Let's try this again. Hopefully it doesn't get sidetracked

[OCinBuffalo]

....For you to call it "successful"?

 

Objectively now. And, this is for rational people, so if it is generally accepted by the board that you are irrational, please ignore this thread and start a new one about Sarah Palin, go play with your Sarah Palin, blow up doll, whatever.

 

Anyway, right now, for me, success looks like:

1. Win the political battle to reform Obamacare. The country is already on their side on this, they have to get it done. We have done a TON of research on this thing, and believe it or, in my opinion not not everything is bad. But, so much of it, and the really important stuff, is bad that I have no problem throwing the baby out with the bath water. I imagine the good stuff will be kept in a reform bill.

2. Get control of spending and override Obama vetoes if necessary. Look, the veto is no excuse for either party, they all knew about the veto when they signed up. It's not like the veto is some mystical animal that has been recently discovered.

The job is to either convince the President that their measures are sound, or, get out and convince the American people of this, and override the veto.

3. Immediately begin the process of entitlement reform. The big mistake that Democrats made, objectively, is trying to force too much change too quickly. The Republicans should learn from that and begin a gradual process of reform. Create easily definable goals, meet them, repeat. Who cares if it is done with big fanfare or not?

 

Also, I am wondering, do you favor:

1. Repeal, Replace

- or -

2. Reform

wrt Obamacare?

Edited October 8, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[PearlHowardman]

Begin to clean up the mess that incompetent "Change We Can Believe In" has given us.

 

1. Investigate the incompetent Obama department of labor to find out why they release US unemployment numbers which they then revise and then revise again many months later.

 

2. Investigate the incompetent Obama White House to find out why they continued to deceive the US public by providing low number estimates of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico during the BP disaster.

 

It's a start.

[Spiderweb]

Obama Care surely sticks in your craw, yet only God knows for what reason. If there's an issue with Obama Health Care Reform, it's that it simply didn't go anywhere near far enough. We have the most expensive health care system in the world, per capita, by more than double the next closest Country (Canada) and that's not a problem? Great Britain, Germany, Japan, and France all have even lower costs per capita than Canada (from AARP sourcing the World Health Organization data). 19 of the top 20 Countries (size of economy) all have nationalized health care, yet the U.S. had none at all until the recent reform was passed and even then, we less than half-stepped it. With overall inflation that has actually reached negative levels in the past two years at times, we still have the never ending double digit increases in Health Care costs. We don't even have a decent record with respect to preventable deaths, or infant mortality rates in this country. We're again way down the list. (again, World Health Organization data).

 

The system is dependent on employers providing basic coverage (or more) and we have small firms increasingly dropping it, and big Corporations cutting benefits and raising employee contributions, and this is not a problem? We have an employer based system, in which employers do not have to play. Yet some wish to defend the system at all cost? This is insane, for anyone that remotely is or was in the "middle class" of the U.S.

 

National debt rose under Regan/Bush from .99789 Trillion (Still in billions) to 4.4114 Trillion. It took 200 years to get to 997 Billion, and only a scant 12 years to get to almost 4.5 times that amount. Nice work there Ronnie and George. Regan and his supply side colleagues were the original architects of massive deficit spending. Time period cited was 9/30/81 (10/1/81 was when Regan's first budget went in) to 9/30/93 which ended George Bush's last budget. That roughly 3.5 Trillion added to the deficit by the Reagan/Bush years.

 

Clinton's Presidency grew the deficit to 5.565 Trillion (as of 9/30/2001 which ended his last budget). Far less growth in deficits and had this country moving in the right direction with respect to reducing deficit spending. Then came the world record holder, George W Bush. When his last budget ended (9/30/2009), the deficit stood at 11.909 Trillion. Nice work W. The deficit was not only more than doubled in his 8 years, he left the economy in the worst shape it's been in since the Great Depression.

 

Who the keeper of the treasury? Clearly this points out that no party is, yet one stands out head and shoulders above the other. The GOP has won, hands down for making the major raid on the treasury. Another landslide victory for the GOP.

 

So where has all the money gone? Tax cuts? Quite a bit. Overspending, yes in may cases. Yet the real (and only) winners are the very rich. In 1973, the top 1% taxpayers, earned 8% of the total national income. By 2006, the same 1% now earned 23% of the total national income. Hummmmmm.

 

By contrast, using the same time period, the average worker in the U.S. made Approximately $746.oo per week as measured in today's dollars. Yet by 2007, the average worker was earning $612.00 as measured in today's dollars. When a pie only contains 100%, and one group, no matter how small of a percentage of the population they are, increases their take from 8% of the pie to 23% of the pie, someone has to suffer, in which the suffering is borne by the middle class and the poor. A prime example is the growth is CEO salaries. In 1973, they averaged approximately 45 times their average worker. By 2006,

it runs 500 to 600 times, with some much higher. Again not since just before the Great Depression has the disparity been this great (Paul Leopold - Looting of America, and others). [also see - science of CEO salariesand google them yourselves. You should be shocked. These same CEOs may be the top guns, but they are still only employees.

 

The current GOP wishes to do nothing more than to not only continue this recipe for disaster, they wish to strengthen it. When the financial institutions and GOP policies led us to the brink, guys like John Boehner (OH) and Mitch McConnell (KY), the GOP leaders of the House and Senate, felt the watered down banking reform passed was far too strong.

