I'm not aware of any other show that so seamlessly combines rip-roaringly funny comedy with essential insight into the way our society and system of government is deeply flawed. And on top of that, he even manages to direct action to fix the issues he draws attention to -- taking down the FCC website being one example[1].
It's a good show (he's funny and you learn stuff) but it's way too preachy. He gets just a little too excited about things that are basically impossible for anyone to get excited about. Clearly pandering to the young, left crowd. I'm sure it makes some people feel very warm at night but it gives me a bad taste in my mouth after binge watching.
My main problem with John Oliver is that he often chimes in on subjects he doesn't know anything about with folksy common sense logic that is often wrong. I remember him mocking some system for using tapes for storage on the belief that a technology that is so old cannot possibly be useful in modern technologies. In his latest clip, he mocks information being passed by Excel. How does he think things happen? Some magical global technological system with perfect information and transparency? Perhaps he should try to build such a system.
By critiquing a system that he knows nothing about makes the criticism ring hollow.
Tape as backups are arguably still valuable, but any important information being passed by Excel is a travesty. I've worked on the quant side of things and trading securities has standard protocols (primarily FIX, but more esoteric protocols are used by some MM's). I've worked with insurance conglomerates - health information has HL7 for EHR. Purchase orders between Walmart and their suppliers use EDI. All of these aren't 'magical' but they sure are global standards which are transparent and relatively perfect (you have XML schemas to validate against). Those are just the industries I've worked in professionally (I'm sure any other industry - oil, heavy machinery use something similar.)
In my last job I ended up wasting around half of my time fixing Excel / user errors (despite complaining to management multiple times about how error prone it was).
I agree a standard protocol would be beneficial to everyone and is probably why those conferences are so useful. The problem is the barrier to entry is so low (for better or for worse) and the absolute amounts traded are so low (often fractions of a cent to the dollar) that the cost of implementing and following a protocol are probably high enough that its not worth it.
any important information being passed by Excel is a travesty
I think that's putting it mildly. A major issue with using Excel files for data transfer is, to put it bluntly, the lackadaisical way people treat Excel files. They are passed around and edited. Passed back once edited. Passing them around creates copies of them. They get goofy names as people try to manage the multiple editors and editions. There's no verifiable authority for the source or latest version of the data. None of the data or its state is externally verifiable. We've all seen where this goes south very quickly; we even have a meme for it: the FINAL FINAL FINAL suffix that gets appended to the filename. I suspect this is why/how zombie debt, as described by Oliver, gets resurrected: data quality issues: debt that is accidentally (or on purpose, to make another/recover a quick buck) sold again when it shouldn't have been. And the original owner of the debt, once sold, isn't interested in keeping track of it (they've already written it off). Some of the issue is that there are multiple parties involved. Real estate has title records as one way to solve this, which isn't necessarily a final solution (thus the existence of title insurance), but without even something resembling a centralized and agreed upon record of the history of the debt changing hands, it's impossible to reliably know anything about it. Excel files exacerbate that.
Further down in these comments, AstroJetson says that to forgive debt, they "they just delete the Excel file it's in". I find this to be a reasonable possibility for how this is handled. But deleting a file received from some other party doesn't make the file disappear. It's perhaps still in an attachment somewhere, in the sent mail folder, on the computer of the sender (perhaps moved to a "Sold Debt" folder).
None of this is necessarily solved by transfer methods like EDI or HL7, except for what amounts to a barrier to entry to access the data and make it available to begin with. EDI is a solution for purchase orders between Walmart and suppliers is because 1) there's often a limited number of parties (two) involved with the data, 2) Walmart is always one of the parties (so it is effectively centralized), 3) the data itself is verifiable against other, trusted sources like accounts payable and accounts receivable. It's also going into a system that has automation components. The people who are buying debt information and receiving it via Excel spreadsheets are just going to go over it by hand and call/contact people on it. It's going into some massive computer based process and generate reports for dozens of different departments like the data being transferred via EDI at Walmart is.
This is where someone mentions using a blockchain or git to track the way the debt changes hands and its current state. This would be a fine suggestion if it wasn't in the interest of the debt buyers/sellers to keep the system shitty with little visibility/oversight so they can take advantage of debtors and other debt buyers any way they can.
I checked with the company, and they do track the debt they "forget". They also send a letter to the debtor to say that the debt has been cleared. That takes care of the case where it comes back to life, the debtor has some level of proof that the debt was taken care of.
I didn't ask if they tracked all of it in an Excel file ;-)
Figured it was something like this. This is great news if you're trying to get rid of bill collectors. Just make some "proof" on "company letterhead" that the debt has been cleared. It's no more scummy than harassing collectors.
At the end of the day it's a comedy show not a news show and his job is to make people laugh. You can't make people laugh with jokes about insider ___domain knowledge only possessed by experts.
If you consider the constraint that Last Week Tonight is primarily a comedy show themed around important newsworthy issues rather than an investigative journalism show it's hard to imagine it done any better.
> At the end of the day it's a comedy show not a news show and his job is to make people laugh
He and Jon Stewart keep (kept in the case of Jon) using this excuse when they get things wrong, but when they get things right they take all the glory they can get. The show(s) have to have some sort of accountability.
For example Couric was just ripped for adding 6 seconds of dead air on a documentary....but that's literally what The Daily Show had been doing for years, making people look like idiots (so it fits their segment narrative). That's all good fun until you realize young people think people like Stewart and Oliver are trustworthy news sources.
I like what they do in many cases, but I despise this excuse that it's "just" a comedy show. Maybe NBC nightly news should just add an in-studio audience that laughs and suddenly they can get away with every screw up.
> He and Jon Stewart keep (kept in the case of Jon) using this excuse when they get things wrong, but when they get things right they take all the glory they can get.
It's not meant to be an excuse, it's meant to be an accusation. If a comedy show is so much better at news than a news show, that's a major failing on the part of actual news shows.
In some cases they are better, in other cases they are immensely worse; especially during their taped interview segments. But when we compare "news" most people are looking at 24/7 cable "news" which is full of commentators that are told to say outrageous things and to argue, for the purpose of ratings. That's usually where The Daily Show, et all get their meat. The irony of the Daily Show is that while critiquing cable news commentary it often does the -exact- same thing, but they cover it as if they are the objective ones. To their credit, on cable news, you already know everyone's bias if you're a regular viewer. The Daily Show et al, on the other hand, do not; which gives the illusion of objectivity.
It's not a major failing, but instead the way it has always worked. The court jester was always the one that was the most accurate because he was able to temper the bad news with comedy such that even the king would approve. The guy that said 'hear-ye' would get his head cut off for the same thing. And no, I don't have sources, this is observation off the cuff and strictly my opinion.
