Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[entropy]

I know the article is from 2010, but it's the first one that came up on my google search... there are more recent studies that show similar %'s, but this gives you the point.

==================

This past month researchers at Harvard Medical School published the largest study to date of what has been termed “primary nonadherence” and found that more than 20 percent of first-time patient prescriptions were never filled. Comparing the e-prescription data for over 75,000 patients with pharmacy insurance claims, the investigators also discovered that certain patterns of nonadherence exist. First-time prescriptions for chronic diseases like high cholesterol, high blood pressure and diabetes were more likely not to be filled, whereas those for pediatric patients 18 years of age and younger and for antibiotics were more likely to be filled.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/health/20chen.html

[hack]

When you consistently find merit in more regulation, the massive redistribution of wealth, and unabated multiculturalism, then there is a label that is appropriate for you. It helps enforce intellectual honesty in a world where much is accomplished through dishonesty and subterfuge. This is especially true of the Left and all of the progress that they have enjoyed over the past 50 years.

I'm for two of the three. There isn't a label for me, but your approach is to assign me the label and assume I'm for all three. You'd rather not ask and learn. That's the danger of labels. You take shortcuts that lead you to bad conclusions. All of us do, to varying degrees, and sometimes we do a good job pushing each other to stop it and think things through, but you're completely dedicated to choice of shortcuts over merits. This is why you continue to believe things that are demonstrably false.

[Wild Hoss]

people need to face the consequences of their lifestyles

if you have advanced lung disease/liver disease/heart disease/cancer there comes a point where the government needs to quit paying your medical bills

that's the only way costs can be controlled and I really don't know why we continue to dick around thinking the government should pay so that you can smoke or eat to gain 20 more pounds another 6 months with your lung cancer or heart disease or uncontrolled diabetes
Im all for preventive for anybody and everybody

but when you get to the point you cant prevent something or very high likelihood u wont the government needs to stop paying

we spend way too much money on things we cant prevent

I don't know about all that, but this is where the euthanasia argument should brought up again IMO.

The first result should be the reduction of suffering, but it also has practical merits. The last stages of continuation of life are extremely costly and wealth-sapping, for both the public and families in many instances, based on Christian ethos applied to everyone through force of law. Its long overdue for a national conversation IMO, driven, sadly, by the almighty dollar.

[Hannibal]

It's because they are profiting handsomely from doing so. Rs have to stop buying in to the idea of a utopia that is structurally impossible to achieve.

What's structurally impossible to achieve? A housing market where the government doesn't subsidize and regulate bubbles into existence? We used to have it. A health care system where costs are a fraction of what we have now? We used to have that too. A restrictive immigration policy that ensures that people coming here are going to add value? Guess what -- we used to have that too. None of these were structurally impossible. They existed and then they were ruined.

[Hannibal]

I'm for two of the three.

Now you are just lying (and thus my point about intellectual honesty). You have come out repeatedly and enthusiastically in favor of all three, and your favorite candidate in the election made regulation, wealth redistribution, and multiculturalism his cornerstones.

[hack]

A housing market where the government doesn't subsidize and regulate bubbles into existence?

There it is again! Demonstrably false. You prove him more and more correct as you go along. Post the Investor's Business Daily story again, right? There's your one data point you can't tell is fake.

[Hannibal]

You do realize that before the government got involved in the housing market in about a few hundred different ways that home prices were much cheaper and people used to save up money for down payments and stuff, right? A sensible housing market where people can afford the house that they live in is far from a utopian vision. What do you think has changed since then? Human nature? People just started getting greedy? Or government involvement?

The IBD isn't the only source of this. The government has been interfering in the housing market in the name of redistributive "fairness" for decades. The result was an increasing amount of people buying homes, many of whom shouldn't have been. In the 1990s financial institutions were all slapping themselves on the back for all of the "responsible" and "socially conscious" lending that they were doing. One of the ways that they would do this is by transferring the risk to government-backed institutions, which existed in no small part because of the perceived social good of universal home ownership. Politicians were only too happy to encourage it. Moral hazards like this need government to exist.