 

Both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate especially, are rich. Who do you believe a bit more. The one who clearly is fighting to make their take greater (more Tax cuts for them, the rich), or those who are also rich, but feel the rich (themselves included) should pay more in taxes with some additional relief given to the middle class above what Bush added to appease the masses when his Bonanza was passed for the Rich in 2001? No rocket science here. Even Warren Buffet, a some what wealthy man himself, has called for higher taxes on the rich, with possible additional relied for the middle class. Why is that? Does he not understand Capitalism? Or is it that maybe his conscience tells him to do the right thing? I'll take the word of Warren Buffett over any Politicians, any day of the week, with respect to the economy.

 

As for conservative values, and while not in any way criticizing alternatives, I believe in Marriage between a man and women. I don't believe in abortion or divorce in most cases. For every dollar spent, I like to see a dollars value received. I don't believe in massive deficits. Fairly conservative values for the most part, yet the Conservative party has been so intent on their power, privilege, and their love of the rich while having nothing but disdain for the middle class and poor that they long ago proved themselves unworthy of serving the American people. In 1993-94 when the GOP contract with America was formulated, it contained one huge key element that led me to generally support much of it. Term Limits. Then, the GOP showed that they only wanted term limits until they came to power, then zippo on that issue going forward. Lie, sure it was, an outright lie if there ever was one, and they continue tho lie to the the American people today. Couple that with their looting of America, and they shown themselves to be in league with the Anti-Christ. Lie, deceive, cheat.....nice.

[OCinBuffalo]

Y'know, I am sitting here, enjoying seeing these miners get hauled out....and then this crap comes along. Good. I was getting all sentimental. Time to shake that off and smoke a new "I know about Health Care because I read MoveOn.org" dweeb.

Obama Care surely sticks in your craw, yet only God knows for what reason.

Sorry, I have a hard time with stupidity(a choice) based on blatant ignorance(not a choice), or willful distortion.

If there's an issue with Obama Health Care Reform, it's that it simply didn't go anywhere near far enough. We have the most expensive health care system in the world, per capita, by more than double the next closest Country (Canada) and that's not a problem? Great Britain, Germany, Japan, and France all have even lower costs per capita than Canada (from AARP sourcing the World Health Organization data). 19 of the top 20 Countries (size of economy) all have nationalized health care, yet the U.S. had none at all until the recent reform was passed and even then, we less than half-stepped it. With overall inflation that has actually reached negative levels in the past two years at times, we still have the never ending double digit increases in Health Care costs. We don't even have a decent record with respect to preventable deaths, or infant mortality rates in this country. We're again way down the list. (again, World Health Organization data).

 

The system is dependent on employers providing basic coverage (or more) and we have small firms increasingly dropping it, and big Corporations cutting benefits and raising employee contributions, and this is not a problem? We have an employer based system, in which employers do not have to play. Yet some wish to defend the system at all cost? This is insane, for anyone that remotely is or was in the "middle class" of the U.S.

 

Instance #1 of leaving out the facts that don't support your position.

 

The #1 cause of health care cost is: trial lawyers. That's right, the people who give the Democratic party most of their campaign money. Now, you think it's a f'ing coincidence that Obamacare has exactly 0 tort reform? Yes, Democrats have really taken the "morally superior" position here... I will give you a pass on this post, but from now on, don't spew your phony moral superiority arguments here.

 

The #2 cause of health care cost is: lack of competition amongst insurance companies. Why doesn't Obamacare allow insurance companies across state lines? Simple: another payoff to the other constituency that pays for campaigns. Labor unions own insurance companies in many states and interstate commerce will put those union-owned insurance companies out of business.

 

The #3 cause of health care cost is: useless or barely effective government regulators/regulations. The government has added infinitely dumber ways to uselessly complicate care delivery, and they are almost certain to require 10s of ks of additional government employees to continue this silly attempt at micromanagement. Dealing with this spam is partially what I do for a very nice living, go ahead and argue with me.

 

So, Obamacare does a great job cutting cost....if you take out the top 3? Retarded.

 

Regarding the rest of the world: they suck compared to us. You are acting as if the rest of the world gets the same quality of care we do. That's blatantly false. Get some real #s from HHS on cancer survival. Why do all the wealthy people from the "socialist paradises" you love come here for care? Answer: You get what you pay for. Even you, as a economic neophyte(proved later) should understand that basic tenet.

 

Look, you have proven you don't even know half of what you need to know to have a reasonable opinion on Obamacare. As I said, not all of it is bad, but so much of it is retarded that it needs to be completely overhauled. The "meaningful use" standards(FAIL) are a perfect example of the buffoonery at work here. I can say that because I have learned this material. You have not.

National debt rose under Regan/Bush from .99789 Trillion (Still in billions) to 4.4114 Trillion. It took 200 years to get to 997 Billion, and only a scant 12 years to get to almost 4.5 times that amount. Nice work there Ronnie and George. Regan and his supply side colleagues were the original architects of massive deficit spending. Time period cited was 9/30/81 (10/1/81 was when Regan's first budget went in) to 9/30/93 which ended George Bush's last budget. That roughly 3.5 Trillion added to the deficit by the Reagan/Bush years.

