Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

  1. #1
    Featured Member Laurisa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Doesn't Matter
    Posts
    1,969
    Thanks
    649
    Thanked 1,823 Times in 587 Posts
    My Mood
    Confused

    Default Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    I am a very big fan of Melonie's and Eric Stoner's threads in this part of the forum, and I do link several friends to them when discussing the health care reform bills and other important financial topics. One of the people who I linked to a few of your guys' threads sent me this article after about a week for his rebuttal:

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/211981

    I read through all of it, and some of it seems to be legitimate information, but some of it seems like clever wording--particularly in the sections about Medicaid funding cuts. I'm curious what Melonie and Eric Stoner (and others) have to say to the article.

    - Laurisa
    If you are willing to do for one year what other's won't, you can spend a lifetime doing what other's cant.


  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    I'll start out with an ultra-basic point. The public health care bill is supposed to be deficit neutral right ? The public health care bill is also supposed to bring access to medical care to more Americans ... primarily semi-poor Americans who cannot afford private health insurance premiums but who earn too much to qualify for medicaid. If more semi-poor Americans are using health care services under a national health care plan, and if at the same time the plan is supposed to be deficit neutral, that strongly implies that other Americans must receive less health care services. Specifically, most national health care bills have called for a 15% cut in Medicare spending in order to help fund the insurance premium subsidies to the semi-poor. If spending is cut on existing medical coverage for a certain group ( Grandma and Grandpa in this case ) this strongly implies that they will receive less medical care.

  3. #3
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    A few things to keep in mind :

    1. The Newsweek piece is essentially out of date. Much has happened since it was published. It focuses on the House Bill and admits that the Senate HELP version had not yet been fully released. It says nothing about the Baucus abomination i.e. the Senate Finance Committee version.

    2. It focuses on objections raised by Betsy McCaughey the former one term Lt. Governor of N.Y. To her credit she has actually READ all three versions including all the fine print. She has made some injudicious use of hyperbole ( e.g. "Death Panels") and put some warped spin on a few other provisions. BUT, the thrust of her critique (and others like Dick Morris) is essentially correct. None of the proposed versions work without rationing care and the primary "rationees" will be the elderly.

    3. One person's "telling doctors what to do" is another's analysis of the incentives and DIS-incentives contained in the legislation. There WILL be panels who make actuarily driven cost-benefit analyses of various medical procedures. Doctors who end up in the top ten percent of doing particular procedures WILL have their Medicare reimbursements reduced. That's just ONE of the "cost saving" provisions
    in the Baucus Bill.

    My biggest problem is based on a look at the current state of Medicare. Analysts agree that this supposed "more efficient than private insurers" Government program pays out as much as $200 billion a year in fraudulent care : artificial limbs for patients that still have all four of their own extremities; dialysis for patients whose kidneys are working fine etc. etc. Unlike private insurers who have claims examiners and check the bona fides of medical providers; Medicare catches only 1 to 2 % of the outright fraud. That's according to the H.H.S. oifficial responsible for dealing with Medicare fraud. Who thinks the "Public Option" will do any better ?

    Medicare is already at least $16 Trillion; not billion, TRILLION in the hole. That's how much unfunded liability it has now. And we're going to turn over health insurance for at least another 12 million people to the Federal Government; WHY ? Actually when you add in an estimated 81 million people who will be cut loose by their employers and who will have to resort to the "public option", we're getting close to 100 million additional people who will be getting their health care paid for directly by the Federal Government. Does anyone seriously think that this will not require us to borrow hundreds of billions more from the Chinese ?
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 10-29-2009 at 10:10 AM.

  4. #4
    Featured Member Laurisa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Doesn't Matter
    Posts
    1,969
    Thanks
    649
    Thanked 1,823 Times in 587 Posts
    My Mood
    Confused

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    Thanks you guys! I'll be sure to link him to what you said and hear his side of it. I'll definitely say that I believe that healthcare reform is going to be a big failure like most other government operations. I don't think that the greater population will be satisfied with the result of the healthcare reform.
    If you are willing to do for one year what other's won't, you can spend a lifetime doing what other's cant.


