General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-09-2009, 06:18 PM posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

On Sep 13, 10:13*am, "US Army Veteran" wrote:
Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.

During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an
individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he repeatedly
ripped Hillary Clinton's plan for proposing one. "To force people to buy
coverage," he insisted, "you've got to have a very harsh penalty." What will
this penalty be, he demanded? "Are you going to garnish their wages?" he
asked Hillary in one debate.

Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the
mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and
Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for "making every
American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and making
employers share in the cost."

But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do to
those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health care
approach: It is called TonySopranoCare.

Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.

Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for suggesting
that it might be better to remove the existing health care tax break that
individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage, but return the vast
bulk--if not all--of the resulting revenues in the form of health care tax
credits. This would theoretically have made coverage both more affordable
and portable for everyone. Obama, however, would have none of it, portraying
this idea simply as the removal of a tax break. "For the first time in
history, he wants to tax your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently,
Sen. McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have
doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too."

Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse
scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or so it
will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama's allegations,
McCain's plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase because he
intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised by scrapping the
tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told Sen. Baucus that he
would consider the senator's plan for rolling back the tax exclusion that
expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored plans enjoy, in order to pay
for universal coverage. But, unlike McCain, he has said nothing about
putting offsetting deductions or credits in the hands of individuals.

In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out to
do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time in
history.

Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the
private sector.

Ignoring the reality that Medicare--the government-funded program for the
elderly--has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama wants to
model a government insurance plan--the so-called "public option"--after
Medicare in order to control the country's rising health care costs. Why?
Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower administrative costs
and overhead than private plans--to wit, 3% for Medicare compared to 10% to
20% for private plans. Hence, he says, subjecting private plans to
competition against an entity delivering such superior efficiency will
release health care dollars for universal coverage.

But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater efficiency..
Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year chastised
Medicare's lax attitude on this front. "The traditional fee-for-service
Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to
reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative
to a more tightly managed approach," it noted on page 93.

In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin--not improve--even
the functioning aspects of private plans.

Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.

Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with a
public plan will simply "keep them honest" and give patients more
options--not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer monopoly. As
I argued in my previous column, this is wishful thinking given that
government programs such as Medicare have a history of controlling costs by
underpaying providers, who make up the losses by charging private plans
more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare will greatly increase this
forced subsidy, eventually driving private plans out of business, even if
that weren't Obama's intention.

But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided to
run for office--and even during the initial days of his campaign--Obama
repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer system. What's more,
University of California, Berkeley Professor Jacob Hacker, who is a key
influence on the Obama administration, is on tape explicitly boasting that a
public plan is a means for creating a single-payer system. "It's not a
Trojan horse," he quips, "it's just right there."

But even if Obama wanted to, it is simply impossible to design a public plan
that could compete with private insurers on a level playing field and
without "feeding off the public trough" as Obama claims.

At the very least, such a plan would always carry an implicit government
guarantee that, should it go bust, no one in the plan would lose coverage..
This guarantee would artificially lower the plan's capital reserve
requirements, giving it an unfair edge over private plans. What's more, it
is simply not plausible to expect that the plan wouldn't receive any
start-up subsidies or use the government's muscle to negotiate lower rates
with providers. If it eschewed all these things, there would be no reason
for it to exist--because it would be just like any other private plan.

Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.

Obama has been insisting, including during his ABC Town Hall event last
week, that the rationing patients would face under a government-run system
wouldn't be any more draconian than what they currently confront under
private plans. This is complete nonsense.

The left has been trying to address fears of rationing by trotting out an
old and tired trope, namely, that rationing is an inescapable fact of life
because every system rations whether by price or fiat. But there is a big
difference between the two. If I can't afford caviar and champagne every
night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real. Genuine rationing
occurs when someone else controls access--how much of a particular good I
can consume.

By that token, Obama's stimulus bill has set in motion rationing on a scale
unimaginable in the land of the free. Indeed, the bill commits over $1
billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research that will evaluate the
relative merits of various treatments. That in itself wouldn't be so
objectionable--if it weren't for the fact that a board will then "direct
financing" toward approved, standardized treatments. In short, doctors will
find it much harder to prescribe newer or non-standard treatments not yet
deemed effective by health care bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines
of the British system, where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a
new miracle drug, until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified
managed care plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison
with this.

Obama has repeatedly asked for honesty in the health


America needs a total rebuild. Support nothing seeping from the
cesspool Washington,DC.

tt

http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices


  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-09-2009, 09:42 PM posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 12
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:18:18 -0700, martin wrote:

On Sep 13, 10:13*am, "US Army Veteran" wrote:
Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.

During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an
individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he
repeatedly ripped Hillary Clinton's plan for proposing one. "To force
people to buy coverage," he insisted, "you've got to have a very harsh
penalty." What will this penalty be, he demanded? "Are you going to
garnish their wages?" he asked Hillary in one debate.

Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the
mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont.,
and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for
"making every American responsible for having health insurance
coverage, and making employers share in the cost."

But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do
to those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health
care approach: It is called TonySopranoCare.

Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.

Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for
suggesting that it might be better to remove the existing health care
tax break that individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage,
but return the vast bulk--if not all--of the resulting revenues in the
form of health care tax credits. This would theoretically have made
coverage both more affordable and portable for everyone. Obama,
however, would have none of it, portraying this idea simply as the
removal of a tax break. "For the first time in history, he wants to tax
your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently, Sen. McCain doesn't
think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you
should have to pay taxes on them too."

Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse
scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or
so it will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama's
allegations, McCain's plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase
because he intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised
by scrapping the tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told
Sen. Baucus that he would consider the senator's plan for rolling back
the tax exclusion that expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored
plans enjoy, in order to pay for universal coverage. But, unlike
McCain, he has said nothing about putting offsetting deductions or
credits in the hands of individuals.

In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out
to do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time
in history.

Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than
the private sector.

Ignoring the reality that Medicare--the government-funded program for
the elderly--has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama
wants to model a government insurance plan--the so-called "public
option"--after Medicare in order to control the country's rising health
care costs. Why? Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower
administrative costs and overhead than private plans--to wit, 3% for
Medicare compared to 10% to 20% for private plans. Hence, he says,
subjecting private plans to competition against an entity delivering
such superior efficiency will release health care dollars for universal
coverage.

But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater
efficiency. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year
chastised Medicare's lax attitude on this front. "The traditional
fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage
benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise
its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach," it
noted on page 93.

In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin--not
improve--even the functioning aspects of private plans.


So much for Forbes.

This particular lie really trumps all the rest. The previous two points
are Obama simply willing to compromise in order to get a rational plan
onto the books. But this one is an outright lie from Forbes. Obama has
actually articulated a plan to cut some waste from the Medicare system
and has been attacked for it. Yet this Forbes article now complains that
medicare needs to focus on costs as opposed to efficient administration.
The duplicity is very obvious here. It amounts to the fact that Forbes
is interested in defeating Obama as a person/Democrat and/or any reforms
at all. And that is their real objective.

Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer
monopoly.

Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with
a public plan will simply "keep them honest" and give patients more
options--not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer
monopoly. As I argued in my previous column, this is wishful thinking
given that government programs such as Medicare have a history of
controlling costs by underpaying providers, who make up the losses by
charging private plans more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare
will greatly increase this forced subsidy, eventually driving private
plans out of business, even if that weren't Obama's intention.


THIS CHARGE NOT NECESSARILY TRUE OR EVEN CLOSE TO BEING TRUE. ASSIGNING
INTENTIONS TO INDIVIDUALS IS PRETTY HARD TO DO. IT ISN'T POSSIBLE EVEN
BASED ON PAST ACTIONS AND STATEMENTS BECAUSE PEOPLE CHANGE AS THEY MOVE
THROUGH LIFE AND GAIN NEW EXPERIENCE.

But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided
to run for office--and even during the initial days of his
campaign--Obama repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer
system. What's more, University of California, Berkeley Professor Jacob
Hacker, who is a key influence on the Obama administration, is on tape
explicitly boasting that a public plan is a means for creating a
single-payer system. "It's not a Trojan horse," he quips, "it's just
right there."


BUT THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WOULD BE DONE WITH THE DIFFERENTIAL
BETWEEN PRIVATE SECTOR COSTS AND PUBLIC SECTOR COSTS. THE DIFFERENTIAL
IS CAUSED BY THE MONOPOSONY POWER OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING BOTH MEDICARE
AND THIS NEW SECTOR OF THE MARKET IN REGARD TO PROVIDER FEES. FORBES HAS
STATED THAT THIS WILL SHIFT COSTS TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR. I CAN SEE NO
REASON FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO _ALLOW_ THAT, BUT I'LL GO ALONG FOR SAKE
OF ARGUMENT IMAGINE THAT THE COSTS PASS TO PRIVATE SECTOR PREMIUMS THUS
PUTTING THE PRIVATE SECTOR AT A DISADVANTAGE.

THE PUBLIC OPTION MAY ADJUST ITS RATES UPWARD AND USE THE "PROFIT" (THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IT PAYS PROVIDERS AND THE AMOUNT IT GETS FROM
JACKED UP PREMIUMS FOR THE SAKE OF RESCUING THE PRIVATE BLOOD SUCKERS) TO
SUBSIDIZE HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS AT THE BOTTOM AND/OR TO SUBSIDIZE
MEDICARE. IN THAT WAY THE "PRIVATE" SECTOR REMAINS IN THE LOOP TO OFFER
MORE AND BETTER BENEFITS TO THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD THEM. I'm not really
sure what these more and better benefits might be, but then, I don't
really give a damn. The point is that it is entirely possible to ALLOW
the private blood sucking thieves to survive. It ain't a priority with
me but it certainly seems to be a priority for Forbes.

But even if Obama wanted to, it is simply impossible to design a public
plan that could compete with private insurers on a level playing field
and without "feeding off the public trough" as Obama claims.


HOGWASH. THE PUBLIC PLAN HAS TO CRIPPLE ITSELF TO ALLOW THE PRIVATE
INSURANCE SECTOR TO EXIST. IT IS AMAZING HOW LIARS CAN PLAY BOTH ENDS
FROM THE MIDDLE. FAR FROM "FEEDING OFF THE PUBLIC TROUGH", THE PUBLIC
OFFERING WILL HAVE TO CHARGE MORE FOR ITS INSURANCE OR THE PRIVATE SECTOR
WON'T BE ABLE TO COMPETE. WE SHOULD BE TAKING ABOUT HOW BEST TO USE THE
ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT WILL BE GENERATED INSIDE THE PLAN TO BEST ADDRESS
OTHER PRIORITIES.

At the very least, such a plan would always carry an implicit
government guarantee that, should it go bust, no one in the plan would
lose coverage. This guarantee would artificially lower the plan's
capital reserve requirements, giving it an unfair edge over private
plans. What's more, it is simply not plausible to expect that the plan
wouldn't receive any start-up subsidies or use the government's muscle
to negotiate lower rates with providers. If it eschewed all these
things, there would be no reason for it to exist--because it would be
just like any other private plan.


AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS.
GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.

Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.

Obama has been insisting, including during his ABC Town Hall event last
week, that the rationing patients would face under a government-run
system wouldn't be any more draconian than what they currently confront
under private plans. This is complete nonsense.


NOPE.

The left has been trying to address fears of rationing by trotting out
an old and tired trope, namely, that rationing is an inescapable fact
of life because every system rations whether by price or fiat. But
there is a big difference between the two. If I can't afford caviar and
champagne every night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real.
Genuine rationing occurs when someone else controls access--how much of
a particular good I can consume.


YET ANOTHER LIE BY FALSE ANALOGY. CAVIAR IS NOT A LIVER TRANSPLANT. YOU
CAN DAMNED WELL EAT BEANS AND CORNBREAD BUT WITHOUT THE LIVER TRANSPLANT
YOU DIE.

By that token, Obama's stimulus bill has set in motion rationing on a
scale unimaginable in the land of the free. Indeed, the bill commits
over $1 billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research that will
evaluate the relative merits of various treatments. That in itself
wouldn't be so objectionable--if it weren't for the fact that a board
will then "direct financing" toward approved, standardized treatments.
In short, doctors will find it much harder to prescribe newer or
non-standard treatments not yet deemed effective by health care
bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines of the British system,
where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a new miracle drug,
until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified managed care
plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison with
this.

Obama has repeatedly asked for honesty in the health


AND TRUTH IS WHAT IS NEEDED. THIS ARTICLE FROM FORBES IS AN ILLUSTRATION
OF LIES THAT ARE COMING FROM THE RIGHTARDED. WHEN OBAMA TRIES TO
COMPROMISE IT IS SEEN AS A LIE AND PROMOTING THAT VIEW IS ALL THAT
MATTERS TO THE RIGHTARDED. THIS HAS BECOME A BEAT OBAMA FEST AS OPPOSED
TO A HEALTH INSURANCE DEBATE.


America needs a total rebuild. Support nothing seeping from the cesspool
Washington,DC.

tt

http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices






--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2009, 04:18 PM posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS. *
GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.


Ok. Let's try this. Why does the gov't do a better job? They can
print money?
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2009, 07:51 PM posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 12
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:

AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS.
GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.


Ok. Let's try this. Why does the gov't do a better job? They can
print money?


1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices. The decision for
government is not one of maximizing profits. It is one of making certain
that there is adequate overall incentive in medical services to insure
competence and quantity. At present we have the most bloated and
expensive health care system on this planet and _NO_ _WAY_ to control
costs. When Medicare attempts to control costs, the providers shift the
prices to the insurance companies who must compete with one another and
who must pay whatever rate the providers might want. For some unknown
reason this is supposed to be a black mark against Medicare. It is
actually a black mark against the "free market" health insurance
companies. They CANNOT CONTAIN COSTS.

2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually need a
"pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in claims. If such
fluctuations arise then government can borrow less expensively than
private industry. Do not confuse this with typical government debt. It
can be an initial pool that is paid down over time in a totally off
budget system. The SS and Medicare trust funds tell us that such
mechanisms don't work. They are repeatedly used as pools of money to
hide deficits. It would be better to operate the social insurance
systems in a BORROWED pool that is TRANSPARENT and the cost of which is
paid by dedicated taxes (i.e. FICA and Medicare taxes), and paid in
premiums. The idea of government INVESTING from an accumulated pool is
stupid. It creates all kinds of political crap about how to AB-USE the
funds. Health care costs what it costs and will cost in the future.
Trying to "save up a bunch of money" is stupid. No matter what you do
the healthy will be paying for those who are not healthy. That is how
INSURANCE works no matter who runs it.