 

Clinton's Presidency grew the deficit to 5.565 Trillion (as of 9/30/2001 which ended his last budget). Far less growth in deficits and had this country moving in the right direction with respect to reducing deficit spending. Then came the world record holder, George W Bush. When his last budget ended (9/30/2009), the deficit stood at 11.909 Trillion. Nice work W. The deficit was not only more than doubled in his 8 years, he left the economy in the worst shape it's been in since the Great Depression.

 

Who the keeper of the treasury? Clearly this points out that no party is, yet one stands out head and shoulders above the other. The GOP has won, hands down for making the major raid on the treasury. Another landslide victory for the GOP.

Instance #2 of leaving out facts that don't support your position.

 

I love how your "history" starts with Reagan, as though he wasn't cleaning up after a giant f-tard, Mr. Stagflation: Jimmy Carter. In fact, Jimmy Carter was the LAST TIME WE TRIED THIS KEYNESIAN NONSENSE. Of course Reagan had to spend money on Defense...WE WERE ABOUT TO LOSE THE COLD WAR DUE TO 30 YEARS OF DEMOCRAT CONTROL OF CONGRESS AND A DILETTANTE IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

 

I love how Democrats still live in Carter-Denial. Don't worry all: we are about to see this generation's worst president. Then they can spend the next 20 years pretending Obama '= FAIL.

So where has all the money gone? Tax cuts? Quite a bit. Overspending, yes in may cases. Yet the real (and only) winners are the very rich. In 1973, the top 1% taxpayers, earned 8% of the total national income. By 2006, the same 1% now earned 23% of the total national income. Hummmmmm.

Economic Neophyte Statement 1, Instance #4 of leaving out the facts that don't support your position.

 

Yes, slappy, because we are no longer taxing 91% of income after the first 400k. So, by definition, they are going to make more money. We no longer have a capital gains tax of 40%, that wasn't adjusted for the Carter inflation of the day, that made it near 100%.

 

What you are proving here? Something we already knew: the Democrats of the 70's were idiots, and they almost destroyed this country. What else? Reagan's supply side measures were extreme, but they were the only way to clean up the mess left by Carter and the rest of the Retards.

 

Supply side has always worked, long term. Keynesian has always failed, long term. None of this changes the fact that SSI needs to be reformed, Medicaid has been bastardized, and Medicare = EPIC FAIL. Assuming Obamacare is repealed, these three programs constitute problem #1 for the deficit. If we don't reform them, then this entire argument is a waste of time.

By contrast, using the same time period, the average worker in the U.S. made Approximately $746.oo per week as measured in today's dollars. Yet by 2007, the average worker was earning $612.00 as measured in today's dollars. When a pie only contains 100%, and one group, no matter how small of a percentage of the population they are, increases their take from 8% of the pie to 23% of the pie, someone has to suffer, in which the suffering is borne by the middle class and the poor. A prime example is the growth is CEO salaries. In 1973, they averaged approximately 45 times their average worker. By 2006,

it runs 500 to 600 times, with some much higher. Again not since just before the Great Depression has the disparity been this great (Paul Leopold - Looting of America, and others). [also see - science of CEO salariesand google them yourselves. You should be shocked. These same CEOs may be the top guns, but they are still only employees.

And they wonder why I call them morons. Economic Neophyte Statement 2

 

The economy is not a 0 sum game, but you tools keep propagating this myth so that you can invoke these tired(as in Jimmy Carter tired), old, class warfare mantras. When I started my company I didn't take anything away from anybody else. Hell, the best of my knowledge I don't have any serious competitors...so, exactly whose "pie" am I taking? Answer: nobody's! There is no law of "Conservation of Pie" here. If I am not taking any pie...then I must be creating pie. If pie can be created, then your argument is retarded.

 

Our economic realities are not the same as in 1973. We live in a global economy and, that leaves your "pie" argument no place to hide. The wage "problem" has nothing to do with losing pie. Rather, it has everything to do with the emergence of 3rd world economies. Auto workers in Detroit, who make 70k a year are facing strong competition from autoworkers who make 70k every 10 years, if they are lucky, in the 3rd world. There is no evil conspiracy here...just basic economics, which you clearly don't know, running it's course.

 

Leopold is an idiot. So is Kirkpatrick. These are specious arguments at best. Purposeful distortions more likely. The CEO job has changed drastically since 1973. The typical union job has not. CEOs have to do 5x more now than they did back in the day, and, with the consolidation of corporations and globalization, the average CEO burns out in 4 years. The average union employee expects to collect a pension for 40 years. Who are we supposed to be pissed at again? This is about stockholders, and what they are willing to pay. If you don't like what a CEO is getting paid, and you don't own stock in his/her company? This doesn't concern you. You don't get to complain if you don't even play the game.

 

More people own stock(50% of the country), thus participate directly in Capitalism, than ever in the history of this country. I guarantee you they don't want some half-ass running the companies they invest in. Again, you get what you pay for.

The current GOP wishes to do nothing more than to not only continue this recipe for disaster, they wish to strengthen it. When the financial institutions and GOP policies led us to the brink, guys like John Boehner (OH) and Mitch McConnell (KY), the GOP leaders of the House and Senate, felt the watered down banking reform passed was far too strong.

