proof found ... 0bama attended school in U.S.A.
Burled Frau
TwoGuns
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5O9Imbpe6Q
I loved it. I wonder what ever happened to Buckwheat. He was one of my
favorites and without a doubt he would have been a better President
than Obama.
DL
Mach1
"Burled Frau" <ach...@jawol.jah> wrote in message
news:4b7e...@news.x-privat.org...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5O9Imbpe6Q
Lewis Hartswick
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5O9Imbpe6Q
I wonder what the original was all about? but the
current one is right on. :-)
...lew...
Burled Frau
"Lewis Hartswick" <lhart...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:PZOdnS3XBYvnmB3W...@earthlink.com...
Original?
William Wixon
public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator michael
bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent actions. you can
make a donation through act blue's website.
Buerste
"William Wixon" <wwi...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:jk2gn.635$e%2....@newsfe08.iad...
Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR money?
No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride healthcare. The
lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And Spend"!
rangerssuck
> "William Wixon" <wwi...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>
> news:jk2gn.635$e%2....@newsfe08.iad...
>
> > the public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator
> > michael bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent actions.
> > you can make a donation through act blue's website.
>
> >http://www.actblue.com/
>
> Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR money?
> No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride healthcare. The
> lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And Spend"!
Don't you mean Gunner's free health care? They don't come much further
to the right than Gunner, nor do they come much more crooked.
Remember, Tom, you are the guy who's Gunner's great fan, who would be
proud to have him working side-by-side with you. He's a thief, a tax
cheat and a drain on society. So, when you're complaining about how
you're getting burned by public health care, remember it saved your
buddy's life.
Ed Huntress
"Buerste" <bue...@buerste.com> wrote in message
news:RFcgn.18137$OJ6....@newsfe22.iad...
If there's a public option, the people who opt for it WILL pay for it with
their own money.
You're criticizing a program and yet you have no idea how it works, do you,
Tawwwwwwm?
--
Ed Huntress
john
If people only know how half the things in govt work there would be a
revolution.
John
Ed Huntress
"john" <amd...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:FIqdnc_kqOZ97xzW...@giganews.com...
If people knew how half the things in government work, they'd stop voting
for pretty-boy populist buttheads who spend their time on talk radio and TV
pundit shows, and start voting for real representatives.
--
Ed Huntress
john
party meeting saying the same old things about reform... I thought the
"contract with America" was going to change everything for the good. A
bunch of politicians, and politicians has become a dirty word. You
never hear anyone called a Statesman any more.
John
Ed Huntress
It's grisly. Evan Bayh has said some things that are really ruffling
feathers. I wish it would start a real conversation and some real change,
but my fear is that we'll just blow by it and go back to business as usual.
--
Ed Huntress
john
Where is Ross Perot when you need him? :)
John
Larry Jaques
<bue...@buerste.com> scrawled the following:
BINGO! If it's so important, let 'em spend their own money for it.
--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow
F. George McDuffee
wrote:
>>> John
>>
>> If people knew how half the things in government work, they'd stop voting
>> for pretty-boy populist buttheads who spend their time on talk radio and TV
>> pundit shows, and start voting for real representatives.
>>
>I had the TV on this morning and saw the same old politicians at the tea
>party meeting saying the same old things about reform... I thought the
>"contract with America" was going to change everything for the good. A
>bunch of politicians, and politicians has become a dirty word. You
>never hear anyone called a Statesman any more.
>
>John
============
Don't confuse the "contract with America" with the actual
corporate "contract *ON* America."
For all of the tea party rhetoric, where is: (1) The new "super"
Glass-Steagall-Volker act? (2) Repeal of the CFTC Modernization
Act of 2000 to again allow/mandate reasonable monitoring and
regulation of derivatives and commodity trading and traders? (3)
A "small enough to fail" cap on corporate market share and
capitalization?
All we are seeing is more "Punch-n-Judy" show for the "great
unwashed" to drum up votes and campaign contributions.
Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
john
Where is Teddy Rosevelt when we need him? He did it with standard Oil
about 100 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)
its like deja voo all over again. History repeats itself.
John
Wes
>If there's a public option, the people who opt for it WILL pay for it with
>their own money.
You forgot those taxes on 'gold plated' insurance policies. (Note: does not apply to
unions)
Wes
Wes
>>Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR money?