That's exactly what it is. It's the equivalent of those people on YouTube who assault someone and then say 'it was just a prank!'
I think making fun of someone and trashing their reputation without being super careful to check all the facts first is really nasty and I don't like watching either of their shows.
That's incorrect, at the Daily Show they have a large fact checking team because they want their jokes to be based in fact. The Daily Show has also done apologies and retractions when they were incorrect. It is a comedy show but they are working hard to be correct, there's a great episode of NPR's Fresh Air where they speak with a Daily Show producer about exactly this issue.
Edit: I have heard Stewart say "we're not the news" in response to questions like "Do you feel a responsibility to cover every important issue?" where "we're not the news" means they only cover issues they can make funny (an example of something perhaps too sad to make funny is the Flint water crisis)
Accountability? What about accountability from FOX news, CNN and all the other programs that do an even worse job and aren't comedy shows? Shouldn't they be accountable first and foremost?
Can you give a specific example of someone who was manipulated to make look bad on the Daily Show? Most of their interviews are with people the host disagrees with but are happy to share their views (gun rights advocates, abortion rights advocates, etc). Typically guests and participants in segments are not being manipulated. I can't say it's never been done but it's certainly not an epidemic at that show.
You're joking right? The entire interview segments are spliced and edited. Pauses are added for comedic effect, they splice different questions with different answers. It's not a single example, it's literally every interview segment.
That doesn't mean I agree with the person they are interviewing, or that that person isn't ignorant...but there is no way you can see their reporting as objective.
The show is interesting because it combines a late night talk show format with a news format. Their special segments are often in the same format as a nightly news program, where they take an issue, perform research, and prevent a side.
Should we hold these types of shows to a talk show standard or a news standard?
When CBS presented a fabricated military report about George W., they were rightly condemned for presenting false information and presenting it as fact. If, instead, the fabricated document had been shown on John Oliver, would we think it's OK simply because John Oliver is partly comedy?
> The show is interesting because it combines a late night talk show format with a news format.
As with The Daily Show, The Nightly Show, and the (former) Colbert Report, among others, the format is a variation of the format of a mixed news/commentary show of the type that is the staple of the cable news networks, and they all use that format because they are parodies of that kind of show.
In his latest clip, he mocks information being passed by Excel.
He wasn't mocking that information was being passed via excel, he was mocking _what_ information was being passed via excel. The fact that companies can but and sell excel documents with a name, address, SIN, and debt amount, and that's it. No contracts, no history, no anything, just, this person now owe's you $X.
Also, I find it incredibly irresponsible how the customers information is handled. They quite literally email spreadsheets around with thousands of names, addresses and SIN numbers. If someone nefarious got their hands on just one of the many thousands of those documents floating around, it's a great starting place for identity theft.
Banks have very strict guidelines with how they handle sensitive documents with personal information. Can't say the same for the secondary market though.
> No contracts, no history, no anything, just, this person now owe's you $X.
Going through the details isn't worth it to the buyers since its for such a small amount. They give them names, numbers and amounts to their phone bank and they see what they can get.
Killing off the secondary market would decrease the amount and cost of accessible credit to borrowers with bad or no credit history. It may or may not be right, but there is definitely a trade-off.
Going through the details isn't worth it to the buyers since its for such a small amount.
I get that, but that's ripe for abuse, and it can be a nightmare for the consumer. These companies can effect your credit rating and prevent you from getting a mortgage.
Lets pretend you have a false debt on one of these lists. It shows up on your credit report. You try to get a mortgage, but can't until this debt is settled. So now you either have to essentially pay their ransom to have it closed quickly, or proceed through length processes to have it forgiven if they don't have the appropriate documentation to prove it. Neither situation is ideal, and only exists because "going through the details isn't worth it".
Maybe credit is too cheap if we have to follow shoddy practices to afford it. Maybe credit shouldn't be accessible in such large quantities to the masses as it is today. Either way, it's probably too late to change that now.
For trading debt I would certainly hope that the actual contracts under which the debt was agreed where included. Yes that would be difficult, but it ought to be a minimum requirement.
The problem is that this debt is for very small amounts, often a few hundred dollars/thousand dollars traded for pennies on the dollar. This is a risk the seller/buyer is willing to take since the cost is so low and it isn't even worth taking the time to review the contract in depth for such a small payout.
But because these cases aren't reviewed, debt is often created out of nothing. For example if the debt has expired or was even paid, the debt changes hands, and they file a law suit somewhere, there is the real chance the debt is brought back to life in full. And if it doesn't work that time, the debt is just sold off to the next collector to try it again.
Yes, he spoke about "zombie debt" in his segment. "Brought back from the dead" is true only if it was dismissed or past the statute of limitations for collection. It's not "brought back from the dead" if you had collectors calling and then they stopped calling and now they continue calling. You still owe that money and you're responsible.
Do you ever wonder why somebody would extend you a 30 day unsecured 0% interest loan (credit card)? Or a 15-25% interest unsecured rolling loan to someone with little or no credit history? You can choose to make policies that make it harder for creditors, but you can't pretend that won't impact the borrowing rate or the access of credit to many Americans. The idea that you can't buy and sell receivables seems silly.
I agree that some of the reasons people collect debt is unfortunate and unjust. But people need to be responsible and we need reasonable laws that prevent harassment.
Debt should be resellable, but only with clear protection of both parties. That's impossible for "cents on the dollar" on a spreadsheet. At that point it's hardly even a benefit for the original creditor.
In many cases, creditors should be more picky about whom they lend money too. Especially if they can't afford ethical collection the question becomes: Should this company even be giving credit?
Passing that kind of information as Excel file is as horrible as passing it scribbled on a piece of tissue.
If someone sold my debt (which is already stinky because after that I have relationship with a party I never entered any relationship with) I'd hope that what's being sold is bit more than my name with "iou" and some numbers. If not original agreement, then at least a statement from notary that had seen my credit agreement and someone who attests at some high penalty that it was not paid yet.
You took the words out of my mouth and I'm glad someone else feels the same. It's a difficult thing to articulate but I think he crosses a line into unbearable preachiness and pandering. It's a bummer because I think the guy is a riot, but I just can't take the lectures anymore, and yes, given that this is almost a Daily Show spinoff, it's not terribly surprising to see a heavy left-leaning slant to everything...that's how you get a built-in audience I guess.
It is very preachy but the problem is that often he talks about highly abused topics.
- debt collection
- voter identification and voter fraud
- abortion clinic laws
- trump
And he doesn't ever state things as "fact" when it is speculation. He only specifies facts when they are facts. And he never tries to push opinions into sort-of-kind-of factual sounding things like most news sites.
How would you talk about a topic where voters are being forced to show identification in such a way as to exclude most minority voters and even have people state on camera that is the goal? These are blatant abuses of power that should be heavily exposed.
