News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[Gokul43201]

Here's more convincing proof: http://www.dailyyonder.com/ba-divide/2010/10/17/2995

The United States is segregating by education.

Americans are better educated now than ever, but the distribution of people with college degrees is growing increasingly unequal.

And the clustering of people with higher education is creating greater disparities in regional incomes and unemployment. The places with high percentages of educated adults do better economically than do the counties with low proportions of adults with B.A. degrees. Better educated populations have higher incomes and lower unemployment.
...
In general, rural areas are falling behind the cities in terms of the percent of their adult populations with at least a college (B.A.) degree.

Or if you like pictures:

 

[Char. Limit]

I noticed that Spokane County is listed as "below average", even though it's the second-most urban area in Washington and is home to three universities and two community colleges, at least.

What was your point again?

 

[CAC1001]

If you live in DC you are over twice as likely to have an advanced degree and nearly twice as likely to be a college graduate as the average American. I think that counts as being "more educated".

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/253_educational_attainment_by_state.html

This is educational attainment by state though. You are comparing the average educational attainment level of people in D.C., a city, to the average educational attainment level of people in whole other states.

 

[Char. Limit]

Oh, one more thing. What exactly are "college degress"?

 

[CAC1001]

A big city like New York or Los Angelos will of course have far more formally-educated people than any small town, but it also will have an enormous amount of average working-class people as well. In terms of collective intelligence, I'd say that a big city like NY is no more culturally sophisticated or educated than an average small town, because while the big city has a lot of very educated people, this is contradicted by a huge amount of extraordinarily ignorant people as well. I'd think the same thing probably happens, albeit to a lesser degree, within small towns as well.

Go interview the people in a town of say 10,000 on the issues, you'll probably find some smart, educated people, and other ignorant people. Go to NYC, and once you get through interviewing everyone from the guys working on Wall Street to the people living in some of the very poor ghetto areas, and the collective intelligence I'd bet is the same as the small town.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is educational attainment by state though. You are comparing the average educational attainment level of people in D.C., a city, to the average educational attainment level of people in whole other states.

Numbers are cited for percentages of the population that have a degree (not for "average educational attainment"). So it is measuring exactly what I described. The likelihood that a resident in the "city" of DC has a college degree is significantly greater than the likelihood for the average US citizen.

 

[Gokul43201]

A big city like New York or Los Angelos will of course have far more formally-educated people than any small town, but it also will have an enormous amount of average working-class people as well.

You are not paying attention to the numbers! Please look carefully; these are per capita rates of college degrees, not gross counts.

 

[Gokul43201]

What was your point again?

The point, again: people living in big cities are not "no more educated than people living in small towns".

 

[CAC1001]

Numbers are cited for percentages of the population that have a degree (not for "average educational attainment").

I should have clarified (and not make up my own terms); by "average educational attainment," I meant the percentage of the population with a degree, not the amount of education each person in the population has.

So it is measuring exactly what I described. The likelihood that a resident in the "city" of DC has a college degree is significantly greater than the likelihood for the average US citizen.

How is comparing the likelihood a resident of D.C. will have a degree with the likelihood for populations of states a proper comparison though? For example if you compare Texas to D.C., then sure, the likelihood a person of D.C. has a degree is higher than the likelihood of a person in Texas overall, but what about if comparing say D.C. to Houston or Dallas or Austin?

 

[Gokul43201]

How is comparing the likelihood a resident of D.C. will have a degree with the likelihood for populations of states a proper comparison though? For example if you compare Texas to D.C., then sure, the likelihood a person of D.C. has a degree is higher than the likelihood of a person in Texas overall, but what about if comparing say D.C. to Houston or Dallas or Austin?

Houston, Dallas and Austin are all big cities. The comparison I was making was between people living in big cities (I picked DC, because it is the only "city" that would appear on a state list) versus the "average person".

 

[CAC1001]

Houston, Dallas and Austin are all big cities. The comparison I was making was between people living in big cities (I picked DC, because it is the only "city" that would appear on a state list) versus the "average person".

What do you use to measure the "average person" though?

 

[Astronuc]

Yesterday I came across http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLD6VChcWCE&feature=related", and as a conservative who has never attended any tea party convention or supported them, I was quite surprised, as it says a very different story than the way they've been portrayed in the media. Naturally, this raises the question of what the media's true agenda may have been in their off-center portrayal of the tea party and other grassroots movements?