>>No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride healthcare. The
>>lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And Spend"!
>
>BINGO! If it's so important, let 'em spend their own money for it.
That isn't how they work. They need OPM to enact their plans.
Wes
Ed Huntress
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:p3ign.347943$H15.3...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
That has nothing to do with the public option, Wes. That's a function of
taxes, and it applies to subsidized private policies as well.
This is the kind of misinformation that has to drive you nuts. The
right-wingers have told a pile of lies about the program, and some people
will believe anything they say.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
What do you mean here? What plan does OPM have to enact?
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
Ed Huntress
Ha! I thought you were talking about the health plans managed by the federal
Office of Personnel Management. <g> They run the FEHB program for federal
employees.
FWIW, Larry is full of crap. The public option has nothing to do with the
subsidy plans. It scares the hell out of private insurance companies
because, if it's run as well as Medicare, it will beat their prices by 15% -
25% or more.
The trouble with it is that the private insurers will try to co-opt it,
through lobbying, so that it becomes the sinkhole for people with
pre-existing conditions. Then costs will go up, and the private insurers can
go back to printing money.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>Ha! I thought you were talking about the health plans managed by the federal
>Office of Personnel Management. <g> They run the FEHB program for federal
>employees.
I was wondering what you thought I meant by OPM. ;)
>
>FWIW, Larry is full of crap. The public option has nothing to do with the
>subsidy plans. It scares the hell out of private insurance companies
>because, if it's run as well as Medicare, it will beat their prices by 15% -
>25% or more.
Will it run as bad as Medicaid?
>
>The trouble with it is that the private insurers will try to co-opt it,
>through lobbying, so that it becomes the sinkhole for people with
>pre-existing conditions. Then costs will go up, and the private insurers can
>go back to printing money.
Ed, I hope you realize there are a lot of people that really think the public option is
going to be affordable as in 100 to 200 bucks a month. That isn't going to happen.
I'd still like to see a rate schedule for the public option, the particulars of what is
covered, co pays, and all that messy stuff that ruins the dream.
Wes
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>Ha! I thought you were talking about the health plans managed by the
>>federal
>>Office of Personnel Management. <g> They run the FEHB program for federal
>>employees.
>
> I was wondering what you thought I meant by OPM. ;)
>
>>
>>FWIW, Larry is full of crap. The public option has nothing to do with the
>>subsidy plans. It scares the hell out of private insurance companies
>>because, if it's run as well as Medicare, it will beat their prices by
>>15% -
>>25% or more.
>
> Will it run as bad as Medicaid?
Each state runs its own Medicaid. State governments in general are
incompetent to do much more than name the official state bird. James Madison
had it right: the more local the government, the less competent it is likely
to be.
>
>>
>>The trouble with it is that the private insurers will try to co-opt it,
>>through lobbying, so that it becomes the sinkhole for people with
>>pre-existing conditions. Then costs will go up, and the private insurers
>>can
>>go back to printing money.
>
>
> Ed, I hope you realize there are a lot of people that really think the
> public option is
> going to be affordable as in 100 to 200 bucks a month. That isn't going
> to happen.
I don't know who those people are, Wes. For some people with *very* low
incomes, it may well come out to a cost like that -- as will subsidized
private insurance.
>
> I'd still like to see a rate schedule for the public option, the
> particulars of what is
> covered, co pays, and all that messy stuff that ruins the dream.
>
> Wes
Have you looked for one? There have been some projections. I haven't paid
much attention to them myself. I'm more interested in putting an end to the
unpaid emergency room care; getting a grip on pharmaceutical costs (which
isn't really in the bill, but which it will enable); and putting the AMA on
the spot to start doing something about health care costs. Right now that's
in the hands of the private insurance companies, and they've failed at it,
utterly. That's not because they're stupid or evil. It's because they have
no incentive to do so. In fact, their incentive is quite the opposite.
Once the system is somewhat rationalized, with universal care and some tools
that let us grab medical care and insurance by the balls, it will be a
matter of how intelligently we use those powers. That's a big "if." But
right now, it's running out of control, with no incentives for anyone to
control costs. As David Brooks put it, it's a system of "perverse
incentives."
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>
>"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:yhjgn.335876$IU1....@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com...
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Ha! I thought you were talking about the health plans managed by the
>>>federal
>>>Office of Personnel Management. <g> They run the FEHB program for federal
>>>employees.
