^^ +1000, can anyone one on the right rebutt the above with anything other than generic talking points?
i think a more significant consderation for firms is the cost of additional regulatory burden, including healthcare costs. these costs are not trivial and the uncertainty surrounding them is paralyzing.
jbaldyga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i think a more significant consderation for firms > is the cost of additional regulatory burden, > including healthcare costs. these costs are not > trivial and the uncertainty surrounding them is > paralyzing. So why not take away the cost of healthcare completely from firms by going for a public option and getting rid of employee sponsored insurance?
Marcus Phoenix is the man. He rulez the internetz
NYCGorilla Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Marcus Phoenix is the man. He rulez the internetz And you are a frackin genius.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jbaldyga Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > i think a more significant consderation for > firms > > is the cost of additional regulatory burden, > > including healthcare costs. these costs are > not > > trivial and the uncertainty surrounding them is > > paralyzing. > > > So why not take away the cost of healthcare > completely from firms by going for a public option > and getting rid of employee sponsored insurance? because they’re going to pay for it one way or another, it just depends on how much waste, fraud and inefficiency the gov’t can inject into the process, all with the aim of expanding their power and buying votes. i don’t understand why you think political self interset is more desirable than private self interest.
jbaldyga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > marcus phoenix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > jbaldyga Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > i think a more significant consderation for > > firms > > > is the cost of additional regulatory burden, > > > including healthcare costs. these costs are > > not > > > trivial and the uncertainty surrounding them > is > > > paralyzing. > > > > > > So why not take away the cost of healthcare > > completely from firms by going for a public > option > > and getting rid of employee sponsored > insurance? > > because they’re going to pay for it one way or > another, it just depends on how much waste, fraud > and inefficiency the gov’t can inject into the > process, all with the aim of expanding their power > and buying votes. i don’t understand why you > think political self interset is more desirable > than private self interest. We will pay for it, but by eliminating the middle man (insurance companies) I believe we will end up paying a lot less than the pathetic healthcare system we have in place right now where we all pray we don’t fall ill.
^i believe you are wrong.
jbaldyga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^i believe you are wrong. Well what is your alternative? Unsustainable status qou? We will have to cover the costs of the uninsured regardless - I would rather they be treated before they end up in the ER costing multiples of preventative medicene.
start with tort reform.
jbaldyga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > start with tort reform. Sure, you want a cap on what you can sue the doctor? Go ahead, but the whole sob story told by doctors about medical malpractice insurance rates driving them out of business is just crap. Tort reform is just another republican talking point with a negligible impact on costs in the same breath as the impact eliminating funding for the endowment for the arts will have on the deficit.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would rather they be > treated before they end up in the ER costing > multiples of preventative medicene. I’m starting to lose it. I immediately interpreted ER as “Equity Research”
Here is a short list I’ve put together for federal spending cuts: 1) Department of Education 2) Federal diversity coordinators 3) Smithsonian Channel 4) National Public Radio (NPR) 5) Public Broadcasting System (PBS) 6) The Corporation for Public Broadcasting ($1.2 billion) 7) Federal ad campaigns 8) Earmarks ($28 billion) 9) Eliminate the drug enforcement budget allocated for fighting marijuana 10) National Endowment for the Arts 11) All ceremonial military organizations and expositions (including air force flyovers) 12) Some military bases 13) White House Social Secretary and White House social events 14) Congressional private jets 15) Reduced White House travel 16) Corn-based ethanol tax breaks/subsidies ($7.7 billion in 2009) 17) The Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools ($1.8 billion) And some other ideas: 1) Privatizing the postal service 2) Privatizing the national park service 3) Fully privatizing the GSEs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) as well as privatize the FHA, FDIC, Ginnie Mae, Sallie Mae, FHFA, and maybe HUD (supported by premiums paid by banks, etc.), but have effective government regulation and oversight 4) Scaling back deployment of troops overseas and consider closing some foreign military bases 5) Implementing 4-day work week for federal employees (i.e. employees work 10 hours per day, 4 days per week). This saves vacation costs, will allow all federal buildings to be completely shut down for 3 days, and will drastically reduce traffic congestion in Washington, DC on Fridays and in the evenings M-F. a. Also eliminate 3 federal holidays 6) Increasing federal salaries to essentially market rate but make the workforce nimble, which means that layoffs will be allowed There are a ton more. The federal government is robust with inefficiency and waste. I also like how the ones signing this letter are so wealthy that an increase of the top marginal rate will have virtually no impact on their lives. Also, let me point out that “millionaire” has ZERO to do with income and EVERYTHING to do with net worth. You can earn $300,000 per year and not be a millionaire.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here is a short list I’ve put together for federal > spending cuts: you forgot the SEC…totally useless i’d like to keep NPR, however. not a bad public news, art and community outlet.