A core belief of Conservatism according to Bill Whittle is that they "don't think people are perfectable", that people are "motivated by their own self-interest", and that human nature is fundamentally flawed, selfish and unchangable. That is indeed pessimistic and cynical.

Then Whittle explains that it this belief (that human nature is fundamentally flawed, selfish and unchangable) that generates a society with the checks and balances against the natural human bastardliness that basically wants to tell other people what to do. [1:48-2:03]. That seems logically inconsistent. It is that type of personality that results in oligarchy, or a corrupt system that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

Compare that philosophy with the preamble of the US Constitution. Clearly the Tea Party/Conservatives are at odds with the Constitution and the thinking of the founding fathers, who wrote "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, . . . " I guess the founding fathers were a bunch of flaming liberals.

Selfish goes well beyond self-interest. Selfish means that one is "concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness

And this is the kind of person Whittle proposes to run the US government.


I was taught to be concerned about well-being or welfare of others!

 

[mugaliens]

A core belief of Conservatism according to Bill Whittle is that they "don't think people are perfectable", that people are "motivated by their own self-interest", and that human nature is fundamentally flawed, selfish and unchangable. That is indeed pessimistic and cynical.

Then Whittle explains that it this belief (that human nature is fundamentally flawed, selfish and unchangable) that generates a society with the checks and balances against the natural human bastardliness that basically wants to tell other people what to do. [1:48-2:03]. That seems logically inconsistent. It is that type of personality that results in oligarchy, or a corrupt system that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

Compare that philosophy with the preamble of the US Constitution. Clearly the Tea Party/Conservatives are at odds with the Constitution and the thinking of the founding fathers, who wrote "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, . . . " I guess the founding fathers were a bunch of flaming liberals.

Selfish goes well beyond self-interest. Selfish means that one is "concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness

And this is the kind of person Whittle proposes to run the US government.

I was taught to be concerned about well-being or welfare of others!

Wow. I spot no less than five clearly-defined logical conundrums.

Would you care to elucidate, Astronuc? I have, after all, in the past enumerated my own errors. Perhaps you'd be willing to join me in our joint endeavor towards humanity's endeavor towards enlightenment?

 

[WhoWee]

What exactly is a "Tea Party location"?

Any location that has a resident Tea Party - that's the point - it could be right down the block. I've witnessed (midwest) small (5 to 10 people) Tea Party gatherings in local restaurants and heard of back yard BBQ gatherings. I've also observed some larger gatherings (50 to 100 people) on village greens and at lakeside picnic areas.

 

[Astronuc]

Wow. I spot no less than five clearly-defined logical conundrums.

Would you care to elucidate, Astronuc? I have, after all, in the past enumerated my own errors. Perhaps you'd be willing to join me in our joint endeavor towards humanity's endeavor towards enlightenment?

Where would you like to begin?

 

[BobG]

Compare that philosophy with the preamble of the US Constitution. Clearly the Tea Party/Conservatives are at odds with the Constitution and the thinking of the founding fathers, who wrote "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, . . . " I guess the founding fathers were a bunch of flaming liberals.

Someone seriously suggested they weren't?!

Of course, I guess the question would have different connotations today. A person asking the question would probably be more curious about how the founding fathers' would fit into today's political climate rather than their own.

In a way, not only did they lead a revolution against England, but they also revolutionized the political landscape so much that they redefined what it meant to be conservative or liberal.

 

[WhoWee]

A core belief of Conservatism according to Bill Whittle is that they "don't think people are perfectable", that people are "motivated by their own self-interest", and that human nature is fundamentally flawed, selfish and unchangable. That is indeed pessimistic and cynical.

I interpreted his comments to mean that people are not perfect (expect flaws), people are motivated by self interest-even if that interest is wanting to help others (don't give anyone too much power), and human nature is flawed/selfish/unchangeable (ot is what it is) - history keeps repeating itself - we continue to struggle and fight each other and people continue to rob and deceive (regardless of level of success) - more never seems to be enough.

I contend that change is good in the House of Representatives-and favor term limits. I'm not sure everyone elected should have life-long benefits though.

At the same time, in order to be elected Senator - (I think) a candidate should first complete 2 terms in the House (where they can do less damage - Al Franken) and voters can evaluate their voting records.

I'm also very much against "fact finding trips" by Congress -House members especially. We have a State Department and an Executive Branch.

 

[mheslep]

So you agree. Or do you disagree with Whowee?