>>
>> I was wondering what you thought I meant by OPM. ;)
>>
>>>
>>>FWIW, Larry is full of crap. The public option has nothing to do with the
>>>subsidy plans. It scares the hell out of private insurance companies
>>>because, if it's run as well as Medicare, it will beat their prices by
>>>15% -
>>>25% or more.
>>
>> Will it run as bad as Medicaid?
>
>Each state runs its own Medicaid. State governments in general are
>incompetent to do much more than name the official state bird. James Madison
>had it right: the more local the government, the less competent it is likely
>to be.
I'm a big fan of state sovereignty so we will just have to disagree on that.
>
>>
>>>
>>>The trouble with it is that the private insurers will try to co-opt it,
>>>through lobbying, so that it becomes the sinkhole for people with
>>>pre-existing conditions. Then costs will go up, and the private insurers
>>>can
>>>go back to printing money.
>>
>>
>> Ed, I hope you realize there are a lot of people that really think the
>> public option is
>> going to be affordable as in 100 to 200 bucks a month. That isn't going
>> to happen.
>
>I don't know who those people are, Wes. For some people with *very* low
>incomes, it may well come out to a cost like that -- as will subsidized
>private insurance.
As you know since I mention it often, I catch all three hours of C-Span Washington
Journal. The call in portions of the program is where I'm hearing it.
>
>>
>> I'd still like to see a rate schedule for the public option, the
>> particulars of what is
>> covered, co pays, and all that messy stuff that ruins the dream.
>>
>> Wes
>
>Have you looked for one? There have been some projections. I haven't paid
>much attention to them myself.
My ear radar is on alert, I've never heard anything. My googlefu hasn't turned up
anything solid either.
>I'm more interested in putting an end to the
>unpaid emergency room care; getting a grip on pharmaceutical costs (which
>isn't really in the bill, but which it will enable); and putting the AMA on
>the spot to start doing something about health care costs. Right now that's
>in the hands of the private insurance companies, and they've failed at it,
>utterly. That's not because they're stupid or evil. It's because they have
>no incentive to do so. In fact, their incentive is quite the opposite.
How do you deal with unpaid emergency care? That appears to be a factor in the overall
cost of insurance since in the end, someone has to pay.
Now on pharmaceutical costs, I don't think we should have to pay a dime more than any
other western country. One world price for the developed nations unless a case can be
made for extra costs for litigation or testing by country. Discounts to third world
countries, I'm willing to pay for.
I've heard that in the case of other countries, they have laws under the WTO agreements
that if a deal on pricing can't be cut, they can make the drug inhouse reguardless of US
patents.
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_E/trips_e/pharma_ato186_e.htm
Go half way down. Closest thing I can find at the moment.
I wish I could give you cites but last night while I was listening to Cspan-1, I heard
that most medical centers have a year over year expectation of a 7% annual increase in
returns.
>
>Once the system is somewhat rationalized, with universal care and some tools
>that let us grab medical care and insurance by the balls, it will be a
>matter of how intelligently we use those powers. That's a big "if." But
>right now, it's running out of control, with no incentives for anyone to
>control costs. As David Brooks put it, it's a system of "perverse
>incentives."
I can agree that there are a lot of forces in action. Now will both sides agree to
eliminate the perverse parts?
Wes
Buerste
"rangerssuck" <range...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c80ca33-98de-4db4...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
*********************************************
And , do you have proof of anything? If so, show it. You typically respond
in knee-jerk fashion on any hear-say or rumors you happen to like. I doubt
you know what goes on in your own home.
Ed Huntress
And there are so many fine examples for you to point to, like California,
Louisianna, Illinois, New York, Michigan, New Jersey, etc., etc. d8-)
Half the state governments in the country have a chance of becoming the
subjects of comic books.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The trouble with it is that the private insurers will try to co-opt it,
>>>>through lobbying, so that it becomes the sinkhole for people with
>>>>pre-existing conditions. Then costs will go up, and the private insurers
>>>>can
>>>>go back to printing money.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ed, I hope you realize there are a lot of people that really think the
>>> public option is
>>> going to be affordable as in 100 to 200 bucks a month. That isn't going
>>> to happen.
>>
>>I don't know who those people are, Wes. For some people with *very* low
>>incomes, it may well come out to a cost like that -- as will subsidized
>>private insurance.