3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and to pay
a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and executives, and then
pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy holders out
of their benefits. The Social Security Administration and Medicare
Administrators maintain very good on line facilities and phone access
lines that provide for "customer" interface, and they do it quite well at
a low cost.

4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently than
does the private insurance sector.

INSURANCE is a totally different ball of wax than is a car company or a
construction firm or a legal services outfit. It is also a different
ball of wax than a mutual fund or an investment house. You do not need
the insurance company to do the investing for you. The money you save by
not _GIVING_ it to them to "invest" can be placed in your own 401K and
invested in that way instead of them making the decisions in their own
best interest. The function of an insurance system is to offer the
lowest cost EFFECTIVE insurance as possible. And there is no reason for
profit motives to exist in such a system. Every aspect of insurance on a
scale as large as the population of the USA is pure statistics.
Statisticians do not cost a lot of money nor do the statistics change so
quickly that it takes an army of them to keep up. It is a VERY
PEDESTRIAN AFFAIR when done properly.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2009, 08:13 PM posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 10
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

On Sep 14, 2:51�pm, Michael Coburn wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS.
GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.


Ok. �Let's try this. �Why does the gov't do a better job? �They can
print money?


1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices. The decision for
government is not one of maximizing profits. �It is one of making certain
that there is adequate overall incentive in medical services to insure
competence and quantity. �At present we have the most bloated and
expensive health care system on this planet and _NO_ _WAY_ to control
costs. �When Medicare attempts to control costs, the providers shift the
prices to the insurance companies who must compete with one another and
who must pay whatever rate the providers might want. �For some unknown
reason this is supposed to be a black mark against Medicare. It is
actually a black mark against the "free market" health insurance
companies. �They CANNOT CONTAIN COSTS.

2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually need a
"pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in claims. If such
fluctuations arise then government can borrow less expensively than
private industry. �Do not confuse this with typical government debt. �It
can be an initial pool that is paid down over time in a totally off
budget system. �The SS and Medicare trust funds tell us that such
mechanisms don't work. �They are repeatedly used as pools of money to
hide deficits. �It would be better to operate the social insurance
systems in a BORROWED pool that is TRANSPARENT and the cost of which is
paid by dedicated taxes (i.e. FICA and Medicare taxes), and paid in
premiums. �The idea of government INVESTING from an accumulated pool is
stupid. It creates all kinds of political crap about how to AB-USE the
funds. �Health care costs what it costs and will cost in the future. �
Trying to "save up a bunch of money" is stupid. �No matter what you do
the healthy will be paying for those who are not healthy. �That is how
INSURANCE works no matter who runs it.

3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and to pay
a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and �executives, and then
pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy holders out
of their benefits. �The Social Security Administration and Medicare
Administrators maintain very good on line facilities and phone access
lines that provide for "customer" interface, and they do it quite well at
a low cost.

4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently than
does the private insurance sector.



Then why is Medicare going broke?


http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167
"That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the
trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you
will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social
Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while
dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap
is $45.8 trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a
fancy term for "today's dollars.")"





  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2009, 08:25 PM posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 10
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

On Sep 14, 11:18*am, "Sure,Not" wrote:
AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS. *
GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.


Ok. *Let's try this. *Why does the gov't do a better job? *They can
print money?


Medicare doesn't work very well for the taxpayer. We been hearing
since Nixon was in office that they are going to correct the fraud and
waste, they didn't, and they won't now.



http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...are_fraud.html


Bill Novelli, CEO of AARP, told an audience at the Center for American
Progress back in July that, unless we act, overpayments to Medicare
Advantage plans will total about $54 billion over five years. This
week, the Government Accountability Office confirmed that this is not
just waste but possibly fraud. Private insurers pocket tens of
millions of dollars every year, if not a far higher amount, in
overpayments from the federal government that legally must be used to
improve coverage for enrollees.

In 2003, 220 private insurers participated in Medicare. The Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid audited 49 of the organizations and found
significant errors at 41 of them. But Medicare did not take action to
collect the $59 million in overpayments that could have helped to
increase benefits, lower co-payments, and lower premiums.

  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2009, 08:45 PM posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

Lawyerkill wrote:
On Sep 14, 2:51�pm, Michael Coburn wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS.
GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
Ok. �Let's try this. �Why does the gov't do a better job? �They can
print money?

1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices. The decision for
government is not one of maximizing profits. �It is one of making certain
that there is adequate overall incentive in medical services to insure
competence and quantity. �At present we have the most bloated and
expensive health care system on this planet and _NO_ _WAY_ to control
costs. �When Medicare attempts to control costs, the providers shift the
prices to the insurance companies who must compete with one another and
who must pay whatever rate the providers might want. �For some unknown
reason this is supposed to be a black mark against Medicare. It is
actually a black mark against the "free market" health insurance
companies. �They CANNOT CONTAIN COSTS.

2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually need a
"pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in claims. If such
fluctuations arise then government can borrow less expensively than
private industry. �Do not confuse this with typical government debt. �It
can be an initial pool that is paid down over time in a totally off
budget system. �The SS and Medicare trust funds tell us that such
mechanisms don't work. �They are repeatedly used as pools of money to
hide deficits. �It would be better to operate the social insurance
systems in a BORROWED pool that is TRANSPARENT and the cost of which is
paid by dedicated taxes (i.e. FICA and Medicare taxes), and paid in
premiums. �The idea of government INVESTING from an accumulated pool is
stupid. It creates all kinds of political crap about how to AB-USE the
funds. �Health care costs what it costs and will cost in the future. �
Trying to "save up a bunch of money" is stupid. �No matter what you do
the healthy will be paying for those who are not healthy. �That is how
INSURANCE works no matter who runs it.

3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and to pay
a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and �executives, and then
pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy holders out
of their benefits. �The Social Security Administration and Medicare
Administrators maintain very good on line facilities and phone access
lines that provide for "customer" interface, and they do it quite well at
a low cost.

4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently than
does the private insurance sector.



Then why is Medicare going broke?


Coburn's incorrect, but you figured that out for yourself. :-)

Here's the data:

1) Medicare has lower administrative costs when they are calculated as a
% of total health care costs managed. Medicare is at 3%, the private
insurers are at 12%.

2) That seems more efficient, but you're comparing apples and oranges.
Medicare is a seniors health care program, while private insurers cover
those not on Medicare. Put another way, Medicare covers people who need
a lot more heath care (or are sicker, with more deadly diseases) than do
private insurers, whose members are, on average, far healthier.

3) That means that the average claim size that Medicare handles is much
larger than that of the private insurers. It takes just as much admin
time to handle a $50,000 bill than it does a $50 bill.

4) Further, Medicare just processes whatever they are given mindlessly,
while the private insurers spend time contesting and investigating
claims to eliminate fraud and lower costs. That balloons admin costs but
results in lowered health care costs. You don't see that fact
illustrated in a pure admin/cost comparision.