Sorry I was flip last night Evo, but I agree with Whowee's and George Clooney's contentions that people in NY, DC, LA are "out of touch" with the average American. The characteristics you cite for the NY, DC populations vs elsewhere are arguable, but even assuming they are accurate I don't grant they are the reason for the lack of cohesion. An extraordinarily high self-opinion was the trait (for NY, DC, SF) was the first thing came to my mind.

 

[mheslep]

If you live in DC you are over twice as likely to have an advanced degree and nearly twice as likely to be a college graduate as the average American. I think that counts as being "more educated".

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/253_educational_attainment_by_state.html

First, I think that counts as having a more specialized education, and specialization is an increasing trend. The merits of this trend continuing are a topic of much debate as you've likely heard; over specialization has been a concern for some corners in physics, for instance, or so I've read and been told. One consequence is that it comes at a sacrifice of less and less breadth, and similarly less contact with people outside one's field.

Second, in those areas, DC especially, you will also find some of the most appallingly terrible primary public education in the country, that, in my opinion, have been largely produced by by the very holders of the specialized educations mentioned above, and who continue to constrain children to stay in those schools.

 

[mheslep]

Here's more convincing proof: http://www.dailyyonder.com/ba-divide/2010/10/17/2995

Or if you like pictures:

I'd like to see i) a per capita picture as some of those counties might have about six people and 100,000 goats in them, and ii) a graphic that can manage to present education data with using the word 'elite' and that renders the correct spelling of the word 'degrees'.

 

[Char. Limit]

I'd like to see i) a per capita picture as some of those counties might have about six people and 100,000 goats in them, and ii) a graphic that can manage to present education data with using the word 'elite' and that renders the correct spelling of the word 'degrees'.

1. It actually is per capita, as you can see, it uses percentages.

2. I was thinking the exact same thing... except WITHOUT using the word "elite".

 

[mheslep]

Someone seriously suggested they weren't?!

Of course, I guess the question would have different connotations today. A person asking the question would probably be more curious about how the founding fathers' would fit into today's political climate rather than their own.

In a way, not only did they lead a revolution against England, but they also revolutionized the political landscape so much that they redefined what it meant to be conservative or liberal.

Maybe you missed the Whittle video. See the Declaration too, as the American revolution and the discussion leading to it was quintessentially conservative in the Burkean sense:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses ...

The founders saw the revolution as a last resort, and said so. They further did not intend to radically revolutionize their society, but were intent on fighting for the rights they believed they already had as free Englishmen, and were being deprived of by England and GIII. Contrast this with the French Revolution which, via the horrendous mistakes of Rouseau, sought to utterly remake their country and remake man himself and literally destroyed their entire society in doing so, guillotining thousands per week in the Terror, leaving no societal institutions to oppose the dictatorship of Napolean.

 

[mheslep]

1. It actually is per capita, as you can see, it uses percentages.

No, since if the county has ten people in it then 10% degreed means one person there is degreed; the next door smallish blue county with a town in it and local U. similarly might mean 1000 there are degreed, thus rendering county to county color comparisons meaningless, unless the whole point is some kind of geography digression.

 

[WhoWee]

If you live in DC you are over twice as likely to have an advanced degree and nearly twice as likely to be a college graduate as the average American. I think that counts as being "more educated".

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/253_educational_attainment_by_state.html

I can't think of another place in the US that the division between "have's" and "have not's" is so obvious.

 

[mheslep]

A core belief of Conservatism according to Bill Whittle is that they "don't think people are perfectable", that people are "motivated by their own self-interest", [...]

Yes, and I'll generalize to say that's not just per Whittle, the description is almost textbook for conservative philosophy. If not Burke, I know from other posts, Astronuc, that you're familiar with Adam Smith who's "invisible hand" philosophy is based on the same principle. There's also the more familiar maxim from Acton, "power corrupts, and absolute power ..." summing up the wisdom of all human experience. The maxim does not go on to say, "except for those who were ... taught to be concerned about well-being or welfare of others", as you also must know. Yet you say this is all "indeed pessimistic and cynical." Why? I'll grant you're not alone in this view, that people are perfectable (logical inference from your statement) given the right government, as it is Rousseauian and fundamental to modern progressivism and hard leftism.

 

[Al68]

A core belief of Conservatism according to Bill Whittle is that they "don't think people are perfectable", that people are "motivated by their own self-interest", and that human nature is fundamentally flawed, selfish and unchangable. That is indeed pessimistic and cynical.

You mean it's not delusional like the assumptions of Marxism/socialism?