>
> As you know since I mention it often, I catch all three hours of C-Span
> Washington
> Journal. The call in portions of the program is where I'm hearing it.
If you want, see if I can find anything serious. It may all just be wild
speculation; as I said, I haven't paid much attention. I don't listen to
call-ins of any kind. They depress me.
>
>>
>>>
>>> I'd still like to see a rate schedule for the public option, the
>>> particulars of what is
>>> covered, co pays, and all that messy stuff that ruins the dream.
>>>
>>> Wes
>>
>>Have you looked for one? There have been some projections. I haven't paid
>>much attention to them myself.
>
> My ear radar is on alert, I've never heard anything. My googlefu hasn't
> turned up
> anything solid either.
>
>>I'm more interested in putting an end to the
>>unpaid emergency room care; getting a grip on pharmaceutical costs (which
>>isn't really in the bill, but which it will enable); and putting the AMA
>>on
>>the spot to start doing something about health care costs. Right now
>>that's
>>in the hands of the private insurance companies, and they've failed at it,
>>utterly. That's not because they're stupid or evil. It's because they have
>>no incentive to do so. In fact, their incentive is quite the opposite.
>
> How do you deal with unpaid emergency care? That appears to be a factor
> in the overall
> cost of insurance since in the end, someone has to pay.
You make sure it isn't unpaid. First, you try to reduce it with a universal
system that, one hopes, will lead to more early detection.
For example, once Gunner had his stents a few years back, he should have
been on a regular stress-test schedule that could have detected his
impending second heart attack. They may not have had to saw him open. Then
he may not have had a stroke.
This is all statistical/actuarial stuff. The numbers are out there, in the
professional medical literature.
Once you have a rational, universal system going, you fold the remaining
emergency-room care into the total insured community. It already is,
actually, except that we pay it now in the form of taxes and substantially
higher hospital bills.
>
> Now on pharmaceutical costs, I don't think we should have to pay a dime
> more than any
> other western country. One world price for the developed nations unless a
> case can be
> made for extra costs for litigation or testing by country. Discounts to
> third world
> countries, I'm willing to pay for.
>
> I've heard that in the case of other countries, they have laws under the
> WTO agreements
> that if a deal on pricing can't be cut, they can make the drug inhouse
> reguardless of US
> patents.
>
> http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_E/trips_e/pharma_ato186_e.htm
>
> Go half way down. Closest thing I can find at the moment.
Yeah. TRIPS. It's a very fluid thing. There's a lengthy discussion about it
in a recent book that I just read, _Bad Samaritans_. The US is trying to ram
it down the world's throat, with mixed success. You may be interested that
Canada didn't recognize foreign drug patents until the '90s. I think it was
about the same for Switzerland -- 1988, IIRC. So it isn't a third-world
thing.
That's true for the US, too, BTW. We invoked it a few years ago by breaking
a European patent (Sanofi? I forget who held the patent.) on an antidote for
anthrax. Our military is using it now, but we made millions of doses for the
general population after the anthrax letter scare.
It's complicated. The European Union produced a report a few years ago,
slamming the countries of Europe for putting price controls on drugs,
producing all kinds of tables and numbers showing that the US had grabbed
most of the world's pharma research because this is where they make their
money. They showed the jobs and tax revenues that were generated from it,
and it showed that the US came out ahead. In fact, I had one of those jobs,
so I'm not entirely skeptical.
But I'm wary of it. It's one of those macroeconomic views of a microeconomic
situation, which don't show all of the mal-distribution of costs throughout
a society. My gut feeling is that we'd be better off with price controls on
drugs, just like every other developed country has done. But I'm sure that
the European report was as least partly correct, that we'd lose most of the
industry if we did so. They'd move to India and to the Third World, because
drugs can be made anywhere.
We'd get the same result if we could re-import US-made drugs from other
countries. Once you do that, the drug companies have no incentive to keep
their HQ's and production facilities in the US. None.
>
> I wish I could give you cites but last night while I was listening to
> Cspan-1, I heard
> that most medical centers have a year over year expectation of a 7% annual
> increase in
> returns.
You'd need to see a full analysis of that. The raw figure doesn't mean much.
>
>>
>>Once the system is somewhat rationalized, with universal care and some
>>tools
>>that let us grab medical care and insurance by the balls, it will be a
>>matter of how intelligently we use those powers. That's a big "if." But
>>right now, it's running out of control, with no incentives for anyone to
>>control costs. As David Brooks put it, it's a system of "perverse
>>incentives."
