Supreme Court upholds ACA 5-4

[tertius]

If you look back historically, the huge ramp up in prices began with the introduction of both huge amounts of government backed student loans and the government legislation making it impossible to discharge the loans in bankruptcy. Before this, most people could afford to go to school working part time jobs and emerge with very little if any debt. Everything the government gets involved in and tries to control for outcomes, or just to scratch the back of fucking bankers to continue the credit based economic growth, ends up costing the tax payer dearly in the long run.

Sounds like a pretty good reason to just make the debt go away, then. I mean, it's all fantasy money, owed by citizens to the government. It could vanish tomorrow, and the only thing it would do is take money that would be going to the government, and send it into the economy proper.

I don't really want to get into a long debate about why education is expensive, but the above is only part of it. A lot of it has to do with schools deciding that it was good to act like business, rather than schools. Which meant more and more beauracracy, to the point where most big research schools have a dozen or more Vice Presidents (with impressive salaries), and assistant Vice Presidents, each with a large staff, and far more administrators than faculty, all focused on just getting more bodies into the school. All of which costs tremendous amounts of money. And don't even get me started on grant administration. I've gotten to watch this first hand, as an assistant VP attempted to insert multiple, unnecessary layers of governance between herself and the new director of a research center.

[f4thpathway]

Sounds like a pretty good reason to just make the debt go away, then. I mean, it's all fantasy money, owed by citizens to the government. It could vanish tomorrow, and the only thing it would do is take money that would be going to the government, and send it into the economy proper.

I don't really want to get into a long debate about why education is expensive, but the above is only part of it. A lot of it has to do with schools deciding that it was good to act like business, rather than schools. Which meant more and more beauracracy, to the point where most big research schools have a dozen or more Vice Presidents (with impressive salaries), and assistant Vice Presidents, each with a large staff, and far more administrators than faculty, all focused on just getting more bodies into the school. All of which costs tremendous amounts of money. And don't even get me started on grant administration. I've gotten to watch this first hand, as an assistant VP attempted to insert multiple, unnecessary layers of governance between herself and the new director of a research center.

Which is where they are trying to take health care. Just without the buffer of individual schools. Healthcare is an evolution of the education fiasco. Like going from beer to liquor.

[Philbert]

I have similar views, but I will always explicitly recognize the fact that government should be able to influence consumer behavior, at least to a degree. The tough part, for me, is determining how much influence they should have. I am adverse, as you are, to the idea that the government charges a penalty to anyone who does not buy a hybrid or solar panels, but at the same time, I find it hard to separate that from tax deductions or credits, as long as it's around the same amount of money. And honestly, I can't come up with any other way that's not the same basic idea.

How is it acceptable in principle that we have income tax credits for things like solar panels? If there is a compelling national interest in reducing fossil fuel consumption then the rational approach would be taxing the fossil fuel in proportion to the national interest in reducing it's use. This would encourage the most efficient alternatives to be developed without contributing to an incomprehensible tax code. Similar arguments can be made for many other deductions aimed at influencing behavior.

I am always surprised the slippery slope is categorized as a logical fallacy, and yet it is played out historically on a regular basis.

I think that in most instances the apparent validation of the slippery slope fallacy is due to the first incremental step being itself unacceptable in principle, but too small in effect to raise strenuous objection from the majority of voters. Each successive step is of similar size, and similarly unobjectionable in its effects. While the slippery slope fallacy states that choices in themselves harmless lead to irresistible negative future changes, the reality is that minute incremental wrongs add up to major wrongs. It is more slow-boiling frog than slippery slope.

[mstrofbass]

How is it acceptable in principle that we have income tax credits for things like solar panels? If there is a compelling national interest in reducing fossil fuel consumption then the rational approach would be taxing the fossil fuel in proportion to the national interest in reducing it's use. This would encourage the most efficient alternatives to be developed without contributing to an incomprehensible tax code. Similar arguments can be made for many other deductions aimed at influencing behavior.

This is mostly an economics argument, and doesn't necessarily work in the real world. Increasing the cost of one thing doesn't necessarily influence people to buy another, particularly when increasing the cost gets amortized over a long period of time. For example, people are less likely to respond to an increase in taxes on fossil fuels causes them to spend $2000 more over three or four years than they are to a $2000 tax credit upon the purchase of a new car.

