish on stocks because there is so much free money going around.
ZIRP is over. You're bullish because the market is hitting ATH under Trump. I've been selling puts all year to gullible "investors" that thought, and still think, the market is going to crash, any time now, under Trump.
>It would be stupid not to have your money in assets with such high inflation on the horizon.
"Inflation is on the horizon!" they screamed for an entire year. Trump's first year of his second term CPI was 2.7%, lower than any Biden year.
>I just find it funny that you're touting bad policy as a win when his whole campaign was about "Biden's inflation" causing high prices and Republicans are supposedly for being fiscally responsible yet the OBBB goes against that.
People find things they don't understand funny, news at 11.
> Let me fix that for you. This is all happening because the institutions in America failed to deliver for working-class people for over four decades, and Americans got fed up, elected a billionaire willing to be a bulldozer of those institutions and the systems that work for knowledge workers, twice.
Let me fix that for you. Billionaires conned working class into giving up everything for "low taxes". Working class suffered.
And then the same working class elected - get this - another billionaire conman - the same category that previously conned them.
> And why shouldn't it when there is zero negative ramifications for being completely fucking unethical?
This is at the crux of everything in America. There are zero punishments for corporations and executives but there are bureaucratic lock ins for "customers".
And the answer is not merely regulation. Why shouldn't I be able to switch health insurance at ANY time? If I am unsatisfied with United Healthcare, I should be able to get anything else right away. Why impose laws on me?
The reason insurance companies have specific sign-up windows and enrollment periods is because the insurance model breaks down if anyone could switch at any time.
If someone could get the cheapest plan when they're healthy and then go switch to the best plan as soon as they started getting sick with something, everyone would do exactly that.
Insurance companies are required to accept patients regardless of pre-existing conditions, so there has to be something counter-balancing that to prevent people from only getting good insurance when they plan to use it.
Health insurers are required to accept all insureds without pricing the insured’s risks. It would increase premiums a lot if people could bounce around, as it would make already difficult to forecast medical loss ratios even more volatile.
This really is a problem only the government can solve, by continuously auditing coverage decisions at random, and sufficiently penalizing the companies that understaff at best, and intentionally deny or delay payment at worst.
Currently, years might go by until CMS audits the company, and even then, there are no consequences. Try arguing for a higher budget for more $400k doctors and $200k pharmacists in this environment.
The current situation is because one company can lower premiums by reducing quality of service, all the other ones have to also, and the buyer rarely buys on anything but price since it’s usually a third party buying it, like an employer.
> Health insurers are required to accept all insureds without pricing the insured’s risks. It would increase premiums a lot if people could bounce around, as it would make already difficult to forecast medical loss ratios even more volatile.
It's almost as if there is nothing insurance-like about US health "insurance" but the name.
Picture health insurance models laid on top of your car. Imagine your car gets totaled:
Your insurer says, "Hey, we're going to pay out $25,000 for your vehicle. So you have a $1,000 deductible, so that's $24,000, and then your copay for a total loss is $2,000, so that brings us down to $22,000. For total losses, your coinsurance as your contribution for your vehicle coverage is 20%, which is $5,000, so here's a check for $17,000. Buttttt... that's only if you're buying a Hyundai, otherwise the vehicle is out of network and you'll get a check for $8,500 instead."
US health insurance premiums are not insurance-like, as they are mostly a tax due to the forced wealth redistribution.
US health insurance coverage is very insurance-like, due to the out of pocket maximum.
Determining auto insurance coverage is very simple, because fixing/replacing cars is simple.
Determining health insurance coverage can't be simple, because fixing bodies is not simple. It's unknown what will and will not fix issues, how to even measure if there is an issue, and what will cause more issues and the cost/benefit of that fix.
The people who can fix the issue are a lot more rare and in demand than the people who can fix automobiles.
Also, the medicine is patented, and the seller of the medicine wants to be able to charge different prices to different buyers, hence all the games.
> US health insurance coverage is very insurance-like, due to the out of pocket maximum.
Well, other than that whole "out of network" thing...
> Determining health insurance coverage can't be simple, because fixing bodies is not simple. It's unknown what will and will not fix issues, how to even measure if there is an issue, and what will cause more issues and the cost/benefit of that fix.
Don't disagree - but that doesn't make what we have more "insurance-like".
I mean for most auto and home insurers, the "negotiated price" is a pretty loose thing. My insurer might ask for a quote from someone in their "preferred network" but I can get a quote from anyone I want to do the work, and if it's within x% of the preferred quote, it's automatically approved, otherwise someone from the insurer calls them and asks about the different pricing, and I've generally got that approval within 24-48 hours. (Which has also worked in my favor - with an auto glass claim, their repairer was insistent that third party glass would work fine, despite the HUD, but the other was able to demonstrate to the insurer that OEM glass was required).
Mostly this all boils down to "the healthcare industry in the US needs to be comprehensively revamped in any one of several different ways or methodologies, but likely won't be".