>
> I can agree that there are a lot of forces in action. Now will both sides
> agree to
> eliminate the perverse parts?
Absolutely not. The conservatives will not accept the fact that the
essential problem with health care in the US is multiple market failures
that are inherently unfixable. They'll keep trying to jimmy the rules to
make a real market out of it. On this one, I agree with the Democrats: there
is no way that anyone knows of to make a real market out of the health care
business. You can squeeze the balloon but the air keeps moving to another
end.
If one is discovered, I'd be all for it. But I don't believe that such a
thing exists.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>You make sure it isn't unpaid. First, you try to reduce it with a universal
>system that, one hopes, will lead to more early detection.
>
care. If you show up at an emergency room, they must treat you
as a matter of law, without regard to citizenship, ability to
pay, or legal immigrant status. Unfortunately this is about the
most expensive system possible, as crisis management and heroic
medical care are then the norm. The less expensive and more
effective preventative measures such as immunization and prenatal
care are not covered for many people, and are thus avoided.
>For example, once Gunner had his stents a few years back, he should have
>been on a regular stress-test schedule that could have detected his
>impending second heart attack. They may not have had to saw him open. Then
>he may not have had a stroke.
Another question is what meds did they have him on? The correct
meds may well have prevented further problems, and a lifetime of
such drugs would be cheaper than the heroic hospital treatments
for a second heart attack and then stroke. The problem being
that the drugs are expensive, and are frequently skipped if you
have a marginal income. Another example of "penny wise and pound
foolish" by contemporary society.
>
>This is all statistical/actuarial stuff. The numbers are out there, in the
>professional medical literature.
<snip>
This is one of the major areas of weakness of the Obama health
care effort. (The other is completely ignoring the
history/experiences of the other OECD nations with their
universal health care programs. We appear to be determined to
make their mistakes all over again.)
It appears that the accumulated medical data from the
governmental programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and the VA and
the private insurance data bases were *NEVER* used to create a
computer model of medical care costs and benefits. Thus, *ALL*
of the numbers being discussed are SWAG estimates.
By this time it should be possible to input changes such as
medical priorities, exclusions or $ caps for certain conditions
and population groups [e.g. illegals in or out? to see how the
total cost changes. What we getting are ever increasing amounts
of heat and smoke (as in blowing up the public's ***), but no
light.
Such a computer model is a major undertaking, but very necessary
if we are to minimize the chances for unpleasant surprises as the
priorities and caps for conditions change and various
demographic/socio-economic groups are covered or excluded.
The Communists were widely ridiculed for making scientific and
medical decisions on the basis of ideology. This is no better,
and we should be taking a close look at what went so wrong in the
USSR before we go down that same road.
Ed Huntress
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:fnc4o5lscg9f3bptj...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:34:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>>You make sure it isn't unpaid. First, you try to reduce it with a
>>universal
>>system that, one hopes, will lead to more early detection.
>>
> As indicated in another post the US ALREADY has universal medical
> care. If you show up at an emergency room, they must treat you
> as a matter of law, without regard to citizenship, ability to
> pay, or legal immigrant status. Unfortunately this is about the
> most expensive system possible, as crisis management and heroic
> medical care are then the norm. The less expensive and more
> effective preventative measures such as immunization and prenatal
> care are not covered for many people, and are thus avoided.
Right. But addressing the point to which you appear to be responding, what
we have is universal emergency and disaster treatment, not universal health
care. The point is to *avoid* invoking the emergency treatment for the
currently uninsured.
>
>>For example, once Gunner had his stents a few years back, he should have
>>been on a regular stress-test schedule that could have detected his
>>impending second heart attack. They may not have had to saw him open. Then
>>he may not have had a stroke.
> Another question is what meds did they have him on? The correct
> meds may well have prevented further problems, and a lifetime of
> such drugs would be cheaper than the heroic hospital treatments
> for a second heart attack and then stroke.
You'd have to ask him. I'm on a cocktail of five medications, after stents,
but I see a cardiologist every few months, too.
> The problem being
> that the drugs are expensive, and are frequently skipped if you
> have a marginal income. Another example of "penny wise and pound
> foolish" by contemporary society.
Exactly.
