Why should I be worried about debt when there is IBR? Forum

[alwayssunnyinfl]

I've calmed down and admit i was being a spazz about everything besides the darwinism comment...that comment is still really stupid.

I'll think twice next time before I post something stupid on the internet.




LOL never mind

[IAFG]

I just get super annoyed when people make egregious leaps in reasoning about incentives (something american conservatives have become very good at doing effectively)

I fail to see ANY evidence that providing free medical care (ER care especially) leads to people being more risk prone. The argument is still being made implicitly that the willingness of people to "Game" a purely financial decision is somehow analogous to people being more "risky" in a decision that is not purely financial. This sort of wiping away of real world facts (people dont like breaking legs) leads to misconstrued arguments against perfectly good insurance/risk distribution systems...

[its also the same type of reasoning that when pushed leads to crazy conclusions about the laffer curve...]

You're assuming people won't take risks that could result in expensive health care bills. I know of many people who do from spending lots of time in bankruptcy and state civil courts. I don't know what evidence could satisfy you except more real world experience and less ivory tower contemplation of rational actors.

[admisionquestion]

I just get super annoyed when people make egregious leaps in reasoning about incentives (something american conservatives have become very good at doing effectively)

I fail to see ANY evidence that providing free medical care (ER care especially) leads to people being more risk prone. The argument is still being made implicitly that the willingness of people to "Game" a purely financial decision is somehow analogous to people being more "risky" in a decision that is not purely financial. This sort of wiping away of real world facts (people dont like breaking legs) leads to misconstrued arguments against perfectly good insurance/risk distribution systems...

[its also the same type of reasoning that when pushed leads to crazy conclusions about the laffer curve...]

You're assuming people won't take risks that could result in expensive health care bills. I know of many people who do from spending lots of time in bankruptcy and state civil courts. I don't know what evidence could satisfy you except more real world experience and less ivory tower contemplation of rational actors.

Im not assuming anything. Im explaining that the analogy was bad.

A decision that relates to ones financial situation is not the same in kind to a situation that results in immediate pain, bodily injury AND ones financial situation. [fully admit these are trash descriptions]

I am not asking for more "ivory tower contemplation" at all. I am saying that people are relating those two types of risky behavior together when there is no good reason for doing so (i.e. no evidence they are overlapping).

[PowderedWater]

I shall harness the hatred in this thread and convert it into energy. In due time, the power should match that of the sun's.

[admisionquestion]

I shall harness the hatred in this thread and convert it into energy. In due time, the power should match that of the sun's.

MATCH? You must be a COOLEY student...

WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO SAY MY HATRED HAS LESS ENERGY THE THE SUN???

[IAFG]

Facepalm. I am not saying that they "overlap." I am saying they they are both situations where people abuse the safety net because they know the safety net will mitigate the harm to them. It's annoying both because their shitty decision is still shitty (personal and/or financial harm is likely) and it also strains the system. Which is what makes it an analogy.

If you don't believe people think this way because head injuries from motorcycle accidents are physically painful, you just don't know enough idiots.

[admisionquestion]

Facepalm. I am not saying that they "overlap." I am saying they they are both situations where people abuse the safety net because they know the safety net will mitigate the harm to them. It's annoying both because their shitty decision is still shitty (personal and/or financial harm is likely) and it also strains the system. Which is what makes it an analogy.

If you don't believe people think this way because head injuries from motorcycle accidents are physically painful, you just don't know enough idiots.

I DO think that people make idiotic decisions... I DO NOT think that a significant number of these idiots conduct the following analysis:

If I crash I will wreck my head. Oh well lets do this... Oh but wait, the medical bill... Imma sit this one out.

OMG I TOTALLY FORGOT THAT ER VISITS ARE FREE. LETS DO THIS.

I also dont think that someone "telling you" that this is their reasoning is proof that it IS their reasoning.

Idiots like to sound dumb... they know this sounds dumb. SO they say it, ya know like to be funny or something...

Counterpoint: people SMOKE despite NOT receiving free healthcare...

[fatduck]

Facepalm. I am not saying that they "overlap." I am saying they they are both situations where people abuse the safety net because they know the safety net will mitigate the harm to them. It's annoying both because their shitty decision is still shitty (personal and/or financial harm is likely) and it also strains the system. Which is what makes it an analogy.