Not if they don't want the TEA party all over them they won't. Again you are misinformed.

 

The Republicans didn't act like Republicans for the last 10 years. I agree that if they go back to what they were doing in 2000-2006 we will be in trouble. I guarantee you this will not happen. The TEA party isn't going to go away, and Boehner, etc. have been put on notice. If they don't deliver as fiscal conservatives, they won't get past their primaries, never mind worrying about the general election.

Both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate especially, are rich. Who do you believe a bit more. The one who clearly is fighting to make their take greater (more Tax cuts for them, the rich), or those who are also rich, but feel the rich (themselves included) should pay more in taxes with some additional relief given to the middle class above what Bush added to appease the masses when his Bonanza was passed for the Rich in 2001? No rocket science here. Even Warren Buffet, a some what wealthy man himself, has called for higher taxes on the rich, with possible additional relied for the middle class. Why is that? Does he not understand Capitalism? Or is it that maybe his conscience tells him to do the right thing? I'll take the word of Warren Buffett over any Politicians, any day of the week, with respect to the economy.

Warren Buffet is playing CYA for supporting an obvious EPIC FAIL in Obama. He is simply trying to protect his brand(Buffett '= FAIL). He knows damn well that he needs to play damage control game for the next year, followed by quietly giving money to both sides in 2012. Every business person knows that taking away investment capital in a recession is retarded. Buffett knows this too, but, continuing the Obama nonsense costs him nothing right now. He paid his money, he gets to play his song, for now. Ultimately, you can't treat Buffett's business opinions the same as his political opinions. They aren't based on the same premises.

 

We want people to invest in the economy, yesterday. They aren't going to take risks if you take away their rewards. This is the most basic of financial and economic concepts, proving once and for all that you don't know this material. You are an economic neophyte that gets their "info" from f'ing blogs and hacks who have never worked in or run a business, and one(1) real business guy who is playing you. None of these thoughts are yours, you are just copy/pasting.

As for conservative values, and while not in any way criticizing alternatives, I believe in Marriage between a man and women. I don't believe in abortion or divorce in most cases. For every dollar spent, I like to see a dollars value received. I don't believe in massive deficits. Fairly conservative values for the most part, yet the Conservative party has been so intent on their power, privilege, and their love of the rich while having nothing but disdain for the middle class and poor that they long ago proved themselves unworthy of serving the American people. In 1993-94 when the GOP contract with America was formulated, it contained one huge key element that led me to generally support much of it. Term Limits. Then, the GOP showed that they only wanted term limits until they came to power, then zippo on that issue going forward. Lie, sure it was, an outright lie if there ever was one, and they continue tho lie to the the American people today. Couple that with their looting of America, and they shown themselves to be in league with the Anti-Christ. Lie, deceive, cheat.....nice.

I don't care about any of this. Social issues are a waste of time, and the government should ignore all of them. Government should focus on what is written in the Constitution, get that right first, and then move on to other things. I don't like anybody telling anybody else how to live, and, I don't like minorities telling majorities how to think. Ultimately we live in a "majority rules" country, and we live in a "don't give a f" country when the economy is in trouble.

 

Term limits is fine by me. The rest of what you wrote is pure BS. For every Republican you can find that is corrupt, I can find at least one Democrat, so spare me the moral superiority argument.

 

These Democrats have proven that they don't know how to govern, and that they don't even know the basics. Show me some new Democrats that have real business experience, and aren't trying to play Communist by redistributing wealth instead of solving problems, and I will listen to what they have to say. Right now though? These Democrats = The Party of No Clue.

Edited October 13, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[Magox]

What we do know is that premiums will rise more so than if there was no bill.

 

That the bill didn't bend the cost curve the way they promised (actually it did to the upside)

 

Some people will have to change their doctors despite what the president says (we are already seeing it).

 

Some small businesses will have to drop coverage for their employees.

 

This will certainly add to the deficit in a huge way.

 

This will create an even larger shortage of Primary Care physicians.

 

Doctors will have to give less time to their patients (rationing care), more so for lower to middle income earning individuals.

 

Pharma drugs will be more expensive due to the taxes imposed on the pharmaceutical companies which of course will get passed down to consumers.

 

Medical device equipment will be more expensive due to taxes which once again will be passed down to patients.

 

New Medicare taxes will be imposed to "wealthy" individuals which takes more money out of the system.

 

Many businesses will be hammered because of thin profit margins and won't be able to provide coverage to employees due to mandates forcing them to pay penalties.

 

Many middle class families who are above the threshold will not qualify for government subsidies adding further strain to personal finances due to mandates from the health insurance law.

 

Corporations are writing down huge losses due to health insurance law.

 

Many people who were dropped by their employers will be forced to the governments health insurance law adding more strain to US taxpayers through heavier government subsidies.

 

MEdicaid is already in deep trouble in many states, considering now that they have to foot 50% of the bill along with the government and now they will be taking on millions of more people that they HAVE to insure and when you compound that with State budgets realizing huge budget shortfalls and that they have to by law balance the budget this will come at the expense of either higher taxes, further federal government assistance or further reductions in state spending which leads to more job losses. Or a Combination of the three.