  5. #5
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    ^^^ some will be satisfied while some will not - as explained below ...

    (snip)The dedicated ideologues somehow believe in the pie-in-the-sky promises of socialist theory and refuse to see or admit the horrors -- personal, moral, and fiscal -- of statist medicine as practiced in Britain and Canada. However, one might ask why any ordinary citizen in his right mind would prefer a ruinous overhaul of the world's best medical care to erect a system that raises costs and delivers inferior service at tremendous inconvenience to the populace at large.

    The answer may be found by posing the ancient question: cui bono? That is, "who benefits?" A recent article in The Washington Post tells us:

    According to the most recent IRS statistics, about 45 million households -- a third of all filers -- owed no federal income tax after taking their credits and deductions in 2006. This year, with the profusion of new credits in the stimulus package, about 65 million households -- or 43 percent of all filers -- are likely to owe no income taxes, according to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

    And this shocking figure (estimates range from 40-43%) -- nearly half the population, who pay no income taxes at all, and in some cases receive federal hand-out payments (euphemistically known as "refundable tax credits") -- is also reported by such credible sources as FactCheck.org, CBSNews, and many others who are not of a particularly conservative or anti-Obama bent.

    It takes no great leap of faith to understand that people who don't pay taxes in the first place welcome the prospect of increasing the burden on those who do -- especially if the "taking" classes correctly expect to be the beneficiaries.

    So, too, those whose "poverty level" exempts them from taxes correctly see the mediocre care under a nationalized health system as better than the longer waits and ER dependency they now experience, especially if someone else is paying the freight. What the average American may regard as inferior care and service is seen as an improvement by those who live at least partly off government redistribution programs.

    This constituency cares not a whit for the increased costs to taxpayers and future generations of taxpayers; they don't pay taxes, so it's not their problem. Nor do they care about the prospect of reduced overall care quality and availability; they see it as an improvement on what they experience now. Most of all, they have no fear of the vastly increased power a socialized medicine program would give the bureaucracy through control of a major portion of the American economy. They see the government as the main source of sustenance and problem-solving in their own lives -- so the bigger, the better.

    As our society's voting "have-nots" continue to increase in proportion to the productive "haves" -- even despite the protections, some of which are routinely ignored, in the constitutional limits of our government -- the non-productive classes will inevitably vote themselves an ever-increasing share of the fruit of the productive classes' labor. This precarious situation may devolve, as it has in other societies, into an egalitarian mediocrity or a tyrannical dictatorship...or Atlas may simply shrug"(snip)

    from


    and others will be satisfied as well ... for entirely different reasons ...

    (snip)"The specifics of the healthcare legislation are still being hashed out on Capitol Hill, and key details will evolve in the days ahead. Even so, there is broad agreement that the final plan will, for the first time, require Americans to buy health coverage, with taxpayer subsidies for millions who cannot afford it.

    For the health insurance industry, that means millions of new paying customers. What's more, there are likely to be no limits on what insurers can charge, while at the same time the plan is expected to limit competition from any new national government insurance plan that lawmakers create.

    These anticipated wins -- from an initiative that has at times been portrayed as doomsday for health insurers -- is the result of a strategy developed by one of Washington's savviest lobbyists, Karen Ignagni. Under Ignagni's leadership, the industry group America's Health Insurance Plans adopted the goal of universal coverage while setting out to shape it in a way that benefited insurers -- a crucial move that aligned their interests with those of other groups, including consumers and hospitals.

    Insurers poured campaign donations into the coffers of key sympathetic members of the House and Senate, and loaded up on lobbyists. "(snip)

    from


    And if you'd like a full analysis of the economics of national health care, check out this treatise by Dr. Thomas Sowell ...

    for part 1

    for part 2

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 10-29-2009 at 02:43 PM.

