| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Healthcare Debates II - The Dems Strike Back! Posted by: biliruben - [16105237] Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 08:27 | |||||||
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] | ||||||||
| 1393 | Boldwin    ID: 18643169    Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 00:01 | Well sleep apnea is not unheard of around these parts. | ||||||
| 1394 | Perm Dude    ID: 3210201915    Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 00:03 |
The declining number of generalists have nothing to do with malpractice costs and everything to do with salary. A radiologist can make literally twice as much as a generalist and can be at a hospital which does 90% of the paperwork for them. Twice the salary and 10% of the paperwork doesn't really make this a tough choice. | ||||||
| 1395 | sarge33rd    ID: 12554167    Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 00:14 | GPs are much exposed to malpractice. That is generally within the realm of those same specialists, where the annualized incomes are vastly higher than for the family doctor. | ||||||
| 1396 | sarge33rd    ID: 12554167    Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 00:23 | should have read of course...GPs arent much exposed... | ||||||
| 1397 | Perm Dude    ID: 3210201915    Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 10:57 |
They are all exposed. And while malpractice insurance is a problem, it is a problem because doctors continue to make mistakes and compound it by hiding behind a legal structure which has no goal of reducing awards. Also, doctors and hospitals have a pretty good way of reducing malpractice costs already-- counterintuitively, by saying "sorry." This has resulted in dropped per-incident costs by 50%. So instead of letting the insurance companies of doctors who are found guilty of malpractice in court keep more money, a better way would be to stop the suits from occurring up front. The Right, of course, will never pick up on this as a policy idea because this will reduce the amount of blame they can heap onto Obama, though I was pleased to see a good story about this on FOX News. | ||||||
| 1398 | biliruben    ID: 59551120    Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 14:09 |
For-profit hospitals and an army of cardiologists. The sweet, deadly, expensive mix. As an aside, I got a call yesterday which I can only assume was a survey paid for by health insurers. I think, based on the questions, they are concerned about the impacts of the exchanges, and trying to figure out how to position themselves, and what products to offer. The interviewer was from Florida, and was pretty clueless, but was remarkably candid and interested in my strong distaste for health insurers, far beyond what I would consider professional curiosity. I had a to explain to her what single-payer was, and she says "just like obamacare, right?" I laughed and explained it was pretty much the opposite. | ||||||
| 1399 | Boldwin    ID: 57242212    Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 06:04 |
Interesting wrinkle...what poor person will buy insurance?the IRS� ability to actually collect these penaltaxes is limited to garnishing income tax refund checks. If an individual is not getting a refund, the IRS is impotent. - Peter Schiff | ||||||
| 1400 | Boldwin    ID: 57242212    Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 06:17 |
Whackiest defense I've seen yet, probably just taking 'silver lining' rationalizing to absurd levels but I'll comment further after I can force my mind to wrap around this counterintuitive notion...Kavanaugh stressed that his methodical analysis was not spurred by blinkered lawyerly nitpicking. On the contrary, he stressed, his outing of the �individual mandate� as an option served vital conservative principles and interests. He observed that the ACA could be �the leading edge of a shift� to �privatize the social safety net and government assistance programs.� Judges, he said, should be reluctant to put the brakes on such a trend.But then The New Republic has always been a very slippery source and in my mind somewhat underhanded in not disclosing their agenda. | ||||||
| 1401 | Khahan    ID: 39432178    Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 09:25 |
the IRS� ability to actually collect these penaltaxes is limited to garnishing income tax refund checks. If an individual is not getting a refund, the IRS is impotent. - Peter Schiff So the big question is - what will change? People who can't afford health insurance still won't buy it. Still won't pay for it on the back end and we'll still have to cover them thru our own rates. But its still mandatory. | ||||||
| 1403 | sarge33rd    ID: 12554167    Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 13:30 |
To have an income, one must be employed. So the unemployed (those whom the IRS is unable to garnish refunds), would be on medi-caid and thus exempt from the requirement. Even the "working poor", file for their annual refund and lacking insurance, they would see those refunds garnished. | ||||||