 

Many rural hospitals will suffer as a result of the health care law, (we are beginning to see that).

 

I could go on and on, this is just off the top of my head.

 

Obama Care surely sticks in your craw, yet only God knows for what reason

 

How's that for some REASONS, Spider?

Edited October 13, 2010 by Magox

[Peace]

The #1 cause of health care cost is: trial lawyers. That's right, the people who give the Democratic party most of their campaign money. Now, you think it's a f'ing coincidence that Obamacare has exactly 0 tort reform? Yes, Democrats have really taken the "morally superior" position here... I will give you a pass on this post, but from now on, don't spew your phony moral superiority arguments here.

 

I have observed your way of arguing and you cannot admit when you're wrong but maybe you can see your way to being wrong on this.

 

Annual jury awards and legal settlements involving doctors amounts to “a drop in the bucket” in a country that spends $2.3 trillion annually on health care, Amitabh Chandra, another Harvard University economist, recently told Bloomberg News. Chandra estimated the cost of jury awards at about $12 per person in the U.S., or about $3.6 billion. Insurer WellPoint Inc. has also said that liability awards are not what’s driving premiums.

 

And a 2004 report by the Congressional Budget Office said medical malpractice makes up only 2 percent of U.S. health spending. Even “significant reductions” would do little to curb health-care expenses, it concluded.

 

A study by Bloomberg also found that the proportion of medical malpractice verdicts among the top jury awards in the U.S. declined over the last 20 years. “Of the top 25 awards so far this year, only one was a malpractice case.” Moreover, at least 30 states now cap damages in medical lawsuits.

 

And I support the idea of tort reform. But tort reform won't fix all that much.

[3rdnlng]

I have observed your way of arguing and you cannot admit when you're wrong but maybe you can see your way to being wrong on this.

 

 

 

And I support the idea of tort reform. But tort reform won't fix all that much.

 

Did they include the cost of defensive medicine in their calculations?

[Magox]

I have observed your way of arguing and you cannot admit when you're wrong but maybe you can see your way to being wrong on this.

 

 

 

And I support the idea of tort reform. But tort reform won't fix all that much.

I agree that Tort reform won't solve the problem whatsoever. However, many of those studies either don't factor in or under-rely on the impact of the costs of defensive medicine. I know firsthand that not just from myself but from my father that any time you ask the doctor for a test, even though he didn't recommend it, that they have always just gone along with our requests. I am certain that the impact is greater than some of those studies have shown.

 

A true health law would of actually addressed the issue of healthier living and incentive based programs in achieving this. I for one love the idea of Bloomberg and Patterson not allowing people who use food stamps to buy sugar based soft-drinks.

 

We should tax the hell out of sugar, nicotine and alcohol.

We should tax fast food restaurants.

We should give tax breaks for restaurants that offer strictly low carb, low sugar etc. menus.

We should give tax breaks for organic food products.

We should invest more in healthier living and exercise.

Give tax breaks to companies that offer healthy cafeterias and exercise locations at work.

 

In regards to doctors, there should be ONE CENTRAL DATA BASE where doctors have to place their patients report in it. When patients switch doctors this would save many wasteful tests from being repeated.

 

The idea of focusing on the one's who provide funding for health care is idiotic. How does this address the problem? It doesn't.

 

All one has to do is look at the profit margins and realize that health insurers aren't to blame for rising costs. Rising costs have to do with well, HEALTH CARE.

[Peace]

Did they include the cost of defensive medicine in their calculations?

 

It's discussed in the article here:

 

http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs

 

A perfect analysis? Not at all. But tort reform is not likely to change as much about spiraliing costs of healthcare as people would like to think. It's an easy target to demonize med-mal vipers but they are just one of the factors driving up the cost and it doesnt' look like they are anywhere near the biggest.

 

To cherry pick your last post, I agree with building more incentives into healthcare to reward or give incentives to healthy living. Right now, I get a pittance from Blue Cross for going to the gym ($150 per year for 120 health club visits). That's pretty crappy.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Peace

[3rdnlng]

It's discussed in the article here:

 

http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs

 

A perfect analysis? Not at all. But tort reform is not likely to change as much about spiraliing costs of healthcare as people would like to think. It's an easy target to demonize med-mal vipers but they are just one of the factors driving up the cost and it doesnt' look like they are anywhere near the biggest.

 

To cherry pick your last post, I agree with building more incentives into healthcare to reward or give incentives to healthy living. Right now, I get a pittance from Blue Cross for going to the gym ($150 per year for 120 health club visits). That's pretty crappy.

 

Don't confuse my posts with Magox's (not that I generally would have a problem with that). The article you linked to didn't really say much about defensive medicine. Just that some Harvard person disagreed with Charles Krauthammer.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Obama Care surely sticks in your craw, yet only God knows for what reason. If there's an issue with Obama Health Care Reform, it's that it simply didn't go anywhere near far enough. We have the most expensive health care system in the world, per capita, by more than double the next closest Country (Canada) and that's not a problem? Great Britain, Germany, Japan, and France all have even lower costs per capita than Canada (from AARP sourcing the World Health Organization data). 19 of the top 20 Countries (size of economy) all have nationalized health care, yet the U.S. had none at all until the recent reform was passed and even then, we less than half-stepped it. With overall inflation that has actually reached negative levels in the past two years at times, we still have the never ending double digit increases in Health Care costs. We don't even have a decent record with respect to preventable deaths, or infant mortality rates in this country. We're again way down the list. (again, World Health Organization data).