  6. #6
    Featured Member Laurisa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Doesn't Matter
    Posts
    1,969
    Thanks
    649
    Thanked 1,823 Times in 587 Posts
    My Mood
    Confused

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    This is a very interesting paragraph I got out of the second link:

    (snip)Medical treatment in the United States has significantly higher costs per capita than in other countries, when costs are defined to exclude such things as lost pay and other uncounted costs of long waiting times for treatment — notably pain, debilitation and death while waiting. A will always appear more efficient than B if enough of the costs of A are left out.(snip)

    (snip)Official statistics do not capture these illegal financial costs, much less the even more important human costs of hasty diagnosis and treatments in abbreviated visits to doctors' offices and the long time on waiting lists before even reaching a medical facility. Thus, in terms of publicly visible costs and benefits, a price-controlled medical system may be a political success.(snip)

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=510590

    I believe that sums up a big flaw in the Dem's National Healthcare Bill.
    If you are willing to do for one year what other's won't, you can spend a lifetime doing what other's cant.


  7. #7
    Featured Member Laurisa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Doesn't Matter
    Posts
    1,969
    Thanks
    649
    Thanked 1,823 Times in 587 Posts
    My Mood
    Confused

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    Obama is currently proposing $500 million in Medicare budget cuts to help fund the National Healthcare Bill. If the government does pay an estimated $200 billion annually in fraudulent Medicare claims, he's only planning on reducing 25% of the funding towards what they already pay in fraudulent care.

    Explain how that will hurt anyone's Grandma, Grandpa, or sick relative? That is the only flaw I see with the proponents against Medicare cuts. They aren't taking into consideration what the purpose of the $500 million in Medicare cuts is for--it will aim to reduce spending on fraudulent claims, and will provide more money for other parts of the National Healthcare Bill. Upon further examination, I actually agree with the Medicare budget cuts.
    If you are willing to do for one year what other's won't, you can spend a lifetime doing what other's cant.


  8. #8
    God/dess Golden_Rule's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    The last garden in the Garden State
    Posts
    2,480
    Thanks
    229
    Thanked 372 Times in 215 Posts
    My Mood
    Cool

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    The problem is there are two sides to this story and everyone seems to only want to report one side of it. No one that I have been witness to wants to delve into it from both sides and present a focused analysis of the issues. I'm going to give it a try.

    1) The best medical care in the world.

    Conservative: Treatment of the critically ill here is more thorough and produces the best clinical results of any place in the world. You have the best chance of surviving cancer, for example, in the US than any where else in the world.

    Liberal: That is true, if you can afford it. Medical treatment at that level is parsed on ability to pay. Treatment for serious disorders and major illness is incredibly expensive in this country and those without limitless resources or very good medical insurance are given bandaids and left to die. [This also goes to the liberal response about health care rationing, as they would argue health care is already rationed by ability to pay]

    1) Medical treatment costs to much in this country and its getting worse.

    Anyone with any sense can use comparative analysis and realize that a country who has 1/6th of its GNP committed to medical care is spending too much on health care. The vast majority of both liberals and conservatives acknowledge this so lets talk about where they diverge on the subject.


    Conservative: The way to address health care costs is by reducing expenditures in from medical malpractice court findings, updating records keeping to reduce unnecessary duplication of efforts [most notably testing]. Pooling insurance purchasers into groups to increase buying power and allowing companies to sell across state lines and deregulation is the best way to improve cost cutting on medical insurance premiums.

    They state that a national health insurance option will do the exact opposite of creating competition but cause massive opt outs from private insurance into the national health plan, which would become a cartel in its own right but one that sets pricing below actual medical costs. This would result in poorer care and the rationing of medical procedures, especially ones of higher cost.