4) If you look at administrative costs on a PER PERSON basis rather than
a percent-of-claims basis, Medicare's admin costs were 24.8% higher than
the private insurers.

Charts are he

http://timerealclearpolitics.files.w...dmincosts1.gif

(Coburn can be expected to shriek when he sees the 'Heritage' logo, but
a dislike for a particular organization is not a refutation.)

Medicare's an adminstrative nightmare from an efficiency standpoint.
Anyone who tells you that they are more efficient are either uninformed
or lying.

JG



http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167
"That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the
trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you
will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social
Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while
dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap
is $45.8 trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a
fancy term for "today's dollars.")"



  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2009, 10:01 PM posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 12
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:25:28 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:

On Sep 14, 11:18*am, "Sure,Not" wrote:
AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF
ALLOWING THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN
LIMITATIONS. GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN
THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.


Ok. *Let's try this. *Why does the gov't do a better job? *They can
print money?


Medicare doesn't work very well for the taxpayer. We been hearing since
Nixon was in office that they are going to correct the fraud and waste,
they didn't, and they won't now.



http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...are_fraud.html


Bill Novelli, CEO of AARP, told an audience at the Center for American
Progress back in July that, unless we act, overpayments to Medicare
Advantage plans will total about $54 billion over five years. This
week, the Government Accountability Office confirmed that this is not
just waste but possibly fraud. Private insurers pocket tens of millions
of dollars every year, if not a far higher amount, in overpayments from
the federal government that legally must be used to improve coverage for
enrollees.

In 2003, 220 private insurers participated in Medicare. The Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid audited 49 of the organizations and found
significant errors at 41 of them. But Medicare did not take action to
collect the $59 million in overpayments that could have helped to
increase benefits, lower co-payments, and lower premiums.


Yet we see this EXACT problem being addressed by the administration in
the reform package. And the Republican lying pigs have characterized it
as cuts to Grandma's health care.

Very cute and yet another lie from the Reich.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-09-2009, 02:16 AM posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 12
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:13:33 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:

On Sep 14, 2:51�pm, Michael Coburn wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF
ALLOWING THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN
LIMITATIONS. GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN
THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.


Ok. �Let's try this. �Why does the gov't do a better job? �They can
print money?


1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices. The decision
for government is not one of maximizing profits. �It is one of making
certain that there is adequate overall incentive in medical services to
insure competence and quantity. �At present we have the most bloated
and expensive health care system on this planet and _NO_ _WAY_ to
control costs. �When Medicare attempts to control costs, the providers
shift the prices to the insurance companies who must compete with one
another and who must pay whatever rate the providers might want. �For
some unknown reason this is supposed to be a black mark against
Medicare. It is actually a black mark against the "free market" health
insurance companies. �They CANNOT CONTAIN COSTS.

2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually need
a "pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in claims. If
such fluctuations arise then government can borrow less expensively
than private industry. �Do not confuse this with typical government
debt. �It can be an initial pool that is paid down over time in a
totally off budget system. �The SS and Medicare trust funds tell us
that such mechanisms don't work. �They are repeatedly used as pools of
money to hide deficits. �It would be better to operate the social
insurance systems in a BORROWED pool that is TRANSPARENT and the cost
of which is paid by dedicated taxes (i.e. FICA and Medicare taxes), and
paid in premiums. �The idea of government INVESTING from an accumulated
pool is stupid. It creates all kinds of political crap about how to
AB-USE the funds. �Health care costs what it costs and will cost in the
future. � Trying to "save up a bunch of money" is stupid. �No matter
what you do the healthy will be paying for those who are not healthy.
�That is how INSURANCE works no matter who runs it.

3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and to
pay a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and �executives, and
then pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy
holders out of their benefits. �The Social Security Administration and
Medicare Administrators maintain very good on line facilities and phone
access lines that provide for "customer" interface, and they do it
quite well at a low cost.

4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently than
does the private insurance sector.



Then why is Medicare going broke?


http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167
"That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the
trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you will
find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social Security
and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while dedicated
taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap is $45.8
trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a fancy term
for "today's dollars.")"


Let us understand that Medicare "B" and "D" are the primary shortfalls
but that the article is perpetrating a lie of sorts in insinuating that
these were to be supported by the Medicare tax. BOTH Medicare "B and "D"
were passed as general revenue supported programs. Those programs WERE
NOT defined to be funded by the Medicare tax.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicare4.htm

In his lust to **** all over social insurance the author of this rag
fails to distinguish this fact. And as these programs were never
intended to be supported by the Medicare Tax then there are no "unfunded"
liabilities any more than defense is an "unfunded" liability. In essence,
based on the actual LEGISLATION that created these programs,THERE IS NO
GAP. The projected income form Medicare taxes and premiums is $57.4T
(his numbers), but there was never any intent for Medicare taxes to fund
parts "B" and "D" in any way. He has wrapped up the Medicare tax and the
paid in premiums in a toxic enchilada designed to be employed by
Republican pig prancers to sew their seeds of fear and distrust of
government. I have no numbers on How much of his toxic enchilada is
STOLEN Medicare taxes that are supposed to be placed in the Medicare
trust fund specifically for Medicare "A", and how much is paid in
premiums. But the article is nothing other than the continued assault by
Republicans on social insurance systems and government in general.

1. The drug program (Medicare "B") as done by the Republicans and George
butt sucker Bush is nothing other than big wet kiss for the drug
companies. They totally crippled the monopsony power of government in
controlling costs and just shoveled money into the pockets of their
supporters. And now they are here using this poison pill as they attempt
to take down the whole Medicare program.

2. Medi-gap is yet another hand out to the insurance companies that is
full of fraud and abuse and which is intended to be addressed in the
scope of current reform legislation. And when we cut the amount we will
pay for a hospital bed, the provider of the bad can suck on it or have an
empty bed. They may also find their pencil pushing butts in the slammer
for failure to abide by the laws. Seniors are the primary users and they
control that market. Cuts in that area are not cuts in benefits. They
are cuts in COST.

3. Medicare is made available to all people regardless of income level
and unlike Social Security, Medicare benefits are not tied to taxes paid
in. Even if the rich only worked for wages for 1.5 years in their entire
rich bitch lives, Medicare benefits are awarded in full. Yet the
Medicare tax is only assessed on _WAGE_ income. The Medicare tax should
be increased, made minimally progressive and levied on _ALL_ income
regardless of source. With that adjustment the Medicare "A" trust fund if
taken off budget like Social Security would swell pretty fast. At present
the money is raided to feed general revenues.

Medicare "B" and "D" are funded from general revenue BECAUSE they have
NOTHING TO DO WITH paid in wage taxes. NOTHING. And BECAUSE they are
open to all regardless if income or asset ownership. My own opinion is
that Medicare in its entirety should be OFF BUDGET and that a NEW
progressive Medicare tax should be used to fund the system in a totally
transparent and honest fashion.