> but I can get a quote from anyone I want to do the work, and if it's within x% of the preferred quote, it's automatically approved,
It would be the same in healthcare if quotes were for 4 and low 5 figures with no future costs.
Not only does healthcare easily reach into the 5, 6, and 7 figures, but the health insurance company is also on the hook for myriad known and unknown issues caused by the initial costs.
> It would be the same in healthcare if quotes were for 4 and low 5 figures with no future costs.
I mean, this is somewhat the same in auto, too. Is one of the reasons you're recommended to go through insurance even if involved in an accident and the other party offers to give you cash for the initial quote - it's quite common that they start repair work and find other issues because they hadn't removed components or panels to give you a quote. Got cash from someone? Now you have to go back and say "Well, I know the quote said $1,500, but they took off the back quarter panel and found other issues and now it's $3,800..."
That being said, ICD codes, one of the cornerstones of billing, are predicated around "encounters", and certainly not "future costs".
> is also on the hook for myriad known and unknown issues caused by the initial costs.
There's a pretty huge asterisk to all that. Health insurers are adept at neatly sidestepping any obligations. They've fought and won many many times over in court on similar issues, "Insurer is denying me care and I'm going to die/suffer serious issues as a result!" Insurer's response, which has been held in court many times over? "We're not denying you any care at all, we're just declining to accept financial responsibility for it. You're free to get that care and be directly billed."
>There's a pretty huge asterisk to all that. Health insurers are adept at neatly sidestepping any obligations
This might sidestep some obligations, rightly or wrongly. They clearly do not sidestep "any" obligations. The amount of money spent on healthcare claims (medical loss ratios) is public information, available in their SEC filings. It is required to be 80% or more by law.
Every state government has an insurance regulator that also has to approve insurance prices, which are based on the cost of claims. The regulator is not going to let an insurer increase premiums just for profit.
Also, the non profit and for profit insurers have similar premiums, with the for profit insurers having ~3% profit margins or less, indicating a highly competitive market where the revenue is barely covering costs.
Shareholders aren't making any money either (10 year returns lag SP500):
Finally, the fact that Buffett/Dimon/Bezos tapped out on creating a competitor should really drive home how little the profit potential is in health insurance, and any less "sidestepping" of obligations would lead to higher premiums.
I worked in EMS. United battled a bunch of civil suits years ago where they had denied HEMS transports (helicopter transport) from accident scenes due to "lacking pre-authorization". For a car accident.
What would that even look like?
"This is John, I'm a paramedic working on one of your patients who was hit by a truck. We would like to fly him to the trauma center due to extensive multisystem trauma but we need your authorization. His name? Hang on, let me find his wallet. No, that's Smythe, S-M-Y-T-H-E, sorry, I know, it's a bit loud with the jaws of life in the background... Uhh, sure, I guess I can hold for a nurse consult..."
Their bet is that they will not follow the law, nothing will be done about it, and Americans will be ok with it.
So far, that has been the case. The constitution has become meaningless thanks to maga, and you're better off recognizing that America no longer exists the way you thought about the country.
It’s absurd that there is no actual way to hold the presidency accountable. No way to arrest them for violating the law? No way to arrest them for ignoring court orders? No way to arrest them for detaining people for months and then letting them go and dropping all charges? What’s the point of such a childishly designed political system?
> but it's still capital. It should be spent on meeting people's basic human needs, not GPU power.
What you have just described is people wanting investment in common society - you see the return on this investment but ultra-capitalistic individuals don't see any returns on this investment because it doesn't benefit them.
In other words, you just asked for higher taxes on the rich that your elected officials could use for your desired investment. And the rich don't want that which is why they spend on lobbying.
> The twentieth century spent a lot of intellectual and moral effort glorifying labour because economies needed people to show up every day. The twenty-first century is starting to build machines and systems that do not need quite as many of us.
And herein lies the real, consitent, and real anxiety among the youth - leading to lower birth rates. I myself feel the same.
And then I look at the elected corrupt pedophiles, and there is just no hope.
What strikes me most with this quote is that (consistent) labour is very much a defining, if not the defining parameter in all our cultures and the author highlights this later on with data from China etc. I feel we might have a problem with the emphasis on that value in the future. If we think automation through to it's extreme and accept a growing world population and worsening climate effects, we've got to shift cultural values accordingly or face severe societal upheavals. I don't have a point here, just gave me stuff to think about.
Hmm, I'm not sure about the link to lower birth rates. Birth rates have been falling in e.g. Western and Northern Europe for a long time, despite strong social safety nets.
While I think the link between birth rates declining and automation does make sense, it will take quite sometime for this to verifiable as this is a somewhat recent anxiety. The reason for the trend that we have seem over the last decades seem to mostly stem from lower childhood mortality rates, women having access to the job market, and perhaps to a lesser extent climate anxiety.
The politicians have made it seem like there is a lot of there is so much threat but realistically normal people just exist. Stop filling for fox news and maga hate messaging.
reply