If you don't believe people think this way because head injuries from motorcycle accidents are physically painful, you just don't know enough idiots.

I DO think that people make idiotic decisions... I DO NOT think that a significant number of these idiots conduct the following analysis:

If I crash I will wreck my head. Oh well lets do this... Oh but wait, the medical bill... Imma sit this one out.

OMG I TOTALLY FORGOT THAT ER VISITS ARE FREE. LETS DO THIS.

I also dont think that someone "telling you" that this is their reasoning is proof that it IS their reasoning.

Idiots like to sound dumb... they know this sounds dumb. SO they say it, ya know like to be funny or something...

Counterpoint: people SMOKE despite NOT receiving free healthcare...

what if ERs refused treatment to uninsured/broke patients

do you think that would have any effect on the helmet use rate

[admisionquestion]

Facepalm. I am not saying that they "overlap." I am saying they they are both situations where people abuse the safety net because they know the safety net will mitigate the harm to them. It's annoying both because their shitty decision is still shitty (personal and/or financial harm is likely) and it also strains the system. Which is what makes it an analogy.

If you don't believe people think this way because head injuries from motorcycle accidents are physically painful, you just don't know enough idiots.

I DO think that people make idiotic decisions... I DO NOT think that a significant number of these idiots conduct the following analysis:

If I crash I will wreck my head. Oh well lets do this... Oh but wait, the medical bill... Imma sit this one out.

OMG I TOTALLY FORGOT THAT ER VISITS ARE FREE. LETS DO THIS.

I also dont think that someone "telling you" that this is their reasoning is proof that it IS their reasoning.

Idiots like to sound dumb... they know this sounds dumb. SO they say it, ya know like to be funny or something...

Counterpoint: people SMOKE despite NOT receiving free healthcare...

what if ERs refused treatment to uninsured/broke patients

do you think that would have any effect on the helmet use rate

Three things:

1. No I don't, not a significant effect at least. It MIGHT insofar as a changing policy might lead to some social awareness of the frequency of ER visits. But I do not believe that it would directly in terms of changing peoples incentive processing.

2. Not the point, my real point is that the situation are not analogous in a predicatively useful way.

3. I'm not an expert or an actuary. I can't predict what really does effect peoples likelihoods to wear a helmet. I CAN tell you that simply adding an additional incentive does not imply that even one additional person will act a certain way...

[kapachino]

IBR is subject to change, which a lot of people tend to forget. The thing about taking on so much debt and counting on IBR is that your financial life will be shit until IBR takes effect, if it indeed stays as it is when you sign up for it. It's not a good way to start out. Are you interested in doing PI? If so, there are two programs that could help you: LRAP (if your school has it) and PSFL. I'd look into those and then decide if taking on a mountain of debt is worth it.

I am matriculating this year. If I strike out at OCI I'm planning to use the IBR program for the rest of my life. From the research I've done it's virtually impossible that the government will remove IBR retroactively

Remove and change are two different things, yo. And it's extremely naive to think that a government program will always be around, or that it'll always benefit you. You should certainly hope that you don't strike out at OCI, because your "IBR all day in this bitch" plan isn't remotely sound.

[bjsesq]

Well, this is a pretty fucking stupid fight. All over a one-liner.

[IAFG]

Facepalm. I am not saying that they "overlap." I am saying they they are both situations where people abuse the safety net because they know the safety net will mitigate the harm to them. It's annoying both because their shitty decision is still shitty (personal and/or financial harm is likely) and it also strains the system. Which is what makes it an analogy.

If you don't believe people think this way because head injuries from motorcycle accidents are physically painful, you just don't know enough idiots.

I DO think that people make idiotic decisions... I DO NOT think that a significant number of these idiots conduct the following analysis:

If I crash I will wreck my head. Oh well lets do this... Oh but wait, the medical bill... Imma sit this one out.

OMG I TOTALLY FORGOT THAT ER VISITS ARE FREE. LETS DO THIS.

I also dont think that someone "telling you" that this is their reasoning is proof that it IS their reasoning.

Idiots like to sound dumb... they know this sounds dumb. SO they say it, ya know like to be funny or something...

Counterpoint: people SMOKE despite NOT receiving free healthcare...

Bolded is part of the reason why nothing will ever convince you that it really does happen this way so you're just going to have to get older and wiser and figure it out on your own.