The care of the elderly and the demographic problems do not exist because
Medicare is a federal program. The problems exist in ALL countries
whether or not government is involved. The prancing Republican pigs like
to leave the impression that government intervention is the cause of the
rise in costs. It isn't. And assuming that we are going to care for the
elderly, the best way that costs can be contained is through the
monopsony power of government.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-09-2009, 02:47 AM posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 12
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:45:49 -0500, John Galt wrote:

Lawyerkill wrote:
On Sep 14, 2:51�pm, Michael Coburn wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF
ALLOWING THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN
LIMITATIONS. GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN
THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
Ok. �Let's try this. �Why does the gov't do a better job? �They can
print money?
1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices. The decision
for government is not one of maximizing profits. �It is one of making
certain that there is adequate overall incentive in medical services
to insure competence and quantity. �At present we have the most
bloated and expensive health care system on this planet and _NO_ _WAY_
to control costs. �When Medicare attempts to control costs, the
providers shift the prices to the insurance companies who must compete
with one another and who must pay whatever rate the providers might
want. �For some unknown reason this is supposed to be a black mark
against Medicare. It is actually a black mark against the "free
market" health insurance companies. �They CANNOT CONTAIN COSTS.

2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually
need a "pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in claims.
If such fluctuations arise then government can borrow less expensively
than private industry. �Do not confuse this with typical government
debt. �It can be an initial pool that is paid down over time in a
totally off budget system. �The SS and Medicare trust funds tell us
that such mechanisms don't work. �They are repeatedly used as pools of
money to hide deficits. �It would be better to operate the social
insurance systems in a BORROWED pool that is TRANSPARENT and the cost
of which is paid by dedicated taxes (i.e. FICA and Medicare taxes),
and paid in premiums. �The idea of government INVESTING from an
accumulated pool is stupid. It creates all kinds of political crap
about how to AB-USE the funds. �Health care costs what it costs and
will cost in the future. � Trying to "save up a bunch of money" is
stupid. �No matter what you do the healthy will be paying for those
who are not healthy. �That is how INSURANCE works no matter who runs
it.

3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and to
pay a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and �executives, and
then pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy
holders out of their benefits. �The Social Security Administration and
Medicare Administrators maintain very good on line facilities and
phone access lines that provide for "customer" interface, and they do
it quite well at a low cost.

4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently than
does the private insurance sector.



Then why is Medicare going broke?


Coburn's incorrect, but you figured that out for yourself. :-)


Coburn is _NOT_ incorrect at all on the stuff you are attempting to
suggest below.

Here's the data:

1) Medicare has lower administrative costs when they are calculated as a
% of total health care costs managed. Medicare is at 3%, the private
insurers are at 12%.


FACT.

2) That seems more efficient, but you're comparing apples and oranges.
Medicare is a seniors health care program, while private insurers cover
those not on Medicare. Put another way, Medicare covers people who need
a lot more heath care (or are sicker, with more deadly diseases) than do
private insurers, whose members are, on average, far healthier.


FACT.

3) That means that the average claim size that Medicare handles is much
larger than that of the private insurers. It takes just as much admin
time to handle a $50,000 bill than it does a $50 bill.


NOT TRUE. Smaller claims are seldom contested claims in either case.

4) Further, Medicare just processes whatever they are given mindlessly,
while the private insurers spend time contesting and investigating
claims to eliminate fraud and lower costs.


LIE. (see below)

That balloons admin costs but
results in lowered health care costs. You don't see that fact
illustrated in a pure admin/cost comparision.


Contested claims DO add to the costs in the private sector MORE THAN IN
THE MEDICARE SYSTEM. How much of it there is remains undefined.

4) If you look at administrative costs on a PER PERSON basis rather than
a percent-of-claims basis, Medicare's admin costs were 24.8% higher than
the private insurers.


In other words: If we turn the data over to the rightarded stink tanks
they will figure out a way to mash numbers and lie like hell.

Charts are he

http://timerealclearpolitics.files.w...dmincosts1.gif

(Coburn can be expected to shriek when he sees the 'Heritage' logo, but
a dislike for a particular organization is not a refutation.)


In the case of Cato or Heritage all claims are refuted out of hand. This
pig shit is a good example. We don't see overhead per claim here. The
per claim data will again swing back to favor the Medicare
administration. On the per person basis older people make a LOT MORE
CLAIMS than the youngsters. And a lot of those claims are quite small.
Many are simply for drugs, and the seniors use a lot of drugs.

Medicare's an adminstrative nightmare from an efficiency standpoint.


Yet another religious opinion from Galt.

Anyone who tells you that they are more efficient are either uninformed
or lying.


Anyone who basis an analysis on numbers from Cato or Heritage are
religious zealots OR morons. I think I pretty well stomped the crap out
of Galt's claim concerning the overhead.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167
"That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the
trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you
will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social
Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while
dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap is
$45.8 trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a fancy
term for "today's dollars.")"





--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-09-2009, 03:03 AM posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

Michael Coburn wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:45:49 -0500, John Galt wrote:

Lawyerkill wrote:
On Sep 14, 2:51�pm, Michael Coburn wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF
ALLOWING THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN
LIMITATIONS. GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN
THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
Ok. �Let's try this. �Why does the gov't do a better job? �They can
print money?
1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices. The decision
for government is not one of maximizing profits. �It is one of making
certain that there is adequate overall incentive in medical services
to insure competence and quantity. �At present we have the most
bloated and expensive health care system on this planet and _NO_ _WAY_
to control costs. �When Medicare attempts to control costs, the
providers shift the prices to the insurance companies who must compete
with one another and who must pay whatever rate the providers might
want. �For some unknown reason this is supposed to be a black mark
against Medicare. It is actually a black mark against the "free
market" health insurance companies. �They CANNOT CONTAIN COSTS.

2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually
need a "pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in claims.
If such fluctuations arise then government can borrow less expensively
than private industry. �Do not confuse this with typical government
debt. �It can be an initial pool that is paid down over time in a
totally off budget system. �The SS and Medicare trust funds tell us
that such mechanisms don't work. �They are repeatedly used as pools of
money to hide deficits. �It would be better to operate the social
insurance systems in a BORROWED pool that is TRANSPARENT and the cost
of which is paid by dedicated taxes (i.e. FICA and Medicare taxes),
and paid in premiums. �The idea of government INVESTING from an
accumulated pool is stupid. It creates all kinds of political crap
about how to AB-USE the funds. �Health care costs what it costs and
will cost in the future. � Trying to "save up a bunch of money" is
stupid. �No matter what you do the healthy will be paying for those
who are not healthy. �That is how INSURANCE works no matter who runs
it.

3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and to
pay a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and �executives, and
then pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy
holders out of their benefits. �The Social Security Administration and
Medicare Administrators maintain very good on line facilities and
phone access lines that provide for "customer" interface, and they do
it quite well at a low cost.

4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently than
does the private insurance sector.

Then why is Medicare going broke?

Coburn's incorrect, but you figured that out for yourself. :-)


Coburn is _NOT_ incorrect at all on the stuff you are attempting to
suggest below.


That will be a first.

Here's the data:

1) Medicare has lower administrative costs when they are calculated as a
% of total health care costs managed. Medicare is at 3%, the private
insurers are at 12%.


FACT.


Yes. An irrelevant one to the discussion. Medicare and the private
insurers are in different market segments, and thus cannot be compared
by such puerile metrics.