| 1405 | boikin ID: 532592112 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:08 | So in practice this will become a tax on the working poor, since it will be cheaper to get less of refund then by insurance? | ||||||
| 1406 | Boldwin ID: 327262311 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:12 | Peter Schiff | ||||||
| 1407 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:16 |
re 1405...false. I had posted a link a month r so ago, that allowed one to see their premium under the PPACA and the penalty. In all cases I am aware of, the premium is LESS than the penalty. Currently for me to buy individual Major medical, with a $5,000 deductible, is $247/m. Now factor in the $400/m for the deductible, and then the 20% co-pay, and it becomes quite expensive. Under PPACA? My annualized premium is projected to be $647, with a penalty for non-compliance of approx $900. People need to QUIT speaking out on this topic, when they have n facts, and only supposition at their disposal. | ||||||
| 1408 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:16 | The poor, if not already enrolled in a program, will be getting subsidies--they aren't going to be subject to any penalties. | ||||||
| 1410 | boikin ID: 532592112 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:32 |
Just to clarify sarge I wasn't talking out on the subject, I was just asking a question. Currently for me to buy individual Major medical, with a $5,000 deductible, is $247/m. Now factor in the $400/m for the deductible, and then the 20% co-pay, and it becomes quite expensive. Under PPACA? My annualized premium is projected to be $647, with a penalty for non-compliance of approx $900. so just to clarify the math a bit, you pay now 247*12=$2964 a year now but under PPACA your premium will go down by $2317 thorough price changes and/or subsidies? | ||||||
| 1411 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:40 | yep. And if you add the deductible to the premium, if I USE the insurance, it costs me $7964/yr. | ||||||
| 1412 | Boldwin ID: 327262311 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:44 |
The poor, if not already enrolled in a program, will be getting subsidies--they aren't going to be subject to any penalties. - PD The poor will not enroll in the program. Even with subsidies, they are poor. They can't afford a toaster let alone healthcare. They will most definately be subject to penalties, not be insured, but the government will be mostly powerless to retrieve blood from a turnip. They'll forfeit their EIC. But other than that... | ||||||
| 1413 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:48 | Those who are that poor, would be encompassed under the expanded medi-care B. | ||||||
| 1414 | boikin ID: 532592112 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 17:02 | re 1411: I guess a follow up question would be under PPACA would you continue to use $5000 deductible plan or would you upgrade to lower deductible? | ||||||
| 1415 | Boldwin ID: 327262311 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 17:04 | Show me a link Sarge. | ||||||
| 1416 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 17:08 |
I'd upgrade to a lower ded boikin. A 5k ded to be honest, would wipe me out. It has been linked B. | ||||||
| 1417 | Boldwin ID: 327262311 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 17:13 | Nevermind, Sarge. I looked it up myself. I'd rather let them try and collect the fine than spend every waking moment filling out forms and standing in line for a handout. | ||||||
| 1418 | Frick ID: 14082314 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 13:32 |
An interesting side effect of the ACA From Bloomberg | ||||||
| 1419 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 14:03 |
the para that LEAPS out at me: All this also has a Keynesian-type effect to make up for the way state and local governments keep cutting back spending. This was the first recession where we responded by cutting public-sector jobs. Government employment has fallen to its lowest level since 1968, Bloomberg’s BGOV Barometer shows. The cutbacks forced by balanced-budget clauses in many state constitutions only hold back a real recovery. | ||||||
| 1420 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 14:05 | That's always been the case. Typically the federal government steps in, but the GOP is having none of this "deficit spending in a recession" nonsense. | ||||||
| 1421 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 14:23 |
saw a meme the other day on FB along those lines...showed a hungry child and said: The GOP; starving their 4 yr old, to pay their Mastercard | ||||||
| 1422 | Boldwin ID: 327262311 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 15:31 | Yeah, that's the problem. Too much fiscal responsibility, not enuff government handouts. | ||||||