This is why I have respect and don't feel he's too preachy.
Not saying I do or don't agree with him, but you don't have to be wrong to be preachy. When you're a comedian you need to be at least 80% funny. If you're 50% funny 50% preachy I'm not going to bother. Southpark use to danced this line pretty successfully.
It's important to use the same words when discussing like this, because "preachiness" and "seriousness" mean very different things in this context.
We're talking about comedy v. preaching to the audience, not when to make a joke and when to make a serious point. They're completely different discussions.
And to the Stewart point, he was perfectly able to explain (using comedy) why he believed something without implying that you are lesser for disagreeing with it. Oliver seems to be able to do that at most 1/3 as much as Stewart. The remaining 2/3 is "not only am I right for believing this, and not only are you wrong and you should feel bad about yourself if you don't, but you're so wrong that I can't even comprehend how you could possibly disagree."
> he was perfectly able to explain (using comedy) why he believed something without implying that you are lesser for disagreeing with it.
Not completely. If there was a subculture that he didn't get along with, he'd feel completely at home with completely steam rolling them. (I.e. Dungeons and Dragons) What I liked about Colbert is that he would try to jump into the culture and make absurd jokes with the community.
John was smart, likable, and funny. Even my most vocal right wing buddy watched him because he was informative and entertaining. Stewart was quick on his feet and could out think anyone Fox news could pit against him. Colbert was Stewart on steroids in a verbal battle of wits and watching him repeatedly dismantle Bill O'Riley and President Bush made my jaw drop. No one has to adhere to an arbitrary ratio of anything but if you fail to at very least keep a broad audience entertained and just resort to political pandering you aren't playing in the same league as Stewart and Colbert.
True, but John Yoo is lawyer than had been thinking about his ideas (read: rationalizations) for years, written books, taught classes and so on. You couldn't really expect Stewart to win the argument...
It's worth pointing out that the Last Week Tonight clips that you see online are generally the second half or so of a longer-running HBO show: you only see the main story, and it generally comes with a spectacular call-to-action at the end (it's an intentional decision about what note to end the show on).
So the ratio for the full show is less 50/50 and more 25/75, which is much closer to your sweet spot.
I think the reason he sounds preachy even more so than Stewart is that he uses a lot of over the top analogies over and over again.
I think he (Oliver) is funny but I prefer the Colbert and Southpark satirical model as well. For some reason satire just seems less "preachy" even though it can be just as much so.
The genius of Colbert is that the way he presented it you were defensive internally of what he was saying. Questioning what he said. Maybe it was the Republican blowhard persona that made me do that but it worked. Southpark is obviously satire so it makes it a lot easier but Parker and Stone do such a good job of presenting controversial subjects across all media formats without making it seem like they were biased in one way or another. Truly "We Report, You Decide".
You don't have to be non-preachy to be genuinely funny, though, despite your arbitrary % guideline. Check out Bill Hicks. Nobody has ever accused him of being either too funny or not preachy enough.
That would then include a lot of comedians and many legends. George Carlin comes to mind, to begin with. I do not agree with - you are X so you do X only.
Ah, yes, the "reality has a distinct $IDEOLOGY bias" line.
No.
I've been on the opposite side of some of his rants. You do not get the best counter-arguments. It's just another media spin show where you get the weakest arguments, pre-digested and cued up with the best media management possible for you to laugh at them.
He can do a decent job of substantiating his points, but you are not getting anything like the whole story, and if you think you are, you're hardcore in a small filter bubble.
(And if you're about to start trying to explain to me that yes he does give the best counterarguments, you're pathologically in a small filter bubble. At the very least, I know better counterarguments than the one he prompts you to laugh at. And come on, pre-biasing you to laugh at the opposition may be fun but it's hardly the path to intellectual enlightenment.)
That said, I must give props to putting money where his mouth is in this case.
I stopped watching after several episodes in a row felt exceptionally biased and unfair. Alas I did not write down the topics so I've always had trouble describing to people why I don't like John Oliver.
Honestly, the whole "pre-biasing you to laugh at the scarecrow of the opposition we're about to show you" is enough on its own to turn me off. I've become more sensitive to this over the years. A lot of political clickbait comes out like that too; you get three paragraphs explaining how stupid the thing the opposition just said is, then a quoted snippet of the worst three sentences in the piece (probably ripped out of context), then another three paragraphs encouraging you to show your tribal affiliation by laughing at how stupid that one snippet was. Bonus points for not giving an easy, clear link back to the original, where you might actually see something that changes your mind.
And before you say "Well, yeah, the other side does that, but thank goodness my side doesn't do that", I would challenge you that as you read your next couple of political articles, click, pull them up, maybe zoom your browser until the entire article fits on the screen, then just sort of defocus your eyes for a moment and just look at the pattern of text and quotes on the screen. Do you already have a pretty good idea what the paragraphs are? Do they fit the description I just gave you? I won't claim to read a completely balanced media diet, I have opinions too, but I do at least sample a lot of things, and this pattern is universally used.
It's a cognitively-hazardous way to consume arguments even before we discuss its addictiveness. Putting it in video form is probably even worse.
> Often it seems that facts, evidence, and observation are derided as "left".
Well, those on the left would think so. Oddly enough, those on the right think that facts, evidence & observation are derided as 'right.' Weird how that happens, isn't it? It's almost as though we all sincerely believe that we are correct and that those who disagree with us are incorrect.
Though I agree with you fundamentally; this is not always grey. A simple example:
When 99/100 scientists agree that climate change is a thing and random politicians, business leaders and religious leaders are the dissenters; fact is very clearly on one side and bias the other.
Not sure what your last sentence means. I get the gist but neurostatic precepts is new to me.
Just because data supports global warming doesn't mean everyone agrees how to solve it or likes being berated and shamed because don't drive an electric car or ride a bike to work. Not everyone agrees we should shut off the US economy to slow down global warming. This is where partisan politics gets messy and people start merging their facts and their opinions.
> Just because data supports global warming doesn't mean everyone agrees how to solve it
But that's just it--large swaths of people think it's some higher order conspiracy. That it is all just made up.
> or likes being berated and shamed because don't drive an electric car or ride a bike to work. Not everyone agrees we should shut off the US economy to slow down global warming. This is where partisan politics gets messy and people start merging their facts and their opinions.
No serious group is doing that. But people are trying to ring the alarm bells that we will either have serious economic problems now, or severe ones later. There is no "keep doing nothing" and we'll be fine option.
You zero sum straw manned me. "Large swaths of people believe A" , but "no serious group does B". Not saying anything you said is wrong, just find that humorous.
I understand neurostatic means the opposite of neuroplasticity.
Google is indeed unhelpful; I had never Googled "neurostatic", and it's possible I have the term wrong. That said, I seem to recall reading it somewhere.