    Liberal: The medical insurance companies benefit from an outmoded, if it ever had a reason for existence in the first place, exemption from the anti-trust acts. This has allowed cartels to establish fixed pricing in most regions and therefore true competition doesn't exist. They believe, in such an environment, regionalized purchasing pools won't have much impact and only direct competition in the form of a non-profit entity - in this case government medical insurance - will be sufficent to cause the cartels to move on price structure.

    3) Rationing of medical services.

    Conservative: Argue that a nationalized health insurance can and will lead to medical care rationing and point to Canada primarily as an example of everything that is wrong in this regard with socialized medicine. They correctly report that well to do Canadians purchase US health care insurance or pay cash to be treated for medical problems in the US that are subject to long waiting lists in Canada.

    Liberals: As stated above point out, also correctly, that health care rationing already exists in the US but its based on ability to pay rather than waiting lists for services.

    ======================

    This writer's opinion:

    That neither side holds the answer exclusively. That while this country does have the ultimate best medical care for those who are well insured or can afford it the nature of the system has become so corrupted by special interest influence and corporate greed that it no longer works "for the little guy". In fact that expenditures are raising so far ahead of inflation that it won't work forever for the big guys either if it keeps up at its current rate.

    The proper response, I believe, is one that mixes elements of the two sides of the controversy in a balanced approach to the problem.

    Tort reform. Digital record keeping. Combined field treatment that allows the same testing to be used for all the specialists instead of each repeating the same blood work and scannings for their own needs. Keeping the insurance mostly employer based and private.

    Repeal of the anti-trust exemption and a trigger based public option that comes automatically into play regionally based on performance measurements of the private insurance companies. If the companies reach their performance goals in keeping costs down the public option never comes into play. This first promotes competition, the second gives the insurance companies cause to work hard to keep costs down.

    On other related issues:

    Public monies should be used to promote US citizens to desire entry into the medical fields. We don't turn out enough doctors in this country of late and it is impacting costs. Philanthropy should also play a bigger role in the form of scholarships, etc. Medical physilities that have moved from the away from the medicine first, profit second, model to profit first and foremost need to be addressed.

    When a hospital in Dallas is contacted by another to ask about its cancer treatments because it has produced exceptional numbers and the staff at the hospital asking wants to better treat its patients, but the response from administration from the hospital being asked is, "We can't provide that information because it gives us a competitive edge in our field so we consider the information to be proprietary.", something has gone drastically wrong in the medical field. Too many business people making medical decisions would be my guess. Turn those decisions back over to the doctors.

    Reform lobbying laws that have allowed industries like the insurance companies, especially in smaller states where they become one of the few games in town with the kind of money necessary to run a statewide election campaign, from being literally able to purchase congress people and senators as well as state legislatures.

    To go into greater detail, the esoterica, would take pages but this is the basis of what I think would be a good start to health care reform.
    Fiat justitia, pereat mundus.


    BTW, while we are on the subject, is it needed to point out the obvious: That it is just possible that if you are willing to judge the worth of someone simply by what you read on a website about them it might say a whole hell of a lot more about you than it says about the person you are judging?

  9. #9
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    Employer based health insurance grew out of FDR's idiocy during W.W. II. Because employers were limited in what wages they could pay thanks to wage and price controls they used fringe benefits to attract workers. The two biggies were day care and health care. The pioneer in both was the shipbuilder Kaiser.

    Wouldn't it be better to let everyone buy their own health insurance ? For the most part people buy their own car insurance ? Safe drivers who never get into accidents have to buy it. Arguably, healthy people ought to buy health insurance just in case they get sick and to help cover the less healthy. But why can't they shop around just as they do for life, auto and homeowner's policies ? Why can't health insurers sell across state lines ? The current system is reminiscent of the Mob's garbage cartels. Businesses had to use the garbage company that was granted their area and pay the rates set. When Giuliani as Mayor of N.Y.C. and the Feds busted up the cartels, businesses could shop around for the best deal and prices DROPPED. The same would happen with health insurers.