| 1423 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 15:44 | too much fiscal responsibility? B, please quit with the empty rhetoric. Every independent review of the "fiscally responsible" Ryan plan, has it adding TRILLIONS to the debt. | ||||||
| 1424 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 15:44 | Pretty boilerplate partisan stuff there. Anyone who thinks that the economy would be better off if the government, essentially, stopped being the safety net for the country really doesn't understand the economy well enough to be offering an opinion. | ||||||
| 1425 | Boldwin ID: 327262311 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 15:55 | ...said the man who hasn't read Keynes and Hayek to the man who has. | ||||||
| 1426 | Nuclear Gophers ID: 29542105 Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 09:19 | 1423-and where was the independent review of the fiscally responsible Obama plan that raised the Debt 1 trillion per year for the past 4 years? hmmmmm | ||||||
| 1427 | Nuclear Gophers ID: 29542105 Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 09:28 | and how is that fiscally responsible? hmmmmm | ||||||
| 1428 | Nuclear Gophers ID: 29542105 Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 09:35 | so you agree with fiscal irresponsibility? hmmmmm | ||||||
| 1429 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 11:04 |
#123: You mean a little under a trillion dollars, I believe. You obviously have a different priority than I do. I believe it is important to not keep the country from falling apart bu jacking up the unemployment rate. You believe it is important to keep the books balanced. I've got plenty of experts who say that Obama's policies (and, to some degree, some of Bush's toward the end) spent money while keeping unemployment low and maintaining demand. And I haven't seen jack saying that the economy as a whole would be better off, right now (not in the future sometime, but right now) would be better if we have instead been asking the unemployed to pay down Mr. Bush's debt. Happy to hear of any evidence, however. | ||||||
| 1431 | Boldwin ID: 157332421 Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 11:34 |
And I haven't seen jack saying that the economy as a whole would be better off, right now (not in the future sometime, but right now) would be better if we have instead... AEI | ||||||
| 1432 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 12:17 | an erroneous prediction, made by a political advisory team 4 years ago, does not prove/disprove the question D asked. We'd need a battery of economists for that answer B. | ||||||
| 1433 | Mith ID: 18451815 Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 12:26 | I could be mistaken but I think these "predictions" were actually the current (a the time) CBO projections that Obama was citing. And if memory does serve, I believe those projections were made before the full depth of the crash and recession was understood. | ||||||
| 1434 | Mith ID: 18451815 Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 13:11 |
I was mistaken. The figures (and the graph) are from a report relesed by President-elect Obama (p.4). Still, if memory serves there was yet more to learn at the time about the state of the economy, perhaps it was that the full depth of the toxic assets scandal hadn't been realized. | ||||||
| 1435 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 14:22 |
From that chart, we don't know what the unemployment rate would have been if the stimulus would not have passed--the Right seems to be taking Obama's word for it at the time (which, since then, they have walked back as no one, not even AEI predicted how badly the recession actually was). #1434 is exactly right. | ||||||
| 1436 | Boldwin ID: 59742519 Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 20:07 | Or you could go with the blindingly obvious. Obama's moves were counterproductive. | ||||||
| 1437 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 20:35 | Or you could go with the real truth, the obstructionist GOP House, preventing any measures from having even a chance at working. | ||||||
| 1438 | Boldwin ID: 59742519 Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 20:44 | He got 4+ trillion dollars in stimulus money out of congress. Only a democrat could poor-mouth that much money. | ||||||
| 1439 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Sun, Aug 26, 2012, 01:13 |
I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers. Obama pushed for, and received, a well-publicized $787 billion stimulus package of which $288 billion were in the form of tax cuts. Bush, of course, passed two stimulus packages, in 2002 and 2008, both of which were smaller and targeted differently. | ||||||
| 1440 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Sun, Aug 26, 2012, 01:20 |
Only a Democrat...hahahahahaha Bush vetoed in 8 years, 2 spending bills. 1 dealt with funding stem cell research and the other with healthcare for poor kids. Outside of those 2, Bush couldnt spend fast enough. | ||||||