Interestingly, the lead-in for Neuroplasticity on Wikipedia[1] states:
> [Neuroplastic] contrasts with the previous scientific consensus that the brain develops during a critical period in early childhood, then remains relatively unchangeable (or "static") afterward.
So I feel cautiously confident that I did read it, quite possibly in old medical textbooks that are not online.
I used "precepts" just because it felt like it conveyed the right concept in context.
How can you interpret things like "the Trump University fraud case" as anything but a problem for a Trump administration?
Even the parts where Olliver makes fun of Trump, for example the epic sagas about his hands or how he impersonated his own press secretary, are very clear signs whom I don't want to see in possession of nuclear launch codes. Or drones for that matter.
Well, let's hope Trump wouldn't nuke anybody for saying his hands are small. But his incredible thin skin and demonstrated vulnerable ego is hardly an asset in diplomatic or military matters...
The US system is not that fragile. It's made to be able to deal with presidents smart or dumb.
I see no evidence that Trump should be any more dangerous than Bush or Clinton. He might say more outrageous things than even Bush to the international community but his rhetorics isn's his politics and he can't just send nuclear bombs at whomever he wants.
I'm not aware of any such checks or balances which would prevent a president from launching a military attack when there is at least the faint notion of a threat. He certainly doesn't need any parliamentary approval for the first strike and he is commander in chief of the armed forces. The only hope is that the military would refuse stupid orders.
I also don't see why anyone would want a thin-skinned man child in charge of the only superpower in the world. Being in the center of at least one pretty strong fraud case doesn't help either. The argument "he just says stupid things all the time, but he will be presidential and wise when he is president" doesn't even begin to make sense to me.
The president will need permission to declare war.
Trump can in theory command the nukes to be fired without declaring war but this only works if there isn't any political opposition agains his case (i.e. it would be considered unpatriotic to disagree with his decision)
Given the general dislike for Trump there will be plenty of dissent if he decided to just send nuclear bombs left and right. The military would overthrow him pretty quickly.
So yes there are checks and balances and in the case of Trump they would make sure that he followed protocol.
You dislike him so your analysis of why he would be thin skinned has little value here too.
I have no personal interest in this as I can't vote, however I am not afraid of him more than Hillary (who is a known Hawk)
I don't believe he would launch nukes against someone. I don't believe that his staff would necessarily stop him, either. As far as I know nobody would be legally allowed to stop him. Even more so in the case of small scale military actions, like drone strikes or the bin Laden raid. Declarations of war are overrated.
Trump's thin skin is a proven fact. He still isn't over the jokes over his small hands. He felt the need to defend his penis size in a presidential campaign. He attacks voters at his own events. He verbally insulted almost all minority groups. His default reaction to any criticism is to personally insult the critic.
His interpretation of the Venezuelan crisis. He pointed to the price of oil driving the issue. Nowhere did he mention the crazy socialist/populist programs that Chavez and his successor Maduro.
The main problem in Venezuela is the erosion of property rights. Nowhere in the report was this mentioned.
I don't think his interpretation was total, complete or absolute. He basically refrained from commenting on it, and made very direct jokes on basic aspects of the situation, while introducing it via a proximate cause (oil price crashing led to instability - it's the lack of diversified economy that made them vulnerable, and it's usually caused by shortsighted natural resource expolitation, blablabla, but that's just correlated with the erosion of property rights, and not necessarily causally).
I'm trying to decide if his omission is okay or not.
Conservative (and I intend that as a swearword) hit-media present his lack of condemnation of "socialism" as a wrongdoing. Which certainly can be argued, that since he got airtime, he has some responsibility to educate, especially if he choose to talk about the topic.
However, I don't think he is a politology scholar, so not using a word so misued as socialism is probably a smart thing on his part, and sticking to the criticism of the consequences of the policies themselves is also an okay-ish solution.
I think shows what a dictatorship leads to is more important than condemning whatever ideology you think lead to it. After all, autorism always mutates the ideology it uses to justify itself, usually subverting all of the original ideas related to it in about 5 minutes after gaining power.
The socialistic / communistic populist rhetoric used by Chavez is what allowed him into office.
The socialist / communist people who elected him created the monster that he became, so those who wanted the platform elected and in his mind instilled his beliefs as "the will of the people" that we hear so much from those who are marginally elected.
No one ever wants to elect a dictator, however, the requirements of a socialist / communist leader lends itself much more to developing one when one utters: "It is the will of the people" to supersede the property rights of others.
This is true of every ideology usurped so far by dictators. Kings usually just invoked divine rights, or the good old "my father was king and his father was king before him, so I shall be king after him too" as is tradition. Caesar was also a tribune of the people, yet he was ineligible, but he also used the "will of the people" as justification.
The problem is, when someone has so much power to do this, ideologies don't matter anymore, and there's no argument that can best the "will of the people", because if the will of the people is wrong, then the people are wrong too, and since they are the majority, you're screwed with your logic (and rationality).
I'm saying these, because it's important to note that communism as an abstract idea is not worse or better than any other form of government, such as feudalism, or fascism. Ideally all could work. Given an ample supply of good kings, incorruptible premier secretaries and supreme leaders, and so on.
Naturally, the problems are foreseeable, so individual power should be limited. What better way to do that than to remove even the power of wealth generation? Bam! Instant communism, again.
And this works with property rights too. Someone offers you a very good deal on a crate of gold, you buy it. It turns out it was stolen from a national bank. But reversing that transaction would violate your property rights. (How far you would have to go to make sure you're not buying contraband/bootlegged stuff? Anyone can make up an example where you have done enough yet a lot of people will suffer as a result of your gains.)
This is the short term approach that John Oliver puts forward. This is not a year's development, this has been the result of 16 years of Chavez / Maduro policies.
I John Oliver'ed my response to avoid delving into this more, but here is the cause and effects of the Venezuela issue.
1. Chavez was elected in 1999 and utilized the OPEC cartel to decrease production and drive up the price. Utilizing the high prices, he gave away every socialist program that his increased oil prices could deliver.
2. When the socialist programs had to have more cash, Chavez muscled in on the oil producers and told them to find more revenue or else they would nationalize the oil rigs. Companies said there was no money unless operation and maintenance costs were foregone, and they would not undersign that so Chavez nationalized them (property right strike across the bow). This was done through the enabling law which ultimately what started the erosion of the rights.
3. As companies saw that profits could not be returned, they started to get the heck out of Dodge. Tariffs and other crazy price increasing measures were instituted until prices became very high. The government did the next property right erosion by controlling prices on goods. Black market took over to provide goods at real rates because the governments rates could not be met.
4. Any industry that was making a profit was derided in public speeches.
5. Foreign investors avoided investing in the housing market as they saw newly built properties nationalized. The government did not even pay the investors a compensatory fee!