  10. #10
    Featured Member Laurisa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Doesn't Matter
    Posts
    1,969
    Thanks
    649
    Thanked 1,823 Times in 587 Posts
    My Mood
    Confused

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    The idea of America (per the United States' Constitution) is that if you work hard then you CAN do good for yourself and your family. This includes providing yourself and your family with adequate private health insurance. (I say private because that's how it's always been, we've never had a public option).

    ^^The part of this that is untrue is the entire thing. In this country things have changed because of the introduction of new technologies, and a demand for a 'modern' world. Fewer and fewer jobs that people can survive on (and I do not consider paying your utility bill with a credit card surviving) without a college degree. The American way used to be that you would go work for Ford, get married, and pop out three great kids. That dream has shattered.

    The new generation is demanding immediate self gratification. They don't want to have to wait for anything. (Hence 4G wireless speeds, overnight shipping, express passes at theme parks). Americans are willing to pay 2 and 3 times more for a product simply because it is faster and satisfies them immediately. (i.e. you can buy a cell phone for $100 that runs at 3G speeds, but for $300 you can buy the same cell phone and have it equipped with 4G technology). This is not a new concept... have you ever heard of a baby? They are selfish, demanding individuals that do not care about others so long as they are happy. That is what our country has become, a bunch of figurative babies. We have age regressed in the worst way--as an entire country! We look for ways to end our own children's crying faster (which can represent American demand for immediate gratification) by creating bottle and wipe warmers, electronic bouncy seats, and disposable diapers. There is less thought, less work, and less time involved in caring for infants [Americans].

    This concept can be applied to the federal government in it's entirety. The feds are spending less time thinking their ideas through, taking shortcuts, and trying to create immediate results to satisfy these screaming Americans. What does that create? Horrible ideas, overspending, and poor long-term results. (Cash for Clunkers, stimulus package, bailout). Americans are complaining about healthcare, but what most don't remember is that the people who are "important" enough to have their complaints aired on the mainstream media's radar are the middle and upper class citizens! "We don't like the long waits at doctor's offices, our doctor doesn't spend enough time with us" etc, etc. The feds are reacting to these complaints and are now focusing on the faults that affect the "helpless, poor, and sick".

    However, because Americans are screaming for answers--another hasty government decision will be made with billions of dollars worth of consequences and interest sure to plague several future generations.
    If you are willing to do for one year what other's won't, you can spend a lifetime doing what other's cant.


  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    This concept can be applied to the federal government in it's entirety. The feds are spending less time thinking their ideas through, taking shortcuts, and trying to create immediate results to satisfy these screaming Americans. What does that create?
    It creates campaign contributions and successful re-election !

    And it's not just gov't it's also virtually every publicly held corporate board room ... who are now judged on performance over a time frame of 1-2 quarters and whose idea of a palatable 'long term' investment is a 3 year 'payback'.


    but what most don't remember is that the people who are "important" enough to have their complaints aired on the mainstream media's radar are the middle and upper class citizens!
    unfortunately, this ISN'T true. Yes the upper class position gets mainstream media air time, but it's usually accomplished by 'stealth'. And the working class / 'poor' position gets mainstream media air time as well, but via the filter of advocacy groups whose leaders are arguably upper class ( and whose advocated positions usually benefit both the rich and the poor once the details are examined ). But the middle class tends to get very little mainstream media air time, since they don't wield the levers of power like the upper class and they don't have many advocacy groups like the 'poor' do.

  12. #12
    Featured Member Laurisa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Doesn't Matter
    Posts
    1,969
    Thanks
    649
    Thanked 1,823 Times in 587 Posts
    My Mood
    Confused

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    unfortunately, this ISN'T true. Yes the upper class position gets mainstream media air time, but it's usually accomplished by 'stealth'. And the working class / 'poor' position gets mainstream media air time as well, but via the filter of advocacy groups whose leaders are arguably upper class ( and whose advocated positions usually benefit both the rich and the poor once the details are examined ). But the middle class tends to get very little mainstream media air time, since they don't wield the levers of power like the upper class and they don't have many advocacy groups like the 'poor' do.
    I see your point and retract my statement. I went back and added the middle class to that sentence after I had finished typing, and I guess my first statement would have served me better.
    If you are willing to do for one year what other's won't, you can spend a lifetime doing what other's cant.