[admisionquestion]

Facepalm. I am not saying that they "overlap." I am saying they they are both situations where people abuse the safety net because they know the safety net will mitigate the harm to them. It's annoying both because their shitty decision is still shitty (personal and/or financial harm is likely) and it also strains the system. Which is what makes it an analogy.

If you don't believe people think this way because head injuries from motorcycle accidents are physically painful, you just don't know enough idiots.

I DO think that people make idiotic decisions... I DO NOT think that a significant number of these idiots conduct the following analysis:

If I crash I will wreck my head. Oh well lets do this... Oh but wait, the medical bill... Imma sit this one out.

OMG I TOTALLY FORGOT THAT ER VISITS ARE FREE. LETS DO THIS.

I also dont think that someone "telling you" that this is their reasoning is proof that it IS their reasoning.

Idiots like to sound dumb... they know this sounds dumb. SO they say it, ya know like to be funny or something...

Counterpoint: people SMOKE despite NOT receiving free healthcare...

Bolded is part of the reason why nothing will ever convince you that it really does happen this way so you're just going to have to get older and wiser and figure it out on your own.

What a condescending thing to say. On multiple levels. Ill skip the merely pandering ones...

I NEVER said that nothing would convince me. I could be convinced easily actually, at least convinced to the point that I would be comfortable allowing my conclusion to effect my opinions on policy.

Showing me that there is statistically significant differences between reasonably similar societies in which one provides free ER visits and one doesn't would be strong evidence...

Plenty of less strong evidence would weigh strongly. But, hearing someone say, "IM DOING THIS STUPID THING BECAUSE OF X STUPID REASON" is not persuasive. Given the tendency of people to not accurately explain the reasoning that actually informs their decisions (either accidentally or deceptively).

But even seeing some strong evidence about that--would not suddenly make the analogy FROM IBR relevent...

[alwayssunnyinfl]

Facepalm. I am not saying that they "overlap." I am saying they they are both situations where people abuse the safety net because they know the safety net will mitigate the harm to them. It's annoying both because their shitty decision is still shitty (personal and/or financial harm is likely) and it also strains the system. Which is what makes it an analogy.

If you don't believe people think this way because head injuries from motorcycle accidents are physically painful, you just don't know enough idiots.

I DO think that people make idiotic decisions... I DO NOT think that a significant number of these idiots conduct the following analysis:

If I crash I will wreck my head. Oh well lets do this... Oh but wait, the medical bill... Imma sit this one out.

OMG I TOTALLY FORGOT THAT ER VISITS ARE FREE. LETS DO THIS.

I also dont think that someone "telling you" that this is their reasoning is proof that it IS their reasoning.

Idiots like to sound dumb... they know this sounds dumb. SO they say it, ya know like to be funny or something...

Counterpoint: people SMOKE despite NOT receiving free healthcare...

Bolded is part of the reason why nothing will ever convince you that it really does happen this way so you're just going to have to get older and wiser and figure it out on your own.

What a condescending thing to say. On multiple levels. Ill skip the merely pandering ones...

I NEVER said that nothing would convince me. I could be convinced easily actually, at least convinced to the point that I would be comfortable allowing my conclusion to effect my opinions on policy.

Showing me that there is statistically significant differences between reasonably similar societies in which one provides free ER visits and one doesn't would be strong evidence...

Plenty of less strong evidence would weigh strongly. But, hearing someone say, "IM DOING THIS STUPID THING BECAUSE OF X STUPID REASON" is not persuasive. Given the tendency of people to not accurately explain the reasoning that actually informs their decisions (either accidentally or deceptively).

But even seeing some strong evidence about that--would not suddenly make the analogy FROM IBR relevent...

IAFG sounds condescending because IAFG is condescending.

Not every sentence needs to be a paragraph.

And the original joke was funny. Laugh. Move on.

[KevinP]

If I strike out and the govt. scraps IBR, I'ma just go live under a bridge with my preftigious ivy league law degree.

[alwayssunnyinfl]

If I strike out and the govt. scraps IBR, I'ma just go live under a bridge with my preftigious ivy league law degree.

You can live under the bridge near my place.

[sd5289]

*blink*

What on earth happened in here?

[admisionquestion]

me.

[splitbrain]

Well, this is a pretty fucking stupid fight. All over a one-liner.