 

The system is dependent on employers providing basic coverage (or more) and we have small firms increasingly dropping it, and big Corporations cutting benefits and raising employee contributions, and this is not a problem? We have an employer based system, in which employers do not have to play. Yet some wish to defend the system at all cost? This is insane, for anyone that remotely is or was in the "middle class" of the U.S.

 

National debt rose under Regan/Bush from .99789 Trillion (Still in billions) to 4.4114 Trillion. It took 200 years to get to 997 Billion, and only a scant 12 years to get to almost 4.5 times that amount. Nice work there Ronnie and George. Regan and his supply side colleagues were the original architects of massive deficit spending. Time period cited was 9/30/81 (10/1/81 was when Regan's first budget went in) to 9/30/93 which ended George Bush's last budget. That roughly 3.5 Trillion added to the deficit by the Reagan/Bush years.

 

Clinton's Presidency grew the deficit to 5.565 Trillion (as of 9/30/2001 which ended his last budget). Far less growth in deficits and had this country moving in the right direction with respect to reducing deficit spending. Then came the world record holder, George W Bush. When his last budget ended (9/30/2009), the deficit stood at 11.909 Trillion. Nice work W. The deficit was not only more than doubled in his 8 years, he left the economy in the worst shape it's been in since the Great Depression.

 

Who the keeper of the treasury? Clearly this points out that no party is, yet one stands out head and shoulders above the other. The GOP has won, hands down for making the major raid on the treasury. Another landslide victory for the GOP.

 

So where has all the money gone? Tax cuts? Quite a bit. Overspending, yes in may cases. Yet the real (and only) winners are the very rich. In 1973, the top 1% taxpayers, earned 8% of the total national income. By 2006, the same 1% now earned 23% of the total national income. Hummmmmm.

 

By contrast, using the same time period, the average worker in the U.S. made Approximately $746.oo per week as measured in today's dollars. Yet by 2007, the average worker was earning $612.00 as measured in today's dollars. When a pie only contains 100%, and one group, no matter how small of a percentage of the population they are, increases their take from 8% of the pie to 23% of the pie, someone has to suffer, in which the suffering is borne by the middle class and the poor. A prime example is the growth is CEO salaries. In 1973, they averaged approximately 45 times their average worker. By 2006,

it runs 500 to 600 times, with some much higher. Again not since just before the Great Depression has the disparity been this great (Paul Leopold - Looting of America, and others). [also see - science of CEO salariesand google them yourselves. You should be shocked. These same CEOs may be the top guns, but they are still only employees.

 

The current GOP wishes to do nothing more than to not only continue this recipe for disaster, they wish to strengthen it. When the financial institutions and GOP policies led us to the brink, guys like John Boehner (OH) and Mitch McConnell (KY), the GOP leaders of the House and Senate, felt the watered down banking reform passed was far too strong.

 

Both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate especially, are rich. Who do you believe a bit more. The one who clearly is fighting to make their take greater (more Tax cuts for them, the rich), or those who are also rich, but feel the rich (themselves included) should pay more in taxes with some additional relief given to the middle class above what Bush added to appease the masses when his Bonanza was passed for the Rich in 2001? No rocket science here. Even Warren Buffet, a some what wealthy man himself, has called for higher taxes on the rich, with possible additional relied for the middle class. Why is that? Does he not understand Capitalism? Or is it that maybe his conscience tells him to do the right thing? I'll take the word of Warren Buffett over any Politicians, any day of the week, with respect to the economy.

 

As for conservative values, and while not in any way criticizing alternatives, I believe in Marriage between a man and women. I don't believe in abortion or divorce in most cases. For every dollar spent, I like to see a dollars value received. I don't believe in massive deficits. Fairly conservative values for the most part, yet the Conservative party has been so intent on their power, privilege, and their love of the rich while having nothing but disdain for the middle class and poor that they long ago proved themselves unworthy of serving the American people. In 1993-94 when the GOP contract with America was formulated, it contained one huge key element that led me to generally support much of it. Term Limits. Then, the GOP showed that they only wanted term limits until they came to power, then zippo on that issue going forward. Lie, sure it was, an outright lie if there ever was one, and they continue tho lie to the the American people today. Couple that with their looting of America, and they shown themselves to be in league with the Anti-Christ. Lie, deceive, cheat.....nice.

 

Nice novella. I, for one, am against Obamacare because it's a $1000000000000 program that doesn't DO ANYTHING THAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO.

[KD in CA]

....For you to call it "successful"?

1. Provide a roadblock to anything else this idiot in the WH tries to do.

2. Don't raise my taxes

 

Anything useful beyond that is gravy.

 

 

National debt ...blah, blah, blah

Any particular reason why your analysis stopped with GWB? I was under the impression that we were two years into another Administration.

 

So where has all the money gone? Tax cuts? Quite a bit. Overspending, yes in may cases. Yet the real (and only) winners are the very rich. In 1973, the top 1% taxpayers, earned 8% of the total national income. By 2006, the same 1% now earned 23% of the total national income. Hummmmmm.