  13. #13
    Featured Member Laurisa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Doesn't Matter
    Posts
    1,969
    Thanks
    649
    Thanked 1,823 Times in 587 Posts
    My Mood
    Confused

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    It creates campaign contributions and successful re-election !

    And it's not just gov't it's also virtually every publicly held corporate board room ... who are now judged on performance over a time frame of 1-2 quarters and whose idea of a palatable 'long term' investment is a 3 year 'payback'.
    Campaign contributions and re-election do NOT help the average American, they help a single politician and a handful of their wealthy supporters get their bills passed.

    I see people scrutinize over a slight change in quarterly revenue, which really is a poor representation of the long term as you stated. You need to look at economic trends in the country compared to that individual company to make an assortment of decisions about their successes or failures.

    My idea of a long term investment is a thirty or forty year 'payback'. Decades make significant change, not years.
    If you are willing to do for one year what other's won't, you can spend a lifetime doing what other's cant.


  14. #14
    God/dess Golden_Rule's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    The last garden in the Garden State
    Posts
    2,480
    Thanks
    229
    Thanked 372 Times in 215 Posts
    My Mood
    Cool

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Wouldn't it be better to let everyone buy their own health insurance ?
    Totally depends on how it was done.

    Employer paid for health insurance is a form of remuneration for work product. If it was removed without adding sufficient monetary compensation to replace it in collective bargaining agreements it would greatly impact a huge portion of the middle-class and decimate the average blue collar worker.

    For the most part people buy their own car insurance ?
    Auto insurance isn't part of the collective bargaining agreements of many workers and their employers. Health insurance is. You can't just remove it. It is the equivalent of a massive cut in pay.
    Last edited by Golden_Rule; 10-30-2009 at 10:59 PM.
    Fiat justitia, pereat mundus.


    BTW, while we are on the subject, is it needed to point out the obvious: That it is just possible that if you are willing to judge the worth of someone simply by what you read on a website about them it might say a whole hell of a lot more about you than it says about the person you are judging?

  15. #15
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    A good portion of the underinsured and uninsured thing is related to the pricing on health insurance policies. I am not an actuary, but I understand a few things about the pricing that I think are just wrong. Start out knowing that individual policies cost way more than each of the group policies.

    First thing is risk. Everyone has some risk of needing medical services. Some have greater risk due to exposure (voluntary and involuntary), genetics, and eventually age. We choose largely to proice policies ignoring that significant risk structure. Ignoring that risk structure the next thing we do is to base potential cost (experience they call it) on a group model -- the smaller the group, the less the risk per individual (because some people just seem to stay healthy). But that is a false model because if we arbitrarily mix and match people into various size groups the totality of costs will be the same per person. Example take 1000 groups of 100 people versus 1 group of 100,000 people; the total cost will be the same, including the indvidual policy administration cost. The difference in the two sets of groups is that the large single groups will have fewer liaison people in the policy administration but the same number of people handling the claims. So that concept is IMHO just wrong.

    Second thing is numbers. Extending that down to individual policies, where the contract administration costs are much higher in the way they are done now, if 100,000 random people with individual insurance policies were costed out, the total cost of payouts would be the same as for the two sets of groups discussed above. (Surely there are ways to greatly cut down on the cost of administering individual policies. For one idea just make the various individual policies into a group policy and better automate the the interaction processes.) Here is another difference: if those people had not previously had healthcare policies, the tendency is for them to have more severe health problems which were not taken care of because of our system of cost rationing. It is very important to note that if everyone had healthcare insurance, in time this would become a negligible factor.