2) That seems more efficient, but you're comparing apples and oranges.
Medicare is a seniors health care program, while private insurers cover
those not on Medicare. Put another way, Medicare covers people who need
a lot more heath care (or are sicker, with more deadly diseases) than do
private insurers, whose members are, on average, far healthier.


FACT.

3) That means that the average claim size that Medicare handles is much
larger than that of the private insurers. It takes just as much admin
time to handle a $50,000 bill than it does a $50 bill.


NOT TRUE. Smaller claims are seldom contested claims in either case.


True. Proven. Data shown. Get over yourself. You're not the brightest
bulb in the universe. You prove that every day.

4) Further, Medicare just processes whatever they are given mindlessly,
while the private insurers spend time contesting and investigating
claims to eliminate fraud and lower costs.


LIE. (see below)


Then scratch it out. It's not germane to the overall point, and I'm not
in the mood to quibble with you over trivia. Past experience shows that
you are unable to focus on the core assertions and are easily distracted
by bright, shiny objects on the periphery. I suspect adult ADD, but I'm
not in the mood to diagnose your many dysfunctional characteristics.

That balloons admin costs but
results in lowered health care costs. You don't see that fact
illustrated in a pure admin/cost comparision.


Contested claims DO add to the costs in the private sector MORE THAN IN
THE MEDICARE SYSTEM. How much of it there is remains undefined.

4) If you look at administrative costs on a PER PERSON basis rather than
a percent-of-claims basis, Medicare's admin costs were 24.8% higher than
the private insurers.


In other words: If we turn the data over to the rightarded


Ooh. Coburn's inner fifth grader comes out. Shall we all do a group
"naner, naner, NAAAner......!"

What a jokester.


stink tanks
they will figure out a way to mash numbers and lie like hell.

Charts are he

http://timerealclearpolitics.files.w...dmincosts1.gif

(Coburn can be expected to shriek when he sees the 'Heritage' logo, but
a dislike for a particular organization is not a refutation.)


In the case of Cato or Heritage all claims are refuted out of hand.


Only by the idiots of society. Discarding factual evidence due to source
is a well-known logical fallacy. If you had been involved in high school
debate, you'd know that, because you'd have gotten your school
disqualified the first time you tried it.

But, don't worry yourself. The educated people here know a logical
fallacy when they see one. We'll take it from here.

This
pig shit is a good example. We don't see overhead per claim here. The
per claim data will again swing back to favor the Medicare
administration. On the per person basis older people make a LOT MORE
CLAIMS than the youngsters. And a lot of those claims are quite small.
Many are simply for drugs, and the seniors use a lot of drugs.

Medicare's an adminstrative nightmare from an efficiency standpoint.


Yet another religious opinion from Galt.


There is no one more religious in your pursuit of fiction than you.

But, I always admire your ability to parse out relevant facts in pursuit
of the ones that back up your preconceptions. You have a lot in common
with the thought patterns of a Baptist preacher. Come up with a theory,
search out verses that can be interepreted to back up that theory, and
for God's sake disparage anyone who suggests that there are other verses
that dispute you.

Same stuff.


Anyone who tells you that they are more efficient are either uninformed
or lying.


Anyone who basis an analysis on numbers from Cato or Heritage are
religious zealots OR morons. I think I pretty well stomped the crap out
of Galt's claim concerning the overhead.


Of course you do. You're a legend in your own mind. Nobody who can do
the math, however, missed the overall point, which is simply that
comparisons between companies operating in two different market segments
have to account for the difference in those segments.

Your inability to understand changing conditions is largely responsible,
I would guess, for your failure as a human being. Sorry about that.

JG


http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167
"That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the
trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you
will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social
Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while
dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap is
$45.8 trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a fancy
term for "today's dollars.")"





  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-09-2009, 06:10 AM posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 12
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:03:39 -0500, John Galt wrote:

Michael Coburn wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:45:49 -0500, John Galt wrote:

Lawyerkill wrote:
On Sep 14, 2:51�pm, Michael Coburn wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF
ALLOWING THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN
LIMITATIONS. GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN
THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
Ok. �Let's try this. �Why does the gov't do a better job? �They can
print money?
1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices. The
decision for government is not one of maximizing profits. �It is one
of making certain that there is adequate overall incentive in
medical services to insure competence and quantity. �At present we
have the most bloated and expensive health care system on this
planet and _NO_ _WAY_ to control costs. �When Medicare attempts to
control costs, the providers shift the prices to the insurance
companies who must compete with one another and who must pay
whatever rate the providers might want. �For some unknown reason
this is supposed to be a black mark against Medicare. It is actually
a black mark against the "free market" health insurance companies.
�They CANNOT CONTAIN COSTS.

2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually
need a "pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in
claims. If such fluctuations arise then government can borrow less
expensively than private industry. �Do not confuse this with typical
government debt. �It can be an initial pool that is paid down over
time in a totally off budget system. �The SS and Medicare trust
funds tell us that such mechanisms don't work. �They are repeatedly
used as pools of money to hide deficits. �It would be better to
operate the social insurance systems in a BORROWED pool that is
TRANSPARENT and the cost of which is paid by dedicated taxes (i.e.
FICA and Medicare taxes), and paid in premiums. �The idea of
government INVESTING from an accumulated pool is stupid. It creates
all kinds of political crap about how to AB-USE the funds. �Health
care costs what it costs and will cost in the future. � Trying to
"save up a bunch of money" is stupid. �No matter what you do the
healthy will be paying for those who are not healthy. �That is how
INSURANCE works no matter who runs it.

3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and
to pay a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and
�executives, and then pay bonuses to people who figure out how to
screw the policy holders out of their benefits. �The Social Security
Administration and Medicare Administrators maintain very good on
line facilities and phone access lines that provide for "customer"
interface, and they do it quite well at a low cost.

4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently
than does the private insurance sector.

Then why is Medicare going broke?
Coburn's incorrect, but you figured that out for yourself. :-)


Coburn is _NOT_ incorrect at all on the stuff you are attempting to
suggest below.


That will be a first.

Here's the data:

1) Medicare has lower administrative costs when they are calculated as
a % of total health care costs managed. Medicare is at 3%, the private
insurers are at 12%.


FACT.


Yes. An irrelevant one to the discussion. Medicare and the private
insurers are in different market segments, and thus cannot be compared
by such puerile metrics.

2) That seems more efficient, but you're comparing apples and oranges.
Medicare is a seniors health care program, while private insurers
cover those not on Medicare. Put another way, Medicare covers people
who need a lot more heath care (or are sicker, with more deadly
diseases) than do private insurers, whose members are, on average, far
healthier.


FACT.

3) That means that the average claim size that Medicare handles is
much larger than that of the private insurers. It takes just as much
admin time to handle a $50,000 bill than it does a $50 bill.


NOT TRUE. Smaller claims are seldom contested claims in either case.


True. Proven. Data shown. Get over yourself. You're not the brightest
bulb in the universe. You prove that every day.

4) Further, Medicare just processes whatever they are given
mindlessly, while the private insurers spend time contesting and
investigating claims to eliminate fraud and lower costs.