| 1441 | Nuclear Gophers ID: 29542105 Sun, Aug 26, 2012, 06:46 |
1. The $825 billion package will exceed $1.1 trillion after the interest ($300 billion) to pay it back is added in. 2. The legislation could send billions of taxpayer dollars to groups like ACORN, which is under federal investigation for voter fraud. 3. The plan spends $650 million on digital TV coupons. 4. $600 million for new cars for the federal government. 5. $6 billion for colleges/universities -- many of which have billion-dollar endowments. 6. $50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts. 7. $150 million for the Smithsonian Institution. 8. $44 million for repairs to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters in D.C. 9. The plan establishes at least 32 new government programs at a cost of over $136 billion. 10. The legislation increases by seven million the number of people who get a check back from the IRS that exceeds what they paid in payroll and income taxes These are a few things to really know about the stimulus. | ||||||
| 1442 | Nuclear Gophers ID: 29542105 Sun, Aug 26, 2012, 07:07 | All the above Im sure are just a drop in the old bucket. | ||||||
| 1443 | Pancho Villa ID: 59645318 Sun, Aug 26, 2012, 09:55 |
Let's take a moment to examine the list in #1442. #1. Is there documentation as to what the borrowing percentage rate is and the timeframe to reach those figures? Interest rates are at historical lows, so the past few years have been one of the most economically frugal times to borrow money. #2. The legislation could send Confusing. Could send or did send? Groups like ACORN? Confusing. How much money in stimulus funds went directly to ACORN? #3. I'm not sure what digital TV coupons are. Hopefully it's related to a product manufactured in the US private sector, helping to create or save jobs in that industry. #4. 600 million in new car sales is a huge boost to that industry, are there figures as to what percentage of those sales are directly related to domestic production? #5. Not enough info. 6 billion for college construction projects(jobs)?; additional teaching personnel(jobs)?; research projects(jobs)?; student grants?; all of the above? #6. I don't know that the federal government should be in the arts endowment business. Is that 50 million above and beyond whatever they normally receive annually? Is that an excessive jump to what they've received in recent years as a percentage of GDP? #7. That seems excessive. Again, is that above and beyond their regular annual budget? How much, if any, includes job-creating construction projects? #8. Sounds like construction jobs. #9. Need more info, but troubling on the face of it. Hard to understand how the fed workforce has shed jobs in the past few years though. #10. Need more info. Was this a one year development, multi-year plan? Generally, the conservative mantra has been it's a good thing when money is in the hands of citizens instead of government coffers. My opinion is that the Earned Income Tax Credit has always been fiscally irresponsible. Expanding the roles for a year or two during the height of the recession might have made some sense, but where do we stand as to the this expansion in 2012? Since the list wasn't linked to a source, can we assume that NG researched the subject thoroughly, and can answer all these questions? | ||||||
| 1444 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Sun, Aug 26, 2012, 10:06 |
1. Sure. That's not $4 billion. In fact, the real problem is that the stimulus wasn't large enough. 2. "ACORN, which is under federal investigation for voter fraud." No, they are not. They were, however, part of an investigation as the victims of voter registration fraud committed by others. 3-8. Yup--is was a spending bill all right. 9. The good Speaker doesn't specify these, but the clear implication is that $787 billion should be unsupervised. Not sure that is a very "conservative" response. 10. This is what tax credits look like. Did you expect something else? | ||||||
| 1445 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Sun, Aug 26, 2012, 15:03 |
I was gonna say, #10 sounds like what happens after ANY tax cut. Since when, does the GOP have issue with tax cuts? Oh yeah, when a Dem does it. Harvard JD, Bush Economic Speech Writer, Conservative strategist; David Frum | ||||||
| 1446 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Tue, Aug 28, 2012, 01:22 |
link Among the seven nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last overall, as it did in the 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, coordination, efficiency, and equity. The Netherlands ranks first, followed closely by the U.K. and Australia. The 2010 edition includes data from the seven countries and incorporates patients' and physicians' survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care.{emphasis added} | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: Healthcare Debates II - The Dems Strike Back! | ||||||||