    So those are the significant things I believe everyone should realize. Only God, your insurance company, and I seem to know the real story. God doesn't say much at all. Your insurance company won't tell you. But I just did.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  16. #16
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post

    And if you'd like a full analysis of the economics of national health care, check out this treatise by Dr. Thomas Sowell ...

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=510506 for part 1

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=510590 for part 2

    ~
    I hardly consider a right-wing ideologue such as Thomas Sowell to be an object source. From what I remember he's not the most honest person. The purpose of his articles are more to promote a right-wing view rather than objectively look at the issue.

    Here is an article that does comparative studies between different health care systems around the world. In a number of areas, the U.S. does very poorly.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/op...in&oref=slogin

  17. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    ^^^ ah yes but the left-wing NY Times is an acceptable objective source Where Dr. Sowell is not ?

    As discussed many times in the past, the facts and principles aren't necessarily false just because a non-objective source publishes and discusses them.

  18. #18
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    The New York Times article is based on the results of a comprehensive study and shows all of the facts. The article includes both areas where the U.S. health care system does very well and very poorly. Thomas Sowell cherry picks facts which supports his ideology and ignores any facts that go against it. In his comparison of wait times between the U.S. and Canada, Sowell does not mention that some Americans wait indefinitely for procedures they need, because they cannot afford it and do not have insurance. Instead of waiting a few months for the procedure, they must go without it. He also says that many Canadians travel to the U.S. for medical, although it is my understanding that this is not very common, but he leaves out that more than a million Americans travel abroad for medical care because they cannot afford it here. For those who can't afford it abroad, they must go without.

  19. #19
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    There is no doubt in many learned minds, as well as the public, that the US healthcare and insurance systems need a major overhaul right away. But those now making lots of money off our health misfortunes want no changes in their profit-making systems. Those corporations and individuals have their greedy hands in all the pockets that control the system and they don't mind squeezing our 'balls' to get what they want. We severely need change for the better. It is in all out best interests to consider many options in order to do this right.

    That is by and large the jist of the entire national discussion.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  20. #20
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    The New York Times article is based on the results of a comprehensive study and shows all of the facts. The article includes both areas where the U.S. health care system does very well and very poorly. Thomas Sowell cherry picks facts which supports his ideology and ignores any facts that go against it. In his comparison of wait times between the U.S. and Canada, Sowell does not mention that some Americans wait indefinitely for procedures they need, because they cannot afford it and do not have insurance. Instead of waiting a few months for the procedure, they must go without it. He also says that many Canadians travel to the U.S. for medical, although it is my understanding that this is not very common, but he leaves out that more than a million Americans travel abroad for medical care because they cannot afford it here. For those who can't afford it abroad, they must go without.
    Puleeze. Krugman is the "King of the Cherry Pickers". The facts are the facts. Stop attacking them based on nothing more than who uses them ( e.g. Sowell ) and go after their authenticity and accuracy. Every time you are challenged to do that, you take a dive.

  21. #21
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    What does Krugman have to do with the article I posted?

    I did not just say Sowell cherry picks facts. I documented where he did. It's very obvious to people who aren't ideologues.

  22. #22
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    What does Krugman have to do with the article I posted?

    I did not just say Sowell cherry picks facts. I documented where he did. It's very obvious to people who aren't ideologues.
    Hmmm. Actually I thought your critique of Sowell was fair. Rebuttable but fair. I use Krugman because afaic he is the "King of Factual Delinquency". So are Hannity and Beck afaic. Most of these pundits do that. Part of it is the fault of producers of many of these Cable News ( sic.) shows. They don't want nuance or depth. They want one loudmouth for one side going at it with another factually challenged loudmouth.

    It was a pleasant surprise to watch O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg discussing this very point last night on the "Factor". Many producers don't want "fair and balanced " guests that say : "On the one hand .... but on the other hand there is also this to consider."