LIE. (see below)


Then scratch it out. It's not germane to the overall point, and I'm not
in the mood to quibble with you over trivia. Past experience shows that
you are unable to focus on the core assertions and are easily distracted
by bright, shiny objects on the periphery. I suspect adult ADD, but I'm
not in the mood to diagnose your many dysfunctional characteristics.

That balloons admin costs but
results in lowered health care costs. You don't see that fact
illustrated in a pure admin/cost comparision.


Contested claims DO add to the costs in the private sector MORE THAN IN
THE MEDICARE SYSTEM. How much of it there is remains undefined.

4) If you look at administrative costs on a PER PERSON basis rather
than a percent-of-claims basis, Medicare's admin costs were 24.8%
higher than the private insurers.


In other words: If we turn the data over to the rightarded


Ooh. Coburn's inner fifth grader comes out. Shall we all do a group
"naner, naner, NAAAner......!"

What a jokester.


stink tanks
they will figure out a way to mash numbers and lie like hell.

Charts are he

http://timerealclearpolitics.files.w...s.com/2009/06/

admincosts1.gif

(Coburn can be expected to shriek when he sees the 'Heritage' logo,
but a dislike for a particular organization is not a refutation.)


In the case of Cato or Heritage all claims are refuted out of hand.


Only by the idiots of society. Discarding factual evidence due to source
is a well-known logical fallacy. If you had been involved in high school
debate, you'd know that, because you'd have gotten your school
disqualified the first time you tried it.

But, don't worry yourself. The educated people here know a logical
fallacy when they see one. We'll take it from here.

This
pig shit is a good example. We don't see overhead per claim here. The
per claim data will again swing back to favor the Medicare
administration. On the per person basis older people make a LOT MORE
CLAIMS than the youngsters. And a lot of those claims are quite small.
Many are simply for drugs, and the seniors use a lot of drugs.

Medicare's an adminstrative nightmare from an efficiency standpoint.


Yet another religious opinion from Galt.


There is no one more religious in your pursuit of fiction than you.

But, I always admire your ability to parse out relevant facts in pursuit
of the ones that back up your preconceptions. You have a lot in common
with the thought patterns of a Baptist preacher. Come up with a theory,
search out verses that can be interepreted to back up that theory, and
for God's sake disparage anyone who suggests that there are other verses
that dispute you.

Same stuff.


Anyone who tells you that they are more efficient are either
uninformed or lying.


Anyone who basis an analysis on numbers from Cato or Heritage are
religious zealots OR morons. I think I pretty well stomped the crap
out of Galt's claim concerning the overhead.


Of course you do. You're a legend in your own mind. Nobody who can do
the math, however, missed the overall point, which is simply that
comparisons between companies operating in two different market segments
have to account for the difference in those segments.

Your inability to understand changing conditions is largely responsible,
I would guess, for your failure as a human being. Sorry about that.


Like I said, Galt, your claims about the Private sector being more
efficient are shown to be spun Heritage pig manure. -- per patient
statistics my achin' ass.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167
"That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the
trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you
will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social
Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while
dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap
is $45.8 trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a
fancy term for "today's dollars.")"










--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-09-2009, 10:20 AM posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 10
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

On Sep 14, 9:16*pm, Michael Coburn wrote:
Let us understand that Medicare "B" and "D" are the primary shortfalls
but that the article is perpetrating a lie of sorts in insinuating that
these were to be supported by the Medicare tax. *BOTH Medicare "B and "D"
were passed as general revenue supported programs. *Those programs WERE
NOT defined to be funded by the Medicare tax.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicare4.htm

In his lust to **** all over social insurance the author of this rag
fails to distinguish this fact. *And as these programs were never
intended to be supported by the Medicare Tax then there are no "unfunded"
liabilities any more than defense is an "unfunded" liability. In essence,
based on the actual LEGISLATION that created these programs,THERE IS NO
GAP. *The projected income form Medicare taxes and premiums is $57.4T
(his numbers), but there was never any intent for Medicare taxes to fund
parts "B" and "D" in any way. He has wrapped up the Medicare tax and the
paid in premiums in a toxic enchilada designed to be employed by
Republican pig prancers to sew their seeds of fear and distrust of
government. *I have no numbers on How much of his toxic enchilada is
STOLEN Medicare taxes that are supposed to be placed in the Medicare
trust fund specifically for Medicare "A", and how much is paid in
premiums. But the article is nothing other than the continued assault by
Republicans on social insurance systems and government in general.


Nice try, but this has nothing to do with part D.

"The Medicare actuaries then dryly note what would happen once the
trust funds for Social Security and Medicare's hospital insurance
program are depleted: "

"Medicare's hospital insurance program"

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medica...teesReport.htm




Here's this is from the report itself, the have it a little confused.


http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

"The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the Hospital Insurance
(HI) Trust Fund is now 3.88 percent of taxable payroll, up from 3.54
percent projected in last year's report. The fund again fails our test
of short-range financial adequacy, as projected annual assets drop
below projected annual expenditures within 10 yearsby 2012. The fund
also continues to fail our long range test of close actuarial balance
by a wide margin. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is
2017, two years earlier than in last year's report, when dedicated
revenues would be sufficient to pay 81 percent of HI costs. Projected
HI dedicated revenues fall short of outlays by rapidly increasing
margins in all future years. The Medicare Report shows that the HI
Trust Fund could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75
years by changes equivalent to an immediate 134 percent increase in
the payroll tax (from a rate of 2.9 percent to 6.78 percent), or an
immediate 53 percent reduction in program outlays, or some combination
of the two. Larger changes would be required to make the program
solvent beyond the 75-year horizon."






  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-09-2009, 11:48 AM posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 10
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

On Sep 14, 9:16�pm, Michael Coburn wrote:

Let us understand that Medicare "B" and "D" are the primary shortfalls
but that the article is perpetrating a lie of sorts in insinuating that
these were to be supported by the Medicare tax. �BOTH Medicare "B and "D"
were passed as general revenue supported programs. �Those programs WERE
NOT defined to be funded by the Medicare tax.


You are a little confused, or are trying to confuse the issue. The
article was talking about Medicare's hospital insurance program, not
part 'B' and 'D'. Medicare HI is going belly up without the help of,
'B' and 'D', that's another issue. Read the report first.

1. The drug program (Medicare "B") as done by the Republicans and George
butt sucker Bush is nothing other than big wet kiss for the drug
companies.


SAY WHAT??????


http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshal...ts/RL32582.pdf


The Part B program is
financed through a combination of monthly premiums paid by
current enrollees and
general revenues.

When Medicare began in 1966, the Part B monthly premium paid by
beneficiaries was set at a level to finance 50% of Part B
costs; general revenues
financed the remainder. Legislation enacted in 1972 limited
annual premium
increases. As a result, beneficiary contributions dropped to
below 25% of program
costs by the early 1980s. Since the early 1980s, Congress
regularly voted to set Part
B premiums at levels to cover 25% of program costs. The
Balanced Budget Act of
1997 (BBA 97) permanently set the Part B premium at 25% of
program costs.
Certain low-income beneficiaries are entitled to assistance in
paying their Part B
premiums. Beginning in 2007, certain high income Medicare
enrollees will pay a
higher percentage of their Part B premiums.