[entropy]

Hanni... agree with you regarding the Governments promoting/creating behaviors that led to the bubble.

[hack]

Now you are just lying (and thus my point about intellectual honesty). You have come out repeatedly and enthusiastically in favor of all three, and your favorite candidate in the election made regulation, wealth redistribution, and multiculturalism his cornerstones.

If you are at all interested in the merits rather than the labels you can search the thread for yourself and see what I think about regulation. Suggested search term: ``level playing field''. I'm all for a certain amount of regulation. It's necessary. I recognize that anything government does is going to be done fairly poorly, because that's basically true of most organizations of a certain size, so I'm not for big government or excessive intervention. I'm for having rules and having everyone follow them. Level playing field. I've said it plenty of times.

Now, that said, if you're going to call me a liar and presume you know better than I what it is I think, then this particular discussion is over.

[Whitley]

Sums him up fairly well, though speculating on Medicaid (?) is just that. Paul Ryan would still have to get his way.

Ryan said today about Trump's speech (paraphrasing here), "Leave the details to those that know what they are doing."

Ryan would love to gut Social Security, medicare and medicaid.

[hack]

Hanni... agree with you regarding the Governments promoting/creating behaviors that led to the bubble.

I looked at the numbers. The program he was talking about accounted for 11% of total mortgages. He still persists with this claim. And questions my intellectual honesty. Which goes back to the Kapuscinski quote about what interferes with a person's ability to reason.

[WingsFan]

Ryan would love to gut Social Security, medicare and medicaid.

Yes he would, hes been trying for years. Trump said he is going to protect, we shall see.

[froot loops]

You do realize that before the government got involved in the housing market in about a few hundred different ways that home prices were much cheaper and people used to save up money for down payments and stuff, right? A sensible housing market where people can afford the house that they live in is far from a utopian vision. What do you think has changed since then? Human nature? People just started getting greedy? Or government involvement?

The IBD isn't the only source of this. The government has been interfering in the housing market in the name of redistributive "fairness" for decades. The result was an increasing amount of people buying homes, many of whom shouldn't have been. In the 1990s financial institutions were all slapping themselves on the back for all of the "responsible" and "socially conscious" lending that they were doing. One of the ways that they would do this is by transferring the risk to government-backed institutions, which existed in no small part because of the perceived social good of universal home ownership. Politicians were only too happy to encourage it. Moral hazards like this need government to exist.

Since the crash the regulations from Dodd Frank have made it much harder to buy a house. It has forced lenders to actually check to make sure they do the paperwork and credit checks. One of the side effects is it makes buyers have a much bigger down payment. Your person savior DJT wants to repeal Dodd Frank.

1. The community reinvestment act did not codify Ninja loans
2. It did not put CDS into law.

[Hannibal]

I looked at the numbers. The program he was talking about accounted for 11% of total mortgages. He still persists with this claim. And questions my intellectual honesty. Which goes back to the Kapuscinski quote about what interferes with a person's ability to reason.

That's only one piece of it. And its not insignificant. Another major piece is the home interest tax deduction. Unfortunately, we have the Republicans to thank for that one.

[Hannibal]

If you are at all interested in the merits rather than the labels you can search the thread for yourself and see what I think about regulation. Suggested search term: ``level playing field''. I'm all for a certain amount of regulation. It's necessary. I recognize that anything government does is going to be done fairly poorly, because that's basically true of most organizations of a certain size, so I'm not for big government or excessive intervention. I'm for having rules and having everyone follow them. Level playing field. I've said it plenty of times.

Yup. You've said it plenty of times. And it's never consistent with your views on individual regulatory ideas, like Bernie Sanders's idea of basicaly nuking Wall Street and absorbing the entire health care system into the government. It's almost as if you're not actually a fan of minimal government intervention into markets!

"Leveling the playing field" hasn't been a primary consideration since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. For our lifetimes, government that hasn't been associated with environmental or safety regulations has been associated with redistributive fairness.