Then Whittle explains that it this belief (that human nature is fundamentally flawed, selfish and unchangable) that generates a society with the checks and balances against the natural human bastardliness that basically wants to tell other people what to do.

That belief generated the U.S. Constitution.

That seems logically inconsistent.

Huh?

It is that type of personality that results in oligarchy, or a corrupt system that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

Huh? That's logically inconsistent and incoherent.

Clearly the Tea Party/Conservatives are at odds with the Constitution and the thinking of the founding fathers

Still making no sense. The founding fathers were students of classical liberalism, Adam Smith, John Locke, etc, whose writings mirrored the philosophy you attribute to the Tea Party Conservatives. And the constitution was obviously constructed along those lines.

I guess the founding fathers were a bunch of flaming liberals.

They were: classical liberals. It's called "right wing extremist radical rich people-lovin' poor people-hatin' neocons" now, though.

 

[Gokul43201]

What do you use to measure the "average person" though?

It's there in the same link. The likelihood for someone to have a college degree irrespective of location within the US (i.e., averaged over all locations) is specified in the first line of the table.

 

[BobG]

It's there in the same link. The likelihood for someone to have a college degree irrespective of location within the US (i.e., averaged over all locations) is specified in the first line of the table.

That gives statistics for the average county, not the average person. In fact, if the percentage of residents with college degrees is only 27%, then there's a good chance the average person doesn't have a college degree.

The average person needs a little definition.

I think it's safe to assume we're talking about the average person in the US (Joe SixPack), which is about 13.3 years of education. (Worldwide, the average person has about 6 years of education.) http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/9/37863998.pdf (you have to scroll down to page 4)

Someone else noted that Washington DC had a lot of people with college degrees, but a lousy school system. The education system of a city or state has little to do with how many college graduates it has. For example, Colorado is below average for its educational system, but ranks near the top in percentage of college graduates. People with college degrees are more mobile than people with little education. People with college degrees move where the jobs are and the jobs are more likely to be located near big cities instead of rural areas. People with only a high school degree or less are more likely to stay put and endure whatever economy their home town is enduring.

In other words, a city doesn't have to develop its own residents into college graduates if it can attract college graduates from other parts of the country. (And the area along I-25 North and South of Denver is starting to resemble California culturally, hence the change from a Red state to a Purple state that's getting ever more Blue.)

This difference is pertinent to a discussion about the Tea Party. If the Tea Party is representing Joe SixPack, his outlook is much different than the outlook of a person that has economic and geographic flexibility. Logically, I'm not sure their differences explain their political positions, but there is definitely a difference.

 

[Gokul43201]

That gives statistics for the average county, not the average person. In fact, if the percentage of residents with college degrees is only 27%, then there's a good chance the average person doesn't have a college degree.

The average person needs a little definition.

The average person is a superposition of several single-person states.

 

[CAC1001]

Aren't plenty of college-educated Americans "average Americans" as well though?

 

[BobG]

Aren't plenty of college-educated Americans "average Americans" as well though?

Not the ones that grew up in Lake Wobegon.

Obviously, the "average American" averages more traits than just education, so I guess a person with an above average education could still be average.

 

[mugaliens]

Where would you like to begin?

Here.

A core belief of Conservatism according to Bill Whittle is that they "don't think people are perfectable", that people are "motivated by their own self-interest", and that human nature is fundamentally flawed, selfish and unchangable. That is indeed pessimistic and cynical.

Logical inconsistancy 1: He's saying human nature is fundamentally flawed, not that each and every human is fundamentally flawed. By and large, most of us are decent people. Enough of us are not, however, to goof things up for the rest of us if controls weren't in place to preven it from happening.

Then Whittle explains that it this belief (that human nature is fundamentally flawed, selfish and unchangable) that generates a society with the checks and balances against the natural human bastardliness that basically wants to tell other people what to do. [1:48-2:03]. That seems logically inconsistent. It is that type of personality that results in oligarchy, or a corrupt system that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

2. The framers knew their history, as do we. Most governments tend towards corruption. The implemented checks and balances to help prevent that from happening. As I said, most people are decent, and our framers were among them. As for governments telling people what to do, let me ask you this: Are seatbelts optional, or mandatory? Enough said.

Compare that philosophy with the preamble of the US Constitution. Clearly the Tea Party/Conservatives are at odds with the Constitution and the thinking of the founding fathers, who wrote "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, . . . "

3. This makes no sense whatsoever.

I guess the founding fathers were a bunch of flaming liberals.