I think you need to revisit the definition of the word "earned". The government is in debt because the taxpayers have earned more money in the private sector? That makes no sense. Where the money has gone is government overspending, which (like all liberals) you conveniently gloss over. Why don't you compare the # and compensation of federal and state government employees over the decades and tell us what you find? How about examining why health care has tripled as a % of GNP? I notice that the "Obamacare didn't go far enough" crowd doesn't seem to address the fact that we have classified every conceivable malady as a "disease" to be covered under Medicare and then allowed the marketing of an endless supply of drugs to an ignorant public. All in exchange for the money that has made every member of Congress filthy rich. But yeah, it's just the evil Republicans.

 

And then there's the cost of defense/foreign policy/war spending which of course is endless and needs to be reviewed.

 

These same CEOs may be the top guns, but they are still only employees.

This ridiculous straw-man rears its ugly head again by the usual agenda driven people trying to sell an analysis on CEO comp by using a sample size of 500 people (and conveniently enough, those from the 500 largest, most complex companies) out of tens of thousands of CEOs in the US. The CEO at my company makes 2.5 times the average employee.

[OCinBuffalo]

It's discussed in the article here:

 

http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs

 

A perfect analysis? Not at all. But tort reform is not likely to change as much about spiraliing costs of healthcare as people would like to think. It's an easy target to demonize med-mal vipers but they are just one of the factors driving up the cost and it doesnt' look like they are anywhere near the biggest.

 

To cherry pick your last post, I agree with building more incentives into healthcare to reward or give incentives to healthy living. Right now, I get a pittance from Blue Cross for going to the gym ($150 per year for 120 health club visits). That's pretty crappy.

So, I'm not wrong am I? Trial Lawyers are the main root cause of defensive medicine. The lesser root cause? The government surveyors. Defensive medicine has secondary and tertiary associated costs that would take 4 pages to fully list, and another 10 to define how we get rid of them. We have this document. It's part of what we send to clients

 

I have the data and the experience. You have: "it doesn't look like they are the biggest" - is that supposed to be empirical evidence? I KNOW this stuff because I see it right in front of me, not what I think it "looks like". Defensive medicine, including all its effects, dependencies, etc., is accounting for 40-50% of the tasks where we find wasted $$$. You have: something you read from somebody who doesn't know a thing about how my job works. Look, it's not your fault. There are so many political trolls and amateurs posing as (insert consulting role here) in health care, when it comes to objectively discussing it's business processes, or even knowing how to do that properly, most of what you hear is utter crap. You don't solve business problems with clinical studies = HHS grants to Ph.D turds. You solve them with proven business design patterns.

 

EDIT: Talking about EMRs and Integration(Obama) only solves 20% of this problem, and it's all for crap if the raw data that these systems depend on stinks, because the process of recording it is massively convoluted by government/lawyer/amateur IT buffoonery...which it exactly the case right now. I have no problem with sound regulation in health care. I have every problem with MORE retarded quality assurance systems forcibly implemented by amateurs in health care = Obamacare.

 

I specifically noted that there are MANY cost problems, not one. I see your little backpedal above. That's fine, as long as you understand both that post and this one is about making it simple for people to understand, rather than invoking every gory detail.

 

My very existence makes me right. I wouldn't be doing this if I was wrong, because nobody would f'ing pay us. This is not about "how I argue". This is about: you don't really know much about this issue, went googling for any straw to grasp, and out of the entire thing I wrote, this is all you could find. Apparently this is about: how YOU argue.

Edited October 13, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[Peace]

This "defensive" medicine idea is both a problem and not. I am for reasonable tort reform but the idea of defensive medicine is not 100% bad and wasteful. I don't mind taking a few extra tests to rule out some of the higher probability causes for my visit. That's probably the result of "defensive medicine" but IMO, it's probably also good medicine. The trial lawyers moved doctors off a confident and lazy center so that they try harder to dot all their "i"s now. But of course, the trial attorneys moved things too far: The doctor who's sued because he didn't run the test that 999/1000 doctors also would not have run should not be liable for dick.

 

I specifically noted that there are MANY cost problems, not one. I see your little backpedal above. That's fine, as long as you understand both that post and this one is about making it simple for people to understand, rather than invoking every gory detail.

 

My very existence makes me right. I wouldn't be doing this if I was wrong, because nobody would f'ing pay us. This is not about "how I argue". This is about: you don't really know much about this issue, went googling for any straw to grasp, and out of the entire thing I wrote, this is all you could find. Apparently this is about: how YOU argue.

 

Having a conversation with you is nearly impossible. You seem to possess a brain but don't use it to dialog--you'd rather just scream and yell. You feel the hint of an argument and start flailing around with the club. My post didn't attack or condescend to you in any way and in fact, as I said two times above, I AGREE with you. My point was that you easily make this about trial lawyers when they are merely one contributing factor.

 

And how about another factor being that the majority of Americans treat their bodies like total and complete crap? Could that have anything to do with rising health costs? Didn't see that on your list but that combined with a sense of entitlement that every malady someone feels entitles them to an ER or doctor's visit puts a huge burden on our system.