PS I was againt the bill for 'D'. Oh and the Democratic plan for part
D was unfunded also.

Again, regardless, the article was about Medicare HI going belly up,
it was going belly up with the help of part 'D'.


  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-09-2009, 01:04 PM posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

Michael Coburn wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:03:39 -0500, John Galt wrote:

Michael Coburn wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:45:49 -0500, John Galt wrote:

Lawyerkill wrote:
On Sep 14, 2:51�pm, Michael Coburn wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF
ALLOWING THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN
LIMITATIONS. GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN
THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
Ok. �Let's try this. �Why does the gov't do a better job? �They can
print money?
1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices. The
decision for government is not one of maximizing profits. �It is one
of making certain that there is adequate overall incentive in
medical services to insure competence and quantity. �At present we
have the most bloated and expensive health care system on this
planet and _NO_ _WAY_ to control costs. �When Medicare attempts to
control costs, the providers shift the prices to the insurance
companies who must compete with one another and who must pay
whatever rate the providers might want. �For some unknown reason
this is supposed to be a black mark against Medicare. It is actually
a black mark against the "free market" health insurance companies.
�They CANNOT CONTAIN COSTS.

2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually
need a "pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in
claims. If such fluctuations arise then government can borrow less
expensively than private industry. �Do not confuse this with typical
government debt. �It can be an initial pool that is paid down over
time in a totally off budget system. �The SS and Medicare trust
funds tell us that such mechanisms don't work. �They are repeatedly
used as pools of money to hide deficits. �It would be better to
operate the social insurance systems in a BORROWED pool that is
TRANSPARENT and the cost of which is paid by dedicated taxes (i.e.
FICA and Medicare taxes), and paid in premiums. �The idea of
government INVESTING from an accumulated pool is stupid. It creates
all kinds of political crap about how to AB-USE the funds. �Health
care costs what it costs and will cost in the future. � Trying to
"save up a bunch of money" is stupid. �No matter what you do the
healthy will be paying for those who are not healthy. �That is how
INSURANCE works no matter who runs it.

3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and
to pay a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and
�executives, and then pay bonuses to people who figure out how to
screw the policy holders out of their benefits. �The Social Security
Administration and Medicare Administrators maintain very good on
line facilities and phone access lines that provide for "customer"
interface, and they do it quite well at a low cost.

4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently
than does the private insurance sector.
Then why is Medicare going broke?
Coburn's incorrect, but you figured that out for yourself. :-)
Coburn is _NOT_ incorrect at all on the stuff you are attempting to
suggest below.

That will be a first.
Here's the data:

1) Medicare has lower administrative costs when they are calculated as
a % of total health care costs managed. Medicare is at 3%, the private
insurers are at 12%.
FACT.

Yes. An irrelevant one to the discussion. Medicare and the private
insurers are in different market segments, and thus cannot be compared
by such puerile metrics.
2) That seems more efficient, but you're comparing apples and oranges.
Medicare is a seniors health care program, while private insurers
cover those not on Medicare. Put another way, Medicare covers people
who need a lot more heath care (or are sicker, with more deadly
diseases) than do private insurers, whose members are, on average, far
healthier.
FACT.

3) That means that the average claim size that Medicare handles is
much larger than that of the private insurers. It takes just as much
admin time to handle a $50,000 bill than it does a $50 bill.
NOT TRUE. Smaller claims are seldom contested claims in either case.

True. Proven. Data shown. Get over yourself. You're not the brightest
bulb in the universe. You prove that every day.
4) Further, Medicare just processes whatever they are given
mindlessly, while the private insurers spend time contesting and
investigating claims to eliminate fraud and lower costs.
LIE. (see below)

Then scratch it out. It's not germane to the overall point, and I'm not
in the mood to quibble with you over trivia. Past experience shows that
you are unable to focus on the core assertions and are easily distracted
by bright, shiny objects on the periphery. I suspect adult ADD, but I'm
not in the mood to diagnose your many dysfunctional characteristics.
That balloons admin costs but
results in lowered health care costs. You don't see that fact
illustrated in a pure admin/cost comparision.
Contested claims DO add to the costs in the private sector MORE THAN IN
THE MEDICARE SYSTEM. How much of it there is remains undefined.

4) If you look at administrative costs on a PER PERSON basis rather
than a percent-of-claims basis, Medicare's admin costs were 24.8%
higher than the private insurers.
In other words: If we turn the data over to the rightarded

Ooh. Coburn's inner fifth grader comes out. Shall we all do a group
"naner, naner, NAAAner......!"

What a jokester.


stink tanks
they will figure out a way to mash numbers and lie like hell.

Charts are he

http://timerealclearpolitics.files.w...s.com/2009/06/

admincosts1.gif
(Coburn can be expected to shriek when he sees the 'Heritage' logo,
but a dislike for a particular organization is not a refutation.)
In the case of Cato or Heritage all claims are refuted out of hand.

Only by the idiots of society. Discarding factual evidence due to source
is a well-known logical fallacy. If you had been involved in high school
debate, you'd know that, because you'd have gotten your school
disqualified the first time you tried it.

But, don't worry yourself. The educated people here know a logical
fallacy when they see one. We'll take it from here.

This
pig shit is a good example. We don't see overhead per claim here. The
per claim data will again swing back to favor the Medicare
administration. On the per person basis older people make a LOT MORE
CLAIMS than the youngsters. And a lot of those claims are quite small.
Many are simply for drugs, and the seniors use a lot of drugs.

Medicare's an adminstrative nightmare from an efficiency standpoint.
Yet another religious opinion from Galt.

There is no one more religious in your pursuit of fiction than you.

But, I always admire your ability to parse out relevant facts in pursuit
of the ones that back up your preconceptions. You have a lot in common
with the thought patterns of a Baptist preacher. Come up with a theory,
search out verses that can be interepreted to back up that theory, and
for God's sake disparage anyone who suggests that there are other verses
that dispute you.

Same stuff.


Anyone who tells you that they are more efficient are either
uninformed or lying.
Anyone who basis an analysis on numbers from Cato or Heritage are
religious zealots OR morons. I think I pretty well stomped the crap
out of Galt's claim concerning the overhead.

Of course you do. You're a legend in your own mind. Nobody who can do
the math, however, missed the overall point, which is simply that
comparisons between companies operating in two different market segments
have to account for the difference in those segments.

Your inability to understand changing conditions is largely responsible,
I would guess, for your failure as a human being. Sorry about that.


Like I said, Galt, your claims about the Private sector being more
efficient are shown to be spun Heritage pig manure. -- per patient
statistics my achin' ass.


The usual refusal to deal with the argument --- instead, all we get is
your usual hubris.

Point stands unrefuted. EOM.

JG



http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167
"That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the
trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you
will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social
Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while
dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap
is $45.8 trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a
fancy term for "today's dollars.")"











Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
$50,000 BOUNTY on Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Sasha Obama and Malia Obama FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer Winemaking 0 01-07-2011 01:27 PM
Health Care a victim General Cooking 4 02-11-2008 06:05 PM
Health Care a victim Preserving 0 02-11-2008 05:12 AM
The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President Oelewapper General Cooking 203 12-06-2004 06:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017