4. Neither does this.

Selfish goes well beyond self-interest. Selfish means that one is "concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others."

And this is the kind of person Whittle proposes to run the US government.

5. Not in the least.

I was taught to be concerned about well-being or welfare of others!

6. So was I! So was Whittle. I'm not sure where you're getting your perceptions of him, but I find they're considerably off-target. Is it because he's a tea-partier, and you're against the tea party?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Can we at least try to avoid the fallacy of composition here?

 

[mugaliens]

Can we at least try to avoid the fallacy of composition here?

Such as what the media does when they wrongly malign groups such as the tea party when they focus on the few extremists in the group (part of the whole)?

Or such as my immediately-preceding comment slamming all media based on the actions of some of its leading news agencies (proper parts)?

"A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_(logical_fallacy)" ​

I'm well aware of how to both spot and avoid logical fallacies (and can even provide examples!), CRGreathouse. Was your comment directed at me, or to all posters in general?

 

[Gokul43201]

No, since if the county has ten people in it then 10% degreed means one person there is degreed; the next door smallish blue county with a town in it and local U. similarly might mean 1000 there are degreed, thus rendering county to county color comparisons meaningless, unless the whole point is some kind of geography digression.

I don't follow how this proves that the data presented is not per capita. Besides, most of the blue counties on that map are very heavily populated, so whatever the problem is that arises from 10 people and 6000 goats living in a county, such problems rarely, if ever, apply to the regions of interest.

PS: Among the thousands of counties in the US, only a handful have fewer than a 1000 residents (of course, none with 10 or less).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_statistics_of_the_United_States#By_population_.28as_of_2000.29

I can't think of another place in the US that the division between "have's" and "have not's" is so obvious.

I don't understand. Care to elaborate?

 

[Char. Limit]

Gokul, I think there's something that will skew your data. Namely, that most college graduates are going to move to big cities, because that's where the jobs that require college degrees are. So your chart doesn't really prove education levels at all, because of this collegiate migration to the cities.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul, I think there's something that will skew your data. Namely, that most college graduates are going to move to big cities, because that's where the jobs that require college degrees are.

That is natural. And is at least a big part of the reason that I made the bet. Colleges are more densely located in big cities, people going to college - wherever they came from - will be more likely to find work near the college or in other big cities, than back at "home", etc. But what specific data does this skew?

So your chart doesn't really prove education levels at all, because of this collegiate migration to the cities.

How do you "prove education levels"? That is a meaningless statement - would you care to explain it? Besides, I'm not trying to prove anything more that the simple statement I made before: people living in big cities are more likely to have a higher level of education than people living in small towns. Whatever the reasons are for this is irrelevant.

 

[Char. Limit]

That is natural. And is at least a big part of the reason that I made the bet. Colleges are more densely located in big cities, people going to college - wherever they came from - will be more likely to find work near the college or in other big cities, than back at "home", etc. But what specific data does this skew?

How do you "prove education levels"? That is a meaningless statement - would you care to explain it? Besides, I'm not trying to prove anything more that the simple statement I made before: people living in big cities are more likely to have a higher level of education than people living in small towns. Whatever the reasons are for this is irrelevant.

Ah, we were trying to prove different things.

 

[mheslep]

I don't follow how this proves that the data presented is not per capita. Besides, most of the blue counties on that map are very heavily populated, so whatever the problem is that arises from 10 people and 6000 goats living in a county, such problems rarely, if ever, apply to the regions of interest.

The only way to get real per cap data is to draw a box around every X people where ever they reside, and do a head count on the degrees out of the population X, hence the description per capita. What the map above shows (thanks btw) and what you are suggesting is per region.

 

[Gokul43201]

What the map above shows (thanks btw) and what you are suggesting is per region.

What I am saying is that the map shows per capita values for each region. It's no different than a map showing per capita GDP of countries around the world, and has similar illustrative value towards the end of comparing these different regions.

 

[mheslep]

What I am saying is that the map shows per capita values for each region. It's no different than a map showing per capita GDP of countries around the world, and has similar illustrative value towards the end of comparing these different regions.

Yes and in such a case one compares nation to nation, not people to people, which I thought was the point of the exercise above, or rather the point I was interested in.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not sure what you mean by a comparison of "people to people", but the point of the exercise was to compare region to region (specifically, to compare regions dominated by a large city/metro area with regions characterized by smaller towns).