 

See if you can keep your response in the zip code of civil. It actually might help dialog and make this place just that much better.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Peace

[OCinBuffalo]

This "defensive" medicine idea is both a problem and not. I am for reasonable tort reform but the idea of defensive medicine is not 100% bad and wasteful. I don't mind taking a few extra tests to rule out some of the higher probability causes for my visit. That's probably the result of "defensive medicine" but IMO, it's probably also good medicine. The trial lawyers moved doctors off a confident and lazy center so that they try harder to dot all their "i"s now. But of course, the trial attorneys moved things too far: The doctor who's sued because he didn't run the test that 999/1000 doctors also would not have run should not be liable for dick.

No it is 100% a problem, all day every day, since health care is a 24 hour/365 business, and that's what people who haven't been smelling the fine scent of poop at 3am on a Saturday because they have been observing health care business process for the last 15 years don't understand. Your example doesn't come close to defining this issue. Your understanding of this problem is severely limited. I will try to help.

 

You think the "cost" is limited to a "test" for "you". Wrong. The costs DO NOT end with the cost of the test itself and providers serve 10s fo Ks every year. All these tests cost materials, additional staff if we are always testing everything , additional managers for the additional staff, benefits for all, additional administrative costs for all, requiring additional administrative staff, additional reporting to the government, requiring additional administrative staff, additional management oversight of the reporting activity, hell most providers have dedicated staffs just for this, additional time spent describing the results to the patient, which means less effective time for docs and nurses and finally data overload for Docs/RNs that makes their decision making process take much longer.

 

You are acting like this is no big deal. Wrong. And additional tests only account for 20% of the problem. This, and the fact that the average provider can't manage at a high level because management isn't what they went to school for, coupled with the constant change management challenges, is why the cost of health care keeps rising. This starts with government/lawyer buffoonery, and only ENDS with insurance companies raising rates.

 

You think that we are talking about doing "a few" additional tests. Wrong. In most cases, lawyers will get a nurse to describe every possible protocol that has even a remote chance of being related to the patient, and if the doc didn't order every single one? Negligence. There can be 100s of tests that need to be done to attenuate this. Those 100s of tests only exacerbate the issues I described above.

 

Get it?

Having a conversation with you is nearly impossible. You seem to possess a brain but don't use it to dialog--you'd rather just scream and yell. You feel the hint of an argument and start flailing around with the club. My post didn't attack or condescend to you in any way and in fact, as I said two times above, I AGREE with you. My point was that you easily make this about trial lawyers when they are merely one contributing factor.

No, your point is that you now realize you are dealing with somebody who knows this content cold, and now you are deflecting by trying to talk about the process and communication. Spare me.

 

It's not possible for you to truly agree with me, because you don't know this material. It's like agreeing that the sun will come up tomorrow, but not knowing why. Keep wailing at dawn, medicine man.

And how about another factor being that the majority of Americans treat their bodies like total and complete crap? Could that have anything to do with rising health costs? Didn't see that on your list but that combined with a sense of entitlement that every malady someone feels entitles them to an ER or doctor's visit puts a huge burden on our system.

 

See if you can keep your response in the zip code of civil. It actually might help dialog and make this place just that much better.

Again, I deal with provider business process. I don't deal with who gets to be a customer and why. That is clinical stuff and we intentionally don't do clinical. There are already too many clinical systems out there, and few of them are any good at solving the obvious business problems confronting health care.

 

Sorry, I don't deal with BS very well. Never have. A guy in NYC just introduced me yesterday as "my No BS consultant". It's my job to cut through the crap and start solving the problem immediately. If you want niceties, you are looking in the wrong place, especially on this issue. I am much more amiable on the football board.

[drnykterstein]

OCinBuffalo, this thread is more proof that you do not care about America, you only care about the Republican party.

 

The big mistake that Democrats made, objectively, is trying to force too much change too quickly

Investigate the incompetent Obama...

 

 

 

The #1 cause of health care cost is: trial lawyers

Of the many lies in this thread, this is one of the most ludicrous.

Edited October 13, 2010 by conner

[Magox]

OCinBuffalo, this thread is more proof that you do not care about America, you only care about the Republican party.

There you go again Oprah...

 

Replace the name OC with Conner and Republican with Democratic and you are looking into a mirror.

[OCinBuffalo]

OCinBuffalo, this thread is more proof that you do not care about America, you only care about the Republican party.

 

Of the many lies in this thread, this is one of the most ludicrous.

Is that the best you can do?

 

There you go again Oprah...

 

Replace the name OC with Conner and Republican with Democratic and you are looking into a mirror.

The funny part is: I couldn't care less about the Republican party. I have never worked for them, and have never voted for them. The only people I have worked for are Democrats. The only people I have voted for are Democrats.

 

But, this reality doesn't matter, because I won't put up with environtology, Obamacare, or any other leftist BS, and that means I love Republicans.

Edited October 13, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[drnykterstein]

There you go again Oprah...

 

Replace the name OC with Conner and Republican with Democratic and you are looking into a mirror.

Ok, but !@#$ the Democratic party, they can rot in hell.

[IDBillzFan]

Ok, but !@#$ the Democratic party, they can rot in hell.

So where were we...

 

Oh, that's right. Tell us again why you called that cartoon factually accurate? I keep waiting for a simple answer, and can only assume you're working really hard on putting that together, no?