The oil is price is an aside contributor, but when you do not respect property rights, say goodbye to anyone wanting to invest in you.
John Oliver was on UK television a lot before moving to the US. He was doing the same sort of material back then - left-leaning, political, and insightful. He isn't pandering. He (and his team) is broadcasting what he actually believes.
The US is not more conservative. Our conservatives are just louder. The right has lost on every major social issue since roe v wade, including gay marriage, marijauna legalization, and universal healthcare. And now they're being attacked on gun rights. The largest problem the right has is mass delusion.
Thats the reason why I stopped watching it too. No doubt it has something but it's just too one sided IMO. It's bashing from a very specific political angle. I.e. it always possible to know what side of critique he is going to fall down on, and that for me isn't interesting.
This reminds me of the way South Park feels sometimes when (in my opinion) they're off the mark by a bit.
The show is really funny until you're on the wrong side of the one of their jokes. Or when they oversimplify something you know a lot about.
Preachy is the appropriate word. I really wish he (and his writers) would watch that. Somewhere in the rumor mills there is a story about John Stewart disagreeing with his writers because of how left and preachy they were as well.
> Or when they oversimplify something you know a lot about.
In fairness, I've literally never seen an accurate media report about one of the topics I know far more deeply than the average technically educated person (a particular NASA project, a certain narrow specialization in physics, and a language/culture I have spoken/lived-in for much of my life).
Not even "oversimplified". They are literally always wrong or misleading.
>> He gets just a little too excited about things that are basically impossible for anyone to get excited about.
That's his point. He does this deliberately so as to bring important subject to the front that would otherwise be ignored by his audience. Case in point, look what he did with net neutrality. The government got the message on that one ("I am not a dingo").
Honestly, his rant about Harper brought out enough apathetic voters that I think he may have swayed the last Canadian election. No Canadian outlet had put together the clips to show exactly how nuts harper had become in recent years. Those who otherwise didn't care about the parties were rallied to at least send him packing. That sort of realworld impact is something over and above what Stewart ever accomplished with his more populous approach.
There is a lot of ranting in this thread which is very unlike HC without any example of where he was biased/opinionated or where he was wrong.
I am genuinely interested in knowing if he was ever wrong on any of his 'main stories'. I personally think his team is doing pretty good work in putting together very interesting real issues that do not have a lot of visibility otherwise. I will be happy to be corrected.
Its a good show to watch on and off. I already know what his stance will be on any given issue so I mostly watch it for the comedy aspect which tends to get repetitive.
Totally. Always loved John Stewart and Steven Colbert because they were comedians first and educators/activists whatever you want to call it second. Even when you didn't agree with them politically you still got a laugh and saw what might be some ridiculous holes in your own beliefs. John Oliver was pretty funny but he has just become a left wing slacktivist at this point. Larry Wilmore doesn't seem to be a comedian at all as far as I can tell.
Larry Wilmores show is pretty bad, he isn't very good at the political comedy. But he has been the writer, producer, and creator for a lot of extremely successful and hilarious shows like Fresh Prince, The Bernie Mac show, the PJs, and The Office. He is definitely a funny, I just think his current show is just poorly conceived.
Yeah I think so. Using 60k of someone else's money to buy some token debt and announcing it to the world on a TV show isn't exactly saint status. His take on the refugee debate also seemed to wreak of holier than thou preachy hot air.
The guy creates and hosts a weekly political comedy show, researches topics, has a network spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on those topics, and you think it's a fair comparison to someone whose activism extends to "clicking the Like button on facebook".
And you're the one calling his attitude "holier than thou".
Ok slow down there. They don't SPEND hundreds of thousands on those topics, they MAKE hundreds of thousands on those topics. Comedy Central/Viacom is not UNICEF and John Oliver is not a career humanitarian. They entertain people. When that is too hard they just pander to the most prominent demographic to gain viewership because that's how they generate revenue.
You're under the impression that all that matters is the final number. They're still spending that money, regardless of whether they make it all back.
Let's say I win some lottery and I MAKE $100k. I decide to SPEND $90k of that by giving it to charity. My gesture doesn't count because I'm still in the net positive by your logic.
Yes, he runs a profitable show. Nobody said he's a career humanitarian. But you said, quoting, "he has just become a left wing slacktivist". Slacktivism is a term that pokes fun at people clicking Like on facebook and signing worthless petitions then feeling like they made a real difference.
That you equate him to that is insulting and offensive to just about everybody.
So you don't question the motivations of a televangelist minister with private jets as long as he spends some money on what appear to be altruistic purposes? If I said that guy is just using peoples emotions and beliefs to generate revenue would that be "offensive to just about everybody".
What is it in your mind that equates a "giveaway" as part of a larger program, to the abuse of impressionable people's donations to purchase expensive leisure items?
Well to be fair you're stripping away the context of the discussion I was having. An internet enthusiast believed that I was minimizing John Oliver's work by calling him a slacktivist. I felt like pandering to beliefs and emotions of your target demo without taking any real meaningful action other than talk and throwing around token amounts of money is insincere. Then he said John Oliver and HBO spend thousands of dollars to produce this show and report these stories. I countered that they make many more thousands in return for their effort. The internet enthusiast claimed that no matter how much gross revenue was made that any amount of charitable donation was good enough to be considered a full fledged caring activist. I questioned whether preachers flying in jets where admirable if they spend some small quantity of money on worthwhile causes. In the end neither I nor the internet enthusiast found common ground.
If'd just conceded that 'slactivist' was a poor choice of words (because as it is commonly used it does not match the criticisms you are leveling at Oliver) you both could have saved a lot of typing.
yeah one time he was talking about intra-state groups that talk about and harmonize laws between states.
of course, on HIS show he was talking about why that is a bad thing, and how this shadowy conspiracy organization was influencing democracy. All the children on reddit gobbled it up of course, despite never having had a business dispute themselves that was hampered by incompatible laws in states.
It was really heart breaking for me an interview with him that I watched where the interviewer asked him something like "You combine comedy with high quality in-depth journalism. Do you consider yourself a comedian or a journalist?" to which he said "I'm obviously a comedian. I'm not a journalist."
Sorry to disappoint you John Oliver, you're not a good comedian, you're just not funny enough. However you're extremely entertaining. Better start telling people that you're a journalist who uses comedy to get the attention of people into important subjects that they wouldn't otherwise pay attention to.
The show is very entertaining and sheds some light on important issues, but don't kid yourself: you are being manipulated by masterful editing and writing, just like any other compelling "news" program. Everything in the show is filtered through a carefully worded script and is biased as hell. But I still love it. Just be sure you know what you're watching.