    All that being said, you have a history of waving off my opinions ( and Melonie's of course ) as the ravings of ideologues. Without going after the factual underpinnings for our opinions. On the rare occasions that you do, it is to try and discount those facts because they were gleaned from ideologically suspect sources. That's one reason why I try to rely as much as possible on official Government stats. and other non-partisan sources.

  23. #23
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    According to the CBO we are going to spend a $ Trillion dollars on a plan where 2 % of Americans under 65 would actually use the "public option."

    The various plans are SUPPOSED to be paid for by "savings" and increasing taxes on top earners by 1/3. Who seriously thinks that Congress will stick to its guns and REALLY cut Medicare by $500 billion ? When have they EVER imposed any serious savings ?

    Who seriously thinks that top earners will REALLY pay 45% ? The answer is that they won't.They will shelter their income. N.Y. and California prove that higher rates do not result in higher revenues.

    Neither the spending nor the revenue side of any of these proposals works.

  24. #24
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    ^^^ well, arguably, the spending side works in the wrong way. If the fine print of the national health care program provides employers with a cost savings by abandoning their private health insurance coverage for employees premiums in favor of paying an 8% penalty, then you can be sure that a whole lot of employees will quickly find themselves kicked into the 'public option' insurance program. At that point the 'public option' insurance program, like medicare and medicaid, can dictate reimbursement rates for various medical procedures which are below private insurance reimbursement rates. This will directly suck money out of doctor / hospital profit margins and result in an apparent cost savings.

    However, the secondary effects are likely to be 'brutal', since sucking money out of the 'retail sale price' of a service does nothing to reduce the 'wholesale cost' of that service !!! In turn this will either rapidly increase prices / costs of remaining private insurance coverage ( via cost shifting similar to that already occurring to subsidize medicare / medicaid reimbursement rates ), or rapidly drive remaining private insurance companies bankrupt, or rapidly reduce the profit margins of doctors and hospitals to the point where they go bankrupt, or some combination of the three !

  25. #25
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Alright Melonie and Eric, let's hear your rebuttals:

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ well, arguably, the spending side works in the wrong way. If the fine print of the national health care program provides employers with a cost savings by abandoning their private health insurance coverage for employees premiums in favor of paying an 8% penalty, then you can be sure that a whole lot of employees will quickly find themselves kicked into the 'public option' insurance program. At that point the 'public option' insurance program, like medicare and medicaid, can dictate reimbursement rates for various medical procedures which are below private insurance reimbursement rates. This will directly suck money out of doctor / hospital profit margins and result in an apparent cost savings.

    However, the secondary effects are likely to be 'brutal', since sucking money out of the 'retail sale price' of a service does nothing to reduce the 'wholesale cost' of that service !!! In turn this will either rapidly increase prices / costs of remaining private insurance coverage ( via cost shifting similar to that already occurring to subsidize medicare / medicaid reimbursement rates ), or rapidly drive remaining private insurance companies bankrupt, or rapidly reduce the profit margins of doctors and hospitals to the point where they go bankrupt, or some combination of the three !
    Thank you very much but afaic what you have outlined just demonstrates further or in a different way that the "spending " side of these abominations will not work. They just defy common sense on so many levels UNLESS you care to join in me in donning a gold plated pith helmet and understand that they are designed to fail. At some point, the Congress will say : "We tried. We REALLY tried to maintain private health insurers but it's obviously just not working out. Our only alternative is Medicare for everyone."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Alright! I'm going!
    By Alaska in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-18-2008, 03:06 AM
  2. Alright, Here it Goes...
    By BohemianSiren in forum Coming Out
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-05-2007, 07:43 PM
  3. What are female rebuttals to www.nomarriage.com ??
    By JustinKredible in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-28-2006, 07:46 PM
  4. Ladies, what are you best rebuttals?
    By carmen123 in forum Hustle Hut
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-14-2006, 10:45 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •