Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This has been reviewed internally and by other experts, and, with the exception of Blahous, they all agree that the savings are real. Several different metods were used, but the result is the same. Here's one of several comments.

Dude. Dec Water's "analysis" seems to rely on the theory that the one isn't connected to the other.

In the real world, if you try to predict future cost-benefit analysis using that standard, your company would have "problems."

FWIW, A Leftie view that I'm sure you'll enjoy:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...ouble-counting

Welcome to rationality, Mr. H.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Dude. Dec Water's "analysis" seems to rely on the theory that the one isn't connected to the other.

In the real world, if you try to predict future cost-benefit analysis using that standard, your company would have "problems."

FWIW, A Leftie view that I'm sure you'll enjoy:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...ouble-counting

Welcome to rationality, Mr. H.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Dude. Dec Water's "analysis" seems to rely on the theory that the one isn't connected to the other.

In the real world, if you try to predict future cost-benefit analysis using that standard, your company would have "problems."

FWIW, A Leftie view that I'm sure you'll enjoy:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...ouble-counting

Welcome to rationality, Mr. H.

Rationality? You're kidding, right?

Believing in the existence of the Medicare Trust Fund (or SS Trust Fund or any other federal trust fund) is what is irrational. Just exactly where is all this cash supposedly being stashed?

If there is no actual cash being stashed, then we're talking some keystrokes on a govt spreadsheet. And, when the time comes for people to be paid their benefits, the govt just uses keystrokes to decrease the govt spreadsheet (meaningless) and increase the beneficiaries' bank accounts (meaningful). It's no different that what the govt does when it pays your military benefits. Do you really think the govt is going to run out of keystrokes to do that?

Your entire worldview is base on believing in something that is no more real or rational than believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

Use your head for a change. What is the only possible thing that has the potential to limit the govt from fully crediting all benefits to recipients' bank accounts whether that be Medicare, Medicaid, SS or any other federal govt program including the ones your lips are attached to?

The only possible correct answer is the concern that the funds key-stroked to you and other recipients (or, to their goods/services providers) will result in spending that, when added with all the other spending in the economy, will put sufficient pressure on the economy's production capacity to cause prices to rise - i.e., demand-pull inflation. If that happens, then they can raise taxes and keystroke down peoples' banking accounts. Of course, before we can have an inflationary balloon we have to have an economic boom. You got something against an economic boom, buddy?

Trust fund shortfalls is utter bullshit and only for the intellectually lazy. History will not be kind to those so weak-minded to embrace it without question.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Dude. Dec Water's "analysis" seems to rely on the theory that the one isn't connected to the other.

In the real world, if you try to predict future cost-benefit analysis using that standard, your company would have "problems."

FWIW, A Leftie view that I'm sure you'll enjoy:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...ouble-counting

Welcome to rationality, Mr. H.

WOW! Who would ever have thought that arithmetic is a "Leftie view"?

There are very few things in life that can actually be proven ... not just shown or demonstrated or even "proven" subject to some external descriminator like "beyond a reasonable doubt". Arithmetic is one of them. It has actual Laws. If the Right can't accord with those, it may be time to call for the Men in White.

Originally Posted by Galen

You are assuming that the modern liberal or progressive does not have a religion, which is incorrect. They do have a religion, it just happens to be a secular one where government takes the place of god.

Good grief. I think we should just call you guys "Stereotypes R Us."

Just FYI and on the off chance you're capable of rationally paying attention, the overwhelming majority of progressives in today's America do indeed have a religion and it's not a "secular" one. Most of them are Christian; of those who aren't, probably the majority are Jewish; I myself am a Pagan. Atheists are in the minority among progressives just as they are among conservatives.

And in NOBODY'S world view does government EVER "take the place of God."

Now go back to class and stop mistaking propaganda talking points for actual statements of fact. Thank you in advance.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

WOW! Who would ever have thought that arithmetic is a "Leftie view"?

-Uh, if most Lefties can't figure out that double-counting is naughty, then "obviously not."

I offered the Leftie view because (understanding Lefties as I do) I calculated that you might be more willing to see reason if you read a version which put it into your language.

Oh well.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Believing in the existence of the Medicare Trust Fund (or SS Trust Fund or any other federal trust fund) is what is irrational. Just exactly where is all this cash supposedly being stashed?

-I think Mr. Horn still understands that one doesn't have to believe in a lock box to know that it doesn't give the Teleprompter-in-Chief the go-ahead to count the same credits twice at the same time (deep down, anyway).

PW, on the other, is free to wander into a enchanted MMT forest where money grows on trees, and monetary inflation has no consequences.

I'd like PW to show us the example of a country which tried operating on his theories.

Originally Posted by Deb C

-Deb, you say want "your" government to spend "your" taxes on "your" health. If so, you could tell "your" government to let you keep "your" money to spend on "your" health as you see fit, and you'd do it a lot better than Uncle Sam.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Deb, you say want "your" government to spend "your" taxes on "your" health. If so, you could tell "your" government to let you keep "your" money to spend on "your" health as you see fit, and you'd do it a lot better than Uncle Sam.

"The fact is that, in terms of social conscience, the U.S. is still quite a primitive place. And this primitiveness is sustained by a philosophy of selfishness. Among other things, that prevailing philosophy is making an ever greater number of us unhealthy. Is this acceptable to most Americans? Is that the kind of society they want? The political practice since 1981 seems to answer, yes." ..... Lawrence Davidson

What kind of America do the people want?

This attitude toward taxation is, in turn, at the heart of the original capitalist outlook as it evolved in the 18^th century. According to this perspective there are only three things for which the government can rightly tax its citizens: national defense, internal security (including the court system) and the enforcement of contracts. Beyond that the government must leave people alone and that includes not “over taxing” them and not regulating any of their business affairs.

This philosophy has caused untold misery since its inception. For the first century of the industrial revolution when the government of Great Britain (the original industrializing nation) was controlled by people who wanted minimal taxation and no business regulation, working class people lived in dire poverty, environmental pollution was rampant, industrial safety was non-existent, and health care for the poor was the concern of private charity only. Why? Because for the government to address any of these concerns would cost money and that would mean raising the taxes of the folks who had money.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/...mericans-want/

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-PW, on the other, is free to wander into a enchanted MMT forest where money grows on trees, and monetary inflation has no consequences.

I'd like PW to show us the example of a country which tried operating on his theories.

Like I said on the other thread, you're living the example with govt deficit spending being what is keeping us afloat.

More specifically regarding here on this thread, your concern is for inflation. Let’s see: we've had the big bail-outs and we had the not-big-enough, but still substantial Stimulus. On top of that, we've had huge countercyclical spending in unemployment, food stamps, earned income and people taking SS early. Right? You not going to argue facts now are you? Let's assume not.

Then, where is the tax rate increased to pay for all that? Taxes, you know, have actually gone down.

I guess we MUST be all paying for it with Weimer/Zimbabwe hyper-inflation. Oh wait, core inflation is around, what, 2%. OMG, the world is coming to an end!!!!!!!

I guess you could pull out gasoline prices, and I can then try to instruct you on namby-pamby cost-push sector-specific price increases that always bounce around. But, why bother – haven’t you noticed, gas prices are coming down too. And next year, should that scheduled austerity hit and kill off our economy hard here in the grand old US of A, those prices are gonna come down a lot more.

So you're experiencing it buddy; you're just too ideologically blind to see what is obviously going on around you to even take note let alone get your marbles rolling around in that thick head of yours. It's going to cost you. Have you ever stop to think about how much your thinking has cost you over your lifetime to date? Do you really want to go through the rest of your life so dazed and confused… and so easy to manipulate by forces you don’t understand but still so unquestioning do their bidding?

Originally Posted by Deb C

"The fact is that, in terms of social conscience, the U.S. is still quite a primitive place. And this primitiveness is sustained by a philosophy of selfishness. Among other things, that prevailing philosophy is making an ever greater number of us unhealthy. Is this acceptable to most Americans? Is that the kind of society they want? The political practice since 1981 seems to answer, yes." ..... Lawrence Davidson

What kind of America do the people want?



http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/...mericans-want/

The US holds dear to a Frontier Culture that has become a liability in our over-populated world.

Originally Posted by Deb C

"The fact is that, in terms of social conscience, the U.S. is still quite a primitive place. And this primitiveness is sustained by a philosophy of selfishness. Among other things, that prevailing philosophy is making an ever greater number of us unhealthy. Is this acceptable to most Americans? Is that the kind of society they want? The political practice since 1981 seems to answer, yes."

...and

Originally Posted by Odin

The US holds dear to a Frontier Culture that has become a liability in our over-populated world.

-Righ.

America, based on free-market principles, is such a primitive, terrible place that people have flocked here for over 200 years for financial opportunity.

Care to explain that historical anomaly?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

.
America, based on free-market principles, is such a primitive, terrible place that people have flocked here for over 200 years for financial opportunity.

Care to explain that historical anomaly?

That may be coming to an end.

The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—more than half of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the U.S. has stopped and may have reversed.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...and



-Righ.

America, based on free-market principles, is such a primitive, terrible place that people have flocked here for over 200 years for financial opportunity.

Care to explain that historical anomaly?

We used to be ahead of the rest of the world in economic opportunity (openings for small business and high wages by the standards of almost the entire world) and educational opportunity (K-12 education long considered excessive in a feudal or early-industrial world). A century ago people fleeing Imperial Russia with its starvation wages, controlled markets, persecutions of religious minorities, and limited opportunities for education found even the most cramped quarters in New York and sweatshop jobs an unimaginable improvement. Countries like Italy, Germany, and Ireland were far poorer.

Much of the rest of the world has been catching up to America. After all, general K-12 education is woefully inadequate as preparation for a technological world unless the technology makes one's job numbingly simple and unskilled. Political freedom and responsible government has become the increasing norm (if not in Russia or China). Education beyond K-12 has become fiendishly expensive.

Starting a small business? You can't compete with Wal*Mart, Exxon-Mobil, Citicorp, McDonald's, Con-Agra, Archer-Daniels-Midland, Safeway, or Applebee's. The American tax system and political order favors vertically-integrated firms that can afford in-house specialists in tax compliance and information technology -- and of course paying off the politicians. Real wages have been falling for all but the upper 5% of Americans. Such small businesses as I find flourishing have largely immigrant customers as their bases. When the kids assimilate, then that is over.

So do you want to talk about 'primitive'? Try Christian Protestant fundamentalism, one of the most mindless expressions in religion ever known. Consider also the crass commercialism that manifests itself in gambling casinos convenient to most American... suckers. And then there is the Hard Right adopting a fascist agenda. Fascism is terrible to ethnic and religious minorities (especially in the middle class), working people, feminists, and of course anyone who isn't already rich. You might keep a middle-class job as a teacher or preacher, but only if you toe the line on politics, as such a job becomes a privilege in a world in which workers become serfs in all but name. If I were an Indian citizen looking for better opportunities... then right now, Canada and Great Britain now look better.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I agree. It's always easier to understand and anticipate rational thought processes than random mythology and emotional rants.

Good point.

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

I'll make a reckless prediction:

The ruling will be 6-3 in favor of overturning at least the individual mandate, if not ObamaCare in its entirety; and the sixth vote (after Anthony Kennedy contributes the fifth) will come from Stephen Breyer, who will echo the likes of Benjamin Cardozo and Louis Brandeis from this point in the previous saeculum and vote according to his age/generation, not his assumed philosophy.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

I'll make a reckless prediction:

The ruling will be 6-3 in favor of overturning at least the individual mandate, if not ObamaCare in its entirety; and the sixth vote (after Anthony Kennedy contributes the fifth) will come from Stephen Breyer, who will echo the likes of Benjamin Cardozo and Louis Brandeis from this point in the previous saeculum and vote according to his age/generation, not his assumed philosophy.

Sounds plausible. OTH, I have always said the need is for health CARE, not health INSURANCE. Visiting public health nurses, neighborhood clinics, county hospitals that are NOT expected to turn a profit ... and note how multi-level an approach this is. It's ridiculous for the county hospital emergency room to be dealing with lesser ailments because some people have nowhere else to go.

Does the Grey Badger have any comments regarding the New Mexico risk pool?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We used to be ahead of the rest of the world in economic opportunity (openings for small business and high wages by the standards of almost the entire world)...

-Uh, it was the progressives who killed openings for small businesses, and the wages they create. I think you know that.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...there is the Hard Right adopting a fascist agenda...

-Your latest example of "facism" will make everyone (taxpayers, employees, student) better off, except the parasites in the unions:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_scott-walker.html

...What had the unions most up in arms, however, was a reform that ended mandatory dues for members. Wisconsin unions were collecting up to $1,100 per member per year in these obligatory payments... The unions knew that, given the option, many of their members would indeed choose not to write a check—and that this would strangle union election spending...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_scott-walker.html

Originally Posted by JDG 66

... [mis-] educators had made dire predictions that Walker’s reforms would force schools to fire teachers... Walker insisted that his reforms were actually a job-retention program: by accepting small concessions in health and pension benefits, he argued, school districts would be able to spare hundreds of teachers’ jobs. The argument proved sound... The Wauwatosa School District, which faced a $6.5 million shortfall, anticipated slashing 100 jobs—yet the new pension and health contributions saved them all...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_scott-walker.html

...Before the reform, many districts’ annual union contracts required them to buy health insurance from WEA Trust, a nonprofit affiliated with the state’s largest teachers’ union... When the Appleton School District put its health-insurance contract up for bid, for instance, WEA Trust suddenly lowered its rates and promised to match any competitor’s price. Appleton will save $3 million during the current school year...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_scott-walker.html

Originally Posted by JDG 66

The benefits to school districts aren’t just fiscal, moreover... the Brown Deer school district in suburban Milwaukee can implement a performance-pay system for its best teachers—a step that could improve educational outcomes...

Darn.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rss_ezra-klein

Why is no one talking about Massachusetts?


Perhaps the weirdest part of this election is that no one is talking about the Massachusetts health reforms. As Jon Cohn writes, “given that Mitt Romney signed these reforms into law while he was governor and President Obama used the Massachusetts reforms as a model for national reforms,” you would expect them to be central to the campaign. But day-to-day, they’re entirely absent.

The reason, perhaps, is that neither campaign sees much upside in bringing them up. As Cohn writes, “nearly everybody in the state has health insurance, while data suggest more people have regular access to care and fewer people face crushing health care costs.” Plus, as you can see in the graph, costs are increasing more slowly than in the rest of the nation. But since that makes Romney look like a good governor and a closet moderate, the Obama campaign has little reason to mention it, and since it makes Obamacare look good, the Romney campaign has little reason to mention it.

No, let's all stay dumb and captured by our stupid political systems that doesn't care about real results.

About a month away from SCOTUS repeal of Obamacare. What's not yet talked about much is the problem this causes for Republicans, but some are catching it -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rss_ezra-klein

“If the law is partially or fully overturned they’ll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place — like allowing adult children to remain on parents’ health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.”

The provisions that Republicans would keep are, Politico notes, the most popular parts of the health reform law. The difficulty is that they’re also the most expensive, and only become more so after repealing the mandate.

Health policy experts roundly agree that requiring insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, without mandating that everyone buy coverage, would drive up premiums.
.
.
.
Republicans are, in a way, caught between a rock and a hard place: They want to keep the popular parts of the law, but not the unpopular part — the individual mandate — that makes those well-liked provisions work. Without it, Avik Roy notes, the requirement for insurers to cover everyone falls apart.