Are you going to propose any cuts that aren’t a drop in the bucket? The only thing you’ve got on there of any reasonable size is the DoE, and I hope you realize that significant cuts there would result in the loss of federal funds to schools across the country. NPR receives no direct federal money, although they do receive some indirect funding. They are largely privately funded. NEA, the Smithsonian, really? Have you no soul? Here’s a real deficit calculator, showing the things that can actually make a dent in the federal budget. Go to town and let me know the results. If you’re curious as to why almost none of KKent’s proposals made the list, it’s because they’re all farts in the wind. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
Hey, if you maximize the losses, people will think you’re doing something!
kkent’s proposal is basically “cut everything that I don’t personally use on a daily basis”. I have a coworker just like this - thinks we can solve everything through spending cuts and lower taxes. However, whenever cuts are being proposed to a specific branch of the military (one in which a sibling of his serves) it’s “can you believe these idiots would ever even propose that cut?” Also, the industry in which we (my coworker and me) work happens to be a recipient of a decent amount of federal largesse, and obviously he’s in favor of that, even if many of his ilk aren’t. It’s all about whose ox is being gored, folks.
And basically, if we take Social Security and Medicare out of the equation, our budget deficits are manageable. What we’re apparently “overspending” now in a recession (even TARP) can be paid back when the economy recovers (provided that we decide not to cut taxes so much that we don’t end up collecting any revenue at all). People love to say “cut Entitlements.” It sounds awesome, because “Entitlements” sounds like a bunch of whiny teenagers asking for handouts. You ask the public in surveys “do you think entitlements should be cut?” and most people say “Yes!” But Entitlements = Social Security + Medicare. You ask the public “do you think Social Security and Medicare should be cut?” and they go all postal on you and tell you to keep government hands off of their medicare, or they go and suggest eliminating the post office… I guess they think medical bills can’t get delivered if there is no post office. Entitlements do need to be reformed - that’s where the problem is. In some cases, they need to be cut. Medicare fraud needs to be prosecuted better. And fantastically expensive live-preserving technologies for the last 6 months of life will need to be rationed. But we should try to support less expensive palliative care in its place. I think the family of 10 year old who accidentally breaks a bone playing sports or something should not have to worry about being made bankrupt by a hospital bill, or by an insurance company’s premiums. I think the reform really needs to be about how much of the end-of-life care is going to come out of the public pocket… that’s the part that needs to be reformed, and most likely cut. But 10 year olds don’t vote, and 65+ year olds do. And there are going to be a lot of them, too.
Remember the tea party guy who got up at a “town hall meeting” and said “You can reform health care all you want, but you keep that damn federal government from interfering with my Medicare”. Classic.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the family of 10 year old who accidentally > breaks a bone playing sports or something should > not have to worry about being made bankrupt by a > hospital bill, or by an insurance company’s > premiums. I think the reform really needs to be > about how much of the end-of-life care is going to > come out of the public pocket… that’s the part > that needs to be reformed, and most likely cut. this is another major problem that needs to be addressed. one of the major factors here is the amount to which a doctor can be sued for malpractice. since so many doctor have been sued for millions and put out of business, the rest have to use every safeguard possible for patients to ensure they are not liable, increasing the average cost of care exponentially. i think everyone is aware that social security needs to be addressed, but i don’t see any dems trying to tackle it any time soon. maybe michelle should run next year so we can have someone with a pair in office.