It's more a problem of only using convenient evidence and omitting other facts that might make the show's argument weaker. Nothing is so much "not factual" on the show as it is often "incomplete" and "heavily spun." It's genuinely an enjoyable show, however, especially if you side with the attitude it offers. But not unlike some Michael Moore documentaries, a fair amount of it can be tossed up to propaganda.
We've got two things happening in journalism today: total partisan hackery and 'unbiased' 24 hour news network boulsheet.
What Oliver is doing is pretty thoughtful, well-researched argumentation, something completely missing from both of those dominant modes. And something that's between an essential part of civic discourse from Plato to quite recently...
Last Week Tonight is a direct spinoff of The Daily Show. Oliver took the Comedy Central format and applied HBO to it to rid it of its problems (commercials, crappy celebrity interviews).
is he? It's been a little while since i've watched [his] show, maybe the last one was with Ricky Gervais. I don't have the same urgency, there isn't a bite to the way he presents. I miss watching the correspondents though, Jessica Williams and Jordan Klepper are both awesome and they have been put to use a lot more.
Sam Bee's full frontal and Oliver's Last Week Tonight are now both my staples of american news consumption.
I saw Trevor Noah do the "Africa or America"[0] bit on The Daily Show back when the news about him taking over was out. I loved it and went and found all the stand-up of his I could find. I thought it was similarly great. He's actually a large part of why I decided to sign up for Hulu, but to be honest it lacks the punch I was expecting. Maybe he'll grow into the role, but it's turned into a show I just watch in the background while I'm working.
The Bugle, a podcast he did with his old partner in the UK, is truly solid as well. Andys pun runs end up being so epic. Super sad the output has stopped now that Oliver has his new show (which is awesome!).
Sorry, this page isn't available
The link you followed may be broken,
or the page may have been removed.
I look forward to the day we finally realise we are out of the transition period between not having the web at all, and the web working properly, with content makers being properly resourced and rewarded. Good job I'll live forever - if I have a normal lifespan I doubt I'd see it.
Julia Reda, MP for the German Pirate Party with Greens/EFA in the European Parliament, has recently launched a campaign to introduce EU laws against geoblocking: https://juliareda.eu/2016/05/end-geoblocking/
It's unlikely that a law on geo blocking in the EU will have much effect over US content.
But besides that, it's a great idea that will entrench cable companies for a few more years and delay the transition to streaming by forcing streaming services to compete against every single cable and satellite operator in the EU at the same time (cable/sat firms aren't part of the digital single market, so they can keep carrying on). Is there content that is specifically relevant to Estonians, but for various reasons thorny to license in France? That's going to suck for the Estonians.
One might assume that Netflix (or another one of the streaming services) might grab the broadcast rights to a major sporting event (traditionally the ___domain of cable/satellite, and the last good reason to keep this around for many consumers) -- this proposal makes sure that day won't happen until they can grab the rights for the entire EU zone, which is obviously hugely expensive. It's not hard to imagine that it might make more sense (and be a lot easier) to grab the rights in a single, small-ish, well connected market (say Netherland) as a pilot, then leave, say, the UK for a few years later until broadband outside the cities get good enough to support at decent HD stream.
Major sporting events is of course only one such example. Plenty of content will suffer the same fate.
Another victim is license fee supported content. Especially the BBC relies on re-licensing high quality content in other european markets. This income subsidises the UK operation. If forced to not geoblock this content, the BBC will have to chose between foregoing significant licensing income, or to stop streaming altogether.
Ah yes, Facebook video is still in the pre-Content ID honeymoon period that youtube enjoyed before Viacom (IIRC) threatened to destroy it's business altogether.
As a non-american guy that has never seen John Oliver before, I found it very hard to sit through the entire thing until the end, though the payoff was definitely worth it.
This guys looks to me like he's been in TV for a little too long and tries very hard to find a audience with very simple jokes (that feel kind of forced) amplified by background laughter.
He has the right idea and did the right thing but I personally would have found it more enjoyable without the jokes.
I too find it too hard to watch without cringing. He has a whole team of writers and the best they come up with is some sarcastic comments at someone's expense. Laughing at people is not 'social commentary', its lowest form of dumb comedy with horrible laugh tracks ( i thought we were done with silly laugh tracks ?)
I always thought this was a dying genre but seems like young ppl are into it?
I feel relatively well versed in American "culture", but I still don't get a lot of the references he makes. On the other hand, I still laugh at many jokes and his rants on Trump are just epic.
The baffling thing to me is that this is already discharged debt - "out of statute medical debt from Texas", "medical debt they no longer had to pay" - and how on earth is it legal to try and collect that?
Debt doesn't magically (or legally) stop existing after a set period of time. It's just that legal means to enforce collection expire.
I once (in the early 1990s) refused to pay a company I was very unhappy with -- IIRC it was Verizon. They cancelled my service, tried to collect, then sold the debt after a while.
I still get these offers to settle the debt for 70% less than the total -- but the letters always include a disclaimer somewhere to the effect of "due to the age of this debt, you will not be sued, and this will not be reported to any credit bureau".
Yes. I was so pissed off with that company that I refused to pay "on principle", but they were pretty dubious principles actually — I really did owe the money, and nonpayment was probably not in my own best interests.
My failure to pay stayed as a negative event ("serious delinquency") on my credit report with each of the major credit bureaus, for roughly 7 years, just like it is supposed to. Then it disappeared.
Except you have the right to tell debt collectors to stop contacting you (sue or get off the pot, essentially) over any given debt, and they face statutory damages if they ignore that.
If the debt collectors somehow manage to trick the debtors into acknowledging the debt, the debt clock is reset & it goes back on to your credit report.
> differentiating medical from non-medical collection agency accounts. This will help ensure that medical collections have a lower impact on the score, commensurate with the credit risk they represent. These enhancements help lenders because it leads to a more predictive score. The median FICO Score for consumers whose only major negative references are medical collections will increase by 25 points.
I think the options are two: bully and harass the debtors until they pay or go to courts and try to get the default judgement.
As the program points out what they buy is name and number. So I suppose if the person involved showed up in court and demanded any sort of confirmation of debt (like original bills perhaps?) then the case would be dismissed. After all the company needs some proof. But they overload the courts and if no one shows up to defend then the default judgement goes in favor of the debt collector.
And then they go and collect with the power of law behind them.
This is crazy but that's how they roll in the land of the free :)
The statute of limitations applies to whether the creditor can go to court. Since these debts we're talking about are older than that, getting a judgment is off the table.
That's also why they were sold for a fraction of a penny on the dollar -- the only way you could collect on them is to call the debtors and hassle them. At this point those debtors are probably also wise to the fact that you have no legal power to enforce.
Apparently pretty much anything including answering a phone call under some jurisdictions.