“Forcing insurance companies to provide coverage to those with pre-existing conditions—what insurance wonks call “guaranteed issue” —would destroy the private insurance market, by creating an adverse selection death spiral in which people only buy insurance after they’ve already fallen ill,” he writes.

I'm sure the GOP understands this and will try to pivot hard to Obamacare going down because Obama overstepped; it really had nothing to do with the GOP. It may work with their core group, but most people including Indies will see through it. As more people lose coverage that get exceedingly expensive and as private insureres fail, the GOP will come to own the issue-with-no-solution going into the midterms where reams of video of them foaming at the mouth will confirm the notion.

It will be ironic their paving the way to single payer.

If Obamacare gets deleted, perhaps the next thing to try will be a Federally backed risk pool.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Does the Grey Badger have any comments regarding the New Mexico risk pool?

Look - I'm a member of the Greedy Geezer Elite - I have health care through my former employer, UNM. What do I know? That said -- while it's not the best of all possible solutions, it's not half bad for something modeled on the private insurance market. Which is like saying a 1974 VW Bug isn't half bad for a 1974 economy car out of the junkyard.

Medicare being managed by private insurers was tried in the 1990s. It didn't work and pretty quickly the insurers all pulled out. One seemed to survive however, a company that targeted the very sickest people. They pushed palliative care. The true savings potential comes at end of life care. Physicians are very slow to deem a treatment ineffective, good news though is Britian already has a ranking of conditions and their treatments ranked on a s cale of 1 to 5, from curative to Ineffective. I think that would go a long way to giving care that is appropriate.

People are going bankrupt everyday in this country but the CEOs are doing just fine. Actually, more than fine. Any doubts why our healthcare costs are through the roof?

Health Care CEOs See Biggest Paycheck Bumps

The healthcare industry saw the largest increases in executive pay out of all sectors, according to a Wall Street Journal and Hay Group CEO compensation survey, released yesterday.

Although healthcare CEOs saw the smallest pay increases out of all industries in 2010, the tides shifted last year, as healthcare executive compensation jumped 7.8 percent in 2011. Healthcare companies’ net income rose 1.1 percent, while the industry saw a 9.8 percent one-year total shareholder return.
In general, industries across sectors pay their chief executives based on the companies’ financial results and share prices with a strong emphasis on pay for performance, The Wall Street Journal reported.

“Our study showed that companies proceeded very carefully on both pay levels and pay design in 2011. Directors are taking proactive steps to ensure that their executive pay plans are aligned with shareholders’ desired outcomes,” Irv Becker, Hay Group national practice leader for executive compensation, said in a statement yesterday.

Healthcare execs also are seeing fatter checks, as healthcare becomes increasingly complex, the Coloradoan reported. The CEO of Community Health Systems in Tennessee, for example, has a total compensation package of $21.58 million, far above salaries in Northern Colorado.

However, shareholders of the acute care hospital operator yesterday voted against the pay plan. CEO Wayne T. Smith’s pay rose 6 percent last year, while net income fell 28 percent and the company’s shares lost more than half their value, according to the WSJ.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/health...paycheck-bumps

Originally Posted by Deb C

And for a glimpse of how that will be different under a GOP-lead govt, let's turn to what their go-to economist, Tyler Cowen, and his #2 of seven things right-minded Republicans should pursue instead of Obamacare -

2. A rejection of health care egalitarianism, namely a recognition that the wealthy will purchase more and better health care than the poor. Trying to equalize health care consumption hurts the poor, since most feasible policies to do this take away cash from the poor, either directly or through the operation of tax incidence. We need to accept the principle that sometimes poor people will die just because they are poor. Some of you don’t like the sound of that, but we already let the wealthy enjoy all sorts of other goods — most importantly status — which lengthen their lives and which the poor enjoy to a much lesser degree. We shouldn’t screw up our health care institutions by being determined to fight inegalitarian principles for one very select set of factors which determine health care outcomes.

Yep, certainly no daylight there between them an Obama.