[Conway]

Sounds like a pretty good reason to just make the debt go away, then. I mean, it's all fantasy money, owed by citizens to the government. It could vanish tomorrow, and the only thing it would do is take money that would be going to the government, and send it into the economy proper.

I don't really want to get into a long debate about why education is expensive, but the above is only part of it. A lot of it has to do with schools deciding that it was good to act like business, rather than schools. Which meant more and more beauracracy, to the point where most big research schools have a dozen or more Vice Presidents (with impressive salaries), and assistant Vice Presidents, each with a large staff, and far more administrators than faculty, all focused on just getting more bodies into the school. All of which costs tremendous amounts of money. And don't even get me started on grant administration. I've gotten to watch this first hand, as an assistant VP attempted to insert multiple, unnecessary layers of governance between herself and the new director of a research center.

If the gov wasn't involved in making so many loans and/or guaranteeing them, there wouldn't be a near inexhaustible supple of money available to ramp up the prices in the first place. If students could discharge their debt in bankruptcy when they couldn't get a job after college, and the government wasn't giving loans out despite the unrealistic expectation the loans would be repaid, banks would necessarily have to be more prudent on who and for how much they lent for. Those who lent money improperly would necessarily suffer the consequences when the student filed for bankruptcy because they couldn't find suitable employment to pay back the 100k in student loans for a degree in Malaysian studies. This would have, and did before the government decided to change the rules, kept prices down to a reasonable level.

When you subsidize and/or throw money at something, you get more demand for it, especially when it was already desirable. When there is more demand, prices necessarily go up. When there is unlimited demand and an unlimited well of money to draw from, you get problems like you described above where there is no reason for a school NOT to hire like this, and make luxurious dormitories, because there is always another sucker, er student, to come and pay more for it because they can always get a loan. And they can always get a loan because it is either subsidized by the government or not dis-chargeable.

[tertius]

Which is where they are trying to take health care. Just without the buffer of individual schools. Healthcare is an evolution of the education fiasco. Like going from beer to liquor.

I don't see how healthcare isn't already exactly like that. Hospitals tend to have quite large numbers of people whose job is just to deal with the insurance companies, figure out what is covered and what isn't, and to wrangle with them over payment and rates. None of these people contribute much of anything to the actual care of a patient. I am led to believe that doctors and patients both generally hate them (much the way many faculty would like to see school administrators die in a fire). And the same is true of insurance companies, which employ individuals who are the counterparts of the hospital staff.

Now the current law isn't really going to make that much better, except by making it harder for insurance companies to say "Well, I know it looks like the plan covers that, but it actually doesn't, in this circumstance". But I don't see that it will make it any worse.

[tertius]

When there is unlimited demand and an unlimited well of money to draw from, you get problems like you described above where there is no reason for a school NOT to hire like this, and make luxurious dormitories, because there is always another sucker, er student, to come and pay more for it because they can always get a loan

Except, you know, morals. And an actual interest in education and the outcomes of students.

[johnnys]

You're right. I'm assuming a lot about Meyers that I don't know.

My former employer used Meyers (and others from the firm) as local counsel in several Texas cases. The GC thought the world of her brains and skills, and she did well in the courtroom. I have no idea how that translates to being a Supreme, but "Whizzer" White did Ok.

[f4thpathway]

I don't see how healthcare isn't already exactly like that. Hospitals tend to have quite large numbers of people whose job is just to deal with the insurance companies, figure out what is covered and what isn't, and to wrangle with them over payment and rates. None of these people contribute much of anything to the actual care of a patient. I am led to believe that doctors and patients both generally hate them (much the way many faculty would like to see school administrators die in a fire). And the same is true of insurance companies, which employ individuals who are the counterparts of the hospital staff.

Now the current law isn't really going to make that much better, except by making it harder for insurance companies to say "Well, I know it looks like the plan covers that, but it actually doesn't, in this circumstance". But I don't see that it will make it any worse.

Except there will be 100 times more of it and no way for a citizen to seek damages if harmed. It will be our government running the show. Too many people are down playing this when they have zero idea what it means.

[DoctorWho]

My former employer used Meyers (and others from the firm) as local counsel in several Texas cases. The GC thought the world of her brains and skills, and she did well in the courtroom. I have no idea how that translates to being a Supreme, but "Whizzer" White did Ok.

I'm no expert, but White seemed pretty amazing, especially coming from a sports background. My understanding of Meyers only was that she had little support on the right. I didn't intend to impugn her, even though what I wrote inadvertently did.