 

[CRGreathouse]

Such as what the media does when they wrongly malign groups such as the tea party when they focus on the few extremists in the group (part of the whole)?

Sure.

Or such as my immediately-preceding comment slamming all media based on the actions of some of its leading news agencies (proper parts)?

I'd rather not comment on individual posts or posters if I can avoid it. (I intentionally avoided looking at that post to refresh my memory, so I actually don't know the answer.)

Was your comment directed at me, or to all posters in general?

To the posters (and readers!) on and of this thread.

 

[BobG]

That is natural. And is at least a big part of the reason that I made the bet. Colleges are more densely located in big cities, people going to college - wherever they came from - will be more likely to find work near the college or in other big cities, than back at "home", etc. But what specific data does this skew?

How do you "prove education levels"? That is a meaningless statement - would you care to explain it? Besides, I'm not trying to prove anything more that the simple statement I made before: people living in big cities are more likely to have a higher level of education than people living in small towns. Whatever the reasons are for this is irrelevant.

You can infer how likely young residents are to at least graduate high school, which does give some indication of the quality of the school system. You can compare that to how many residents over 25 have high school diplomas. Here's a site that does just that (Educational Attainment, even though they don't provide a county map as easy to visualize as Gokul's. You have to click on the state you're interested into see the county map for that particular state.

Cities still have a higher graduation rate than remote rural areas, but there's a lot more variation. In fact, areas just outside large cities have higher graduation rates than the large cities. Plus there's other 'anomalies' where high graduation rates occur where you wouldn't expect them. There's quite a bit of variation when it comes to high school graduation rates.

The comparison between young residents (18 to 25) and the rest of a county's population (over 25) is pretty striking. People with educations definitely do move to where the jobs are.

 

[mheslep]

Possibly for a thread primer-sticky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCBUmxVMJY

 

[BobG]

You know, they do say something about having insurance companies pay for routine health care that inherently makes sense on the surface, but was a conscious choice by the insurance companies because encouraging routine check-ups prevents paying out larger sums for treating diseases that could have been prevented. Health insurance is the exception where this practice actually pays off for all involved.

Yet, what the video says about this distorting the market is still true. In today's environment, physicians will schedule patients for tons of tests before a physical just because the health insurer will pay for it and the patient won't object.

In fact, in some cases, the testing may propose it's own health risks (Cardiac Testing Puts Younger Adults at Radiation Risk)

Or, from the doctor's perspective: Money woes move docs to sign deals. The intent was to make a profit installing new diagnostic machines and charging insurance companies, Medicaid, etc for the tests. With the federal government cutting how much they will pay for the tests, the doctor lost his profit. Likewise, do you really want your doctor's decisions about which specialists or hospitals he refers you to to be based on those specialists/hospitals paying him for those referrals?

The latter is also a good reason a doctor's office shouldn't be allowed to have their own patients tested in their own facilities. In an environment where there's a tendency to schedule unnecessary tests, there's even more temptation when the doctor's office increases its profits by doing so. (Laws preventing doctors' offices from profiting from patient prescriptions already exist for this same reason.)

The entire health care expense problem is more complex than just who pays for it.

 

[Al68]

Possibly for a thread primer-sticky.

Great video!

The sad thing is that that video, as much as it is obviously intended as a spoof, very accurately portrays much of this thread.

 

[CRGreathouse]

You know, they do say something about having insurance companies pay for routine health care that inherently makes sense on the surface, but was a conscious choice by the insurance companies because encouraging routine check-ups prevents paying out larger sums for treating diseases that could have been prevented. Health insurance is the exception where this practice actually pays off for all involved.

I think the intent of 'routine health care' is not check-ups and preventative medicine, which are sensible for insurers to cover, but rather covering the costs of the usual little problems: broken bone, poison ivy, persistent cough, root canal, etc. You can expect a certain cost for treating these things in a year, and it doesn't make sense to pay someone to pay for these on your behalf. On the other hand, it can make sense to be insured against bigger things.

 

[CRGreathouse]

In fact, in some cases, the testing may propose it's own health risks (Cardiac Testing Puts Younger Adults at Radiation Risk)

I'm in radiation safety, and this sort of thing is more common than you might guess. Breast cancer screening, unfortunately, seems to be in this category.

 

[Al68]

I'm in radiation safety, and this sort of thing is more common than you might guess.

Just out of curiosity, do you work at a hospital, or a nuclear facility? If the latter, we might know each other. (I'm a radiological engineer who has worked at several nuclear facilities.)