Pretty much they can hook you in by calling you and saying "Good day Mr. Smith you have a debt for 50$ to Acme Medical do you want to hear about our debt relief plan with payments as low as 1$ a month".
If at any point you seem to show any response to it they can use it to prove that you've acknowledged the debt at which point they can go to court and force you to pay.
The laws should be made that way that debt that has expunged is not tradeable or actionable in any way period.
Well yes, but most people won't be able to not to put their foot in their mouth.
Oddly enough saying "the debt is past this statutory limit and cannot be forcibly collected" might actually be an acknowledgement of the debt by itself.
All the laws regarding this are completely bonkers.
Yes, but the people who owed it, now have less issues with credit checks and such.
Maybe it will make it possible for them to be able to buy more medicine.
There's a program called The Rolling Jubilee which has been doing this for a few years. I think the idea is that it encourages people to help pay off the next person's debt, since the amount they were forgiven is much more than it cost to buy it:
The pivot from rollingjubilee.org (which uses donations to buy discounted debt and abolish it) to debtcollective.org (where debtors can register and organize "debt strikes") was explained in a NYT column[1]:
> Until now, we have worked in the secondary debt market, using crowdfunded donations to buy portfolios of medical and educational debts for pennies on the dollar, just as debt collectors do. Only, instead of collecting on them, we abolish them, operating under the belief that people shouldn’t go into debt for getting sick or going to school. [.....] But this approach has its limits. Federal loans, for example, are guaranteed by the government, and debtors can be freed of them — via bankruptcy — only under exceedingly rare circumstances. That means they aren’t sold at steep discounts and remain out of our reach. What’s more, America’s mountain of student debt is too immense for the Jubilee to make a significant dent in it. Real change will require more organized actions like those taken by the Corinthian 15.
Its not surprising that they lost traction after the pivot. Buying discounted debt is a tactic which respects the logic of the market. Debt strikes go against the cultural norm of treating debt as a moral obligation.
If debt is trading at pennies on the dollar, and I owe someone 5k, what's stopping me from borrowing 50 or 100 bucks from a friend (if I dont have it) and buying back my debt? Do you need to buy in bulk?
Here's an idea - aggregate debt at pennies on the dollar and sell it back to the debtor at twice the amount it'll still be pennies on the dollar and you'll make a nice profit.
>Here's an idea - aggregate debt at pennies on the dollar and sell it back to the debtor at twice the amount it'll still be pennies on the dollar and you'll make a nice profit.
That's essentially what a lot of debt collectors will accept. If you have debt in collection, sometimes you can offer them a lump sum instead of the whole amount and they'll take it because they're looking to simply profit.
At that point it's likely your credit is already ruined though... which is a whole different topic to broach.
>> "At that point it's likely your credit is already ruined though... which is a whole different topic to broach."
In the UK at least getting passed to a debt collector should have no impact on your credit score. It's when they decide to go further and recoup it through court that you start to get hurt. This is my experience at least. It makes sense as I know many people who have been passed to debt collectors for debts they didn't owe so it would be a mess if that effected their credit.
It doesn't matter in the US either. What matters here is days late. Anything over 30 days gets noted under the credit line, and will stick around there for a couple years or so. Unsure what happens to the mark once the debt is settled.
The collections agency starts offering you to settle your debt at the highest possible amount and slowly negotiates down. For any amount above $0 they receive from you is a marginal benefit for them.
i.e. marginal benefit > marginal cost for any collection above $0 since buying their list of debtors is a sunk cost.
You could probably use debt forgiveness as a collection technique: If the person doesn't agree to start paying it back, you threaten to forgive the entire amount all at once in a way that is not tax-advantageous. Now you owe taxes on your $80k of extra income(forgiven debt), and the government is less lenient than banks when they're collecting tax debt.
They might eventually be able to get it discharged, but it'd require them to declare bankruptcy.
I don't know: It might be too subtle to scare people with. The kinds of people who could easily understand this tactic in a one-page letter are probably not the kinds of people in debt.
I guess I had a too simplistic viewpoint on the matter, how a contract is ended between two private parties shouldn't involve the government unless some form of criminal activity has been done.
As for the compensation idea, I'm assuming you mean from employment, I would have to hope that's already covered by the income tax laws where there are guidelines in what determines compensation from employment and what is considered employment. Many people have tried many schemes around that one. Besides, even if someone tried something like that it's quite a bit different than a debt owed to the hospital because they performed surgery on you.
But from what I'm reading from the links provided the government doesn't get involved until the owner of the debt files the form to involve them. Which seems odd in of itself to me. It's almost like a punishment placed on the party owing the debt from the owner of the debt through the powers of the state; which is odd since the owner has decided to not collect.
But then again, I'm not familiar with laws governing debt so I'm sure there's some elaborate nuance I'm not understanding.
>I guess I had a too simplistic viewpoint on the matter, how a contract is ended between two private parties shouldn't involve the government unless some form of criminal activity has been done.
If that were where it ended, we couldn't have income taxes :-P
But as for the broader point: if you don't tax forgiven loans, you're effectively allowing a vector for untaxed income -- whether personal or business.
I agree it gets a little trickier when the debt was for for a non-monetary good in the first place (e.g. surgical services), but many of the same concerns apply -- I may hide income by transacting it in the form of a service.
You're right that public policy purposes may disfavor that sort of thing (e.g. counting charity surgical services as taxable income), but this is common -- there was the time someone won a free trip to space but refused because he'd have to pay taxes on its market value.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, it seems the real 'value' of this debt to people buying it, is not the debt itself because it can't legally be enforced, but the personal information that goes along with it.
At the price they paid, it's around $6.66 per person. They'd have paid a lot less for a lot more debt if they hadn't bought medical debt. And that's not even resorting to illegal means.
Why there is no non-profit here that gets donations and spent them to wipe out medical and general debt that is the cheapest available on the market right now? Or are there ?
The tactic seems questionable. I'd rather give money to people who provide legal assistance to folks getting hassled by debt collectors, and spread information about people's rights under the FDCPA and other laws.
The reason for that being, buying up bad paper raises the value of it, whereas letting people know their rights lowers the value of it. If bad paper was worth less, debt originators would have stronger incentives to work something out with their insolvent customers rather than sell to shady debt collectors.
Actually it's pretty simple. They figure out who needs the debt relief. They then go buy the debt for pennies on the dollar from one of the companies that has it. Then they forget about it. (I'd say they just delete the Excel file it's in, but there is lots of negative karma going on above this post about how wonderful Excel is)
From their website "Through sophisticated data analytics, RIP analyzes its medical debt portfolios to pinpoint those who are most in need of relief and then negotiates to purchase this debt for a significantly reduced amount – rates typically made available only to large organizations in the debt buying industry.
Once this debt is purchased – debtors are unburdened of this unpaid item."
