SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Donald Trump and Angela Merkel will join 2,500 world leaders, business executives and charity bosses at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland which kicks off on 23 January. High on the agenda once again will be the topic of inequality, and how to reduce the widening gap between the rich and the rest around the world.
The WEF recently warned that the global economy is at risk of another crisis, and that automation and digitalisation are likely to suppress employment and wages for most while boosting wealth at the very top.
But what ideas should the great and good gathered in the Swiss Alps be putting into action? We'd like to know what single step you think governments should prioritise in order to best address the problem of rising inequality. Below we've outlined seven proposals that are most often championed as necessary to tackle the issue – but which of them is most important to you?
- Provide free and high quality education
- Raise the minimum wage
- Raise taxes on the rich
- Fight corruption
- Provide more social protection for the poor
- Stop the influence of the rich on politicians
- Provide jobs for the unemployed
Do you think these ideas are enough, or are there any better ideas to close this wealth gap ? You too can participate and vote for the idea that, you think, works best.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @04:01AM (18 children)
Among other things, those are actually civilized behavior.
You ought to examine the assumption that health care means a healthier population. In practice, it's often the reverse with considerable resources devoted to keeping sick people alive (an economic drag).
Except when they're higher costs of healthcare and hence, not a benefit.
Like paying taxes on that health care?
(Score: 5, Touché) by Whoever on Sunday January 21 2018, @05:08AM (5 children)
Are you claiming that healthcare costs are higher in countries with different methods of funding healthcare than the USA?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:45AM (4 children)
Every developed world country has problems with health care costs growing faster than their economies are. The US is unique in being the leader of high cost health care here, but far from unique in having the problem in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @10:12PM (3 children)
Whataboutism, there are problems everywhere so we should ignore our bigger ones!! They're all the same anyway!!!
As usual you are either a total fucking shill or a total fucking moron. I lean towards the former, but then again smart people can still be idiots.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @01:05AM (2 children)
followed later in response to a TMB post:
Note the problems. First, there is this unwarranted assumption that the poster has a fix that is less of an economic drag, lower cost of health care, and redirects insurance industries into more beneficial enterprises. The US and the rest of the developed world wouldn't be in the mess they have been growing into for the past few decades, if that were the case.
Second, there is this ill-defined and similarly unwarranted assertion that "citizens" deserve "access" to health care. The weaseling of the phrasing is such that it is already true. Everyone does have access to health care in the US. They just have to pay for it. So ignoring this glaring flaw, we have to instead consider what is meant: namely, that people are entitled to health care paid by other peoples' money. Before in the market example, your health care was restricted by your ability and desire to pay. Now, we have to find some other way to limit health care such as: death panels and similar decision making or standard-setting bodies, long wait times for services (the US Veterans Administration does this a lot with their more overworked hospitals), or simply having society fall apart when it can't meet all the many obligations it has created for itself (such as austerity-driven collapses in the EU today).
And notice that the poster speaks of "access" not of actual health care or even more importantly, of good health. That doesn't promise anything useful. That's yet another reason to look on this with a great deal of skepticism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:51PM (1 child)
"And notice that the poster speaks of "access" not of actual health care or even more importantly, of good health. That doesn't promise anything useful. That's yet another reason to look on this with a great deal of skepticism."
As opposed to our current system where you pay exorbitant prices for sub standard care? You are an amazing person, maybe one day you'll retire to a circus tent where you can astound everyone with your block shaped head.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @06:42PM
Yes. Once again, "access" versus actual care. Let us keep in mind that "access" is one of the reasons for exorbitant prices for health care of somewhat lower quality than in much of the developed world. Lots of stuff is mandated to for coverage by insurance - which increases demand - which increases prices. And Medicaid has been cutting back on its services for a couple of decades due to these costs as well.
To give a recent example, much has been made of mandated "free" birth control [wikipedia.org] (that is, birth control with no deductible) as part of health insurance per the past decade's Obamacare bill. While court cases involving religious freedom got the news, the real problem is that there already is widespread, cheap birth control. So it created an incentive to consume more expensive birth control procedures and those costs get passed back as higher insurance rates.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:40PM (6 children)
The one low-cost thing that the USA could do, that would improve things greatly, would be to de-couple health insurance from employment. Make it illegal for an employer to have anything to do with your health care.
Everybody who wants health insurance would have to buy their own. It would move things much closer to a true free market. Insurance companies would have to actually compete for customers instead of having cosy deals with employers and hospitals.
(If you look up the history, employer health care was a way to get around government imposed wage rise limits in the second world war. Surely a true libertarian/republican/free marketeer would not be in favour of something that is a result of government regulation.)
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @03:16PM (5 children)
It's already done. Health insurance doesn't need to be decoupled, it merely needs to be treated as a taxable benefit. Obamacare snuck that in via its excise tax on "Cadillac plans" which kick in 2020 and aren't adjusted for inflation.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2018, @07:19PM (4 children)
The tax issue is moot here, the issues is that employers negotiate big-block insurance deals at rates that individuals simply cannot. Individually sourced insurance is not only more expensive to start, but also subject to discriminatory rate hikes based on profiling.
By combining everybody in one insurance pool, we rise and sink together at an equal rate. By only having large pools associated with large employers, those people benefit from the large group effect, while individually insured are discriminated against, higher rates with or without "pre-existing conditions," more drastic hikes in response to claims, etc.
If you want to let the weak get culled from the herd, then, sure, keep the system we've got - it's great at singling out people with problems and kicking them while they are down.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 22 2018, @08:18PM (3 children)
No, it's not. The tax issue allows such companies to buy about 50% more insurance for the same amount of money.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2018, @08:34PM (2 children)
I think you lost this particular game of three card monty... Individuals have methods to deduct the cost of healthcare insurance pre-tax. The tax issue is not the reason for the high rate disparity, the lack of negotiation power is the much larger component.
One single example from 2001 - my wife's privately sourced health insurance rates tripled after our first baby delivery cost the insurance company $20K - effectively, her rate jumped up $10K per year with our existing provider, and others wouldn't even insure her due to "pre-existing condition." That's got nothing to do with taxes.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 22 2018, @08:41PM (1 child)
Ahem. [zanebenefits.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2018, @09:31PM
Sorry, I'm a little out of touch since I work for a big company now - is this referring to Obamacare?
Can't argue with the wider variety thing, any employer sponsored "choices" I have ever had in healthcare insurance have been limited to two, maybe three selections - the cheap plan, and the pay us up front in increased premiums for benefits you may or may not claim plans - which never, ever work out to the ultimate financial benefit of the insured - maybe break-even, on a high claims year.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @10:24PM (4 children)
Nobody who anyone takes seriously has proposed repealing Regan's requirement that emergency rooms treat the uninsured, so saving money by not trying to keep the dying alive is not an option on the table. Universal health insurance means people get early/preventative care which means a healthier population... the lack of it means people wait until they need much more expensive treatment.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:43PM (3 children)
Unless it means that people get treated for costly problems that wouldn't bother them before they die of something else. There's a reason that insurance companies routinely stay away from early/preventative care.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @10:15PM (2 children)
Yes there is a reason, they are greedy fucks. Half the time they won't even pay out for costly problems or only partially cover it. Letting millions of people get preventative care is way more expensive than the occasional massive bill they can fight and not even fully pay.
Grow up / get real / stop making horrible arguments to cover your ignorance and sociopath beliefs.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 22 2018, @10:17PM (1 child)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @12:17AM
You're right, they greedy and evil. I forgot to add that there. Why save money through preventative care when they can just jack up premiums and deny coverage? Your blind faith in "the market" is staggering.