So Oliver just gave them $14+ million in debt that he paid pennies on the dollar for and the are going to ignore it. Remember it's been written off (as a tax benefit) already, so it's only the debt people that care about it. Last guy that cared got paid by Oliver, so he's good to go.
He says he sent it to a non-profit organisation (looks like RIPx Medical Debt) which "specialises in forgiving medical debt with no tax consequences for the debtor".
I'd try and find some links but I'm currently on my phone.
He mentions, without going into detail, that the forgiveness is structured in a way to avoid a tax burden for the debtor. I have no idea how this works but I think it's a safe assumption that people who know more about this than I do will comb through it and John Oliver and company have vetted their own process.
I was a little disappointed in how this story developed; it started with a family being destroyed by medical debt, and I thought it was going to develop into a discussion of medical debt, which accounts for 60% of bankruptcies in the U.S.[1]. Instead, it just talked about the buying and selling of debt, which is a legitimate business (often unregulated and operated by scum.) I'm not sure what he was calling for, here. That companies be required to hold on to their own debt?
I'm happy about the debt he forgave, though. An organization called Rolling Jubilee[2] does it without a tv show - you can buy someone's debt, too. I didn't notice a shout out; did I just miss it?
edit: learned from the comment above me that they've stopped doing it, and are now The Debt Collective[3], an advocacy organization.
> legitimate business (often unregulated and operated by scum.)
That's comedy gold. Wish John used that line.
> I'm not sure what he was calling for, here. That companies be required to hold on to their own debt?
I think he's calling for regulation. At least some mechanisms to ensure that the debt is factual. Maybe some mechanisms that would ensure people can't collect the debt that they can't legally enforce. Maybe some mechanisms that would prevent accepting debt by default when someone doesn't show up to court. All these things lead to much abuse. Basically something that would address the problems he highlighted.
I'm obviously wrong about this, but I'm surprised there isn't a greater arbitrage opportunity in this -- if one could average out just $10 in collection on average, you'd make a sizable profit on the debt he bought... I wonder if you were to just call and tell these people you bought these debts, and if they'd like to make a donation to help you keep doing this work in the future, I'm curious if it could be self-sustaining...
In a former life I was a developer for a collections agency. I can confirm that we got data from financial institutions in a variety of formats. Most of the time they were PGP encrypted, sometimes as low as 56 bit IIRC. This was in 2007 so I have slept since then.
It's not at all obvious how much they actually paid, and comparing it to Oprah's $8M car giveaway is certainly dramatic but pretty disingenuous. It's unlikely the debtors would have ever ended up repaying anything close to $15M (in fact, presumably closer to $60K)
He stated exactly how much they paid for that $15m debt in the video and even how they wrote off most of the cost of the taxes they would have had to pay it in the video.
Of course, that's where I got the $60k figure from, but that one sentence could easily have been missed by anyone dazzled by the big number in the headline and comparison to Oprah's giveaway, assuming they even watched the whole 20 minute video in the first place.
Yes there is, in the video, Oliver mentions how they hired a company that specializes in handling the tax implications so they wouldn't have to pay the full amount.
"This is one of the most unbelievable articles I've ever read.
If you didn't read it all the way through, do so over lunch or something; it's amazing."
Wasn't there a similar initiative in the aftermath of the recent financial crisis? With the difference that private people could help out indebted individuals on a smaller scale with some proxy gross debt buyer?
Time to start a benevolent/not-for-profit dept collection company that buys dept and then requests their clients in dept repay 0.5% of the original amount they owed just to cover the costs.
Isn't the real reason that these debt-buying companies(and the evils that come with it) exist because of bad-lending and in this case, an overpriced, inefficient health-care system?
Personal attacks and name-calling are not allowed here. Please (re)-read the site guidelines and follow them. That means posting civil, substantive comments, or not posting.
Corporate welfare at its finest. The cheapest plan I can find is about $250 per month and has something like a $10K limit. It's a fucking joke. Two years ago I was able to get a reasonable plan that actually covered part of my doctor visit and prescriptions for less than $100/month. Mots of the insurance companies in my state have been run out of business leaving you with basically one giant provider and a no-name company that isn't accepted anywhere.
The fact that the benefits are defined in terms of dollars is the problem. There's nothing preventing a hospital from charging you 10000 dollars for a bandage.
There's still annual maximums, in-network coverage, PMO, HMO, etc. The minimums can be pretty basic.
It looks like the ACA doesn't really do anything to change the picture for a $474,000 medical bill. The guy got charged $39 each for over 200 glucose checks. That's the price of a new meter for every check.
Actually, annual maximums on ("essential") benefits are illegal under the ACA[1] - the only "annual maximums" allowed are for {deductible, out of pocket}, at which point they are supposed to cover 100% of covered claims.
I don't obviously see the specific anecdote you're discussing in the thread, so I can't tell if what transpired is because it (somehow) didn't blow either of those thresholds, or because it wasn't an "essential" benefit, or simply pre-dated those terms of the ACA becoming effective.
Thanks for correcting me. I could've sworn I saw annual maximums when I looked on healthcare.gov but maybe I mistook the max out of pocket for a max annual.
The example I used is the case presented in the video. I just googled for Bob Weinkauf.
I was also curious when this happened. Looks likely to be under the ACA unless it took years to hit the news though.
So I don't know. Maybe he went to the emergency room and it was out of network under his plan, leaving him to shoulder the costs. I didn't dig much after skimming for an approximate date.
Yes you are supposed to buy insurance (though many just take the penalty). Many Obamacare plans are pretty crappy with low max pay outs. It drives me crazy when people don't read the plans they are buying. My plan has a huge deductible (10k) but no max pay out. So basically I pay 100% for everything but if I ever need some serious hospital time I'd only be out 10k. (And it's very expensive).
I was pretty sure the Obamacare plans had OOP Maximums (out of pocket maximums), i.e. after a certain amount, your insurance pays for 100% of your medical expenses for the year. It might have been kind of high, but I was pretty sure it had it. (I had to have Obamacare for a few months in between jobs).
NHS and ACA really have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
The NHS has serious problems related to accountability, the typical problem with huge multi-level government bureaucracies. Honestly, the NHS has similar problems to the American public education system, for mostly the same reasons.
The ACA has the serious problem that it was explicitly sold as a way to contain costs both at an individual and aggregate level. That has pretty much been exposed as a lie.
The ACA has been good for the narrow band of people who were included in the expanded medicaid coverage, but it's not too hard to imagine a separate (and much simpler) bill that accomplished that part of the bill, without the massive rework of healthcare for the middle class.
Insurance still doesn't cover many things, and most of the low-cost plans have such high deductibles ($10,000 is common) they're practically useless for all but emergency room visits where $10,000 goes by in your first day.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/03/john-oliv...