>>
>>This is all statistical/actuarial stuff. The numbers are out there, in the
>>professional medical literature.
> <snip>
> This is one of the major areas of weakness of the Obama health
> care effort. (The other is completely ignoring the
> history/experiences of the other OECD nations with their
> universal health care programs. We appear to be determined to
> make their mistakes all over again.)
I don't think so. There are hardly any practices from other countries that
have been copied to the ones proposed in the US. Do you know of another
system in which the primary payers are profit-making private insurance
companies, subsidized or not? Do you know of any that have no drug price
controls?
>
> It appears that the accumulated medical data from the
> governmental programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and the VA and
> the private insurance data bases were *NEVER* used to create a
> computer model of medical care costs and benefits. Thus, *ALL*
> of the numbers being discussed are SWAG estimates.
Ah, George, medical data like that is available in excrutiating detail from
commercial sources. Medicare also has highly detailed actuarial data. That's
how insurers set their rates and how Medicare and Medicaid costs are
projected.
Here ya' go. Knock yourself out. There's lots more where this came from:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/nationalhealthexpenddata/03_nationalhealthaccountsprojected.asp
>
> By this time it should be possible to input changes such as
> medical priorities, exclusions or $ caps for certain conditions
> and population groups [e.g. illegals in or out? to see how the
> total cost changes. What we getting are ever increasing amounts
> of heat and smoke (as in blowing up the public's ***), but no
> light.
It's been done for decades.
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
>news:fnc4o5lscg9f3bptj...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:34:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>You make sure it isn't unpaid. First, you try to reduce it with a
>>>universal
>>>system that, one hopes, will lead to more early detection.
>>>
>> As indicated in another post the US ALREADY has universal medical
>> care. If you show up at an emergency room, they must treat you
>> as a matter of law, without regard to citizenship, ability to
>> pay, or legal immigrant status. Unfortunately this is about the
>> most expensive system possible, as crisis management and heroic
>> medical care are then the norm. The less expensive and more
>> effective preventative measures such as immunization and prenatal
>> care are not covered for many people, and are thus avoided.
>
>Right. But addressing the point to which you appear to be responding, what
>we have is universal emergency and disaster treatment, not universal health
>care. The point is to *avoid* invoking the emergency treatment for the
>currently uninsured.
Exactly, as Grandma repeatedly told us "an ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure."
>
>>
>>>For example, once Gunner had his stents a few years back, he should have
>>>been on a regular stress-test schedule that could have detected his
>>>impending second heart attack. They may not have had to saw him open. Then
>>>he may not have had a stroke.
>
>> Another question is what meds did they have him on? The correct
>> meds may well have prevented further problems, and a lifetime of
>> such drugs would be cheaper than the heroic hospital treatments
>> for a second heart attack and then stroke.
>
>You'd have to ask him. I'm on a cocktail of five medications, after stents,
>but I see a cardiologist every few months, too.
Same here, and I get to see her for at least five minutes every
three months...
>
>> The problem being
>> that the drugs are expensive, and are frequently skipped if you
>> have a marginal income. Another example of "penny wise and pound
>> foolish" by contemporary society.
>
>Exactly.
>
>>>
>>>This is all statistical/actuarial stuff. The numbers are out there, in the
>>>professional medical literature.
>> <snip>
>
>> This is one of the major areas of weakness of the Obama health
>> care effort. (The other is completely ignoring the
>> history/experiences of the other OECD nations with their
>> universal health care programs. We appear to be determined to
>> make their mistakes all over again.)
>
>I don't think so. There are hardly any practices from other countries that
>have been copied to the ones proposed in the US. Do you know of another
>system in which the primary payers are profit-making private insurance
>companies, subsidized or not? Do you know of any that have no drug price
>controls?
This is exactly the point, and why I included "history." Much of
the problem appears to originate from the lack of a definitive
problem statement, thus leading to "mission creep" and attempting
to again nail "jelly to a tree" Anytime you attempt to be all
things to all people, you wind up being nothing to anyone, and in
any event it is impossible to evaluate
progress/effeciency/effectiveness without quantifiable goals
(which may be the intent).
>
>>
>> It appears that the accumulated medical data from the
>> governmental programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and the VA and
>> the private insurance data bases were *NEVER* used to create a
>> computer model of medical care costs and benefits. Thus, *ALL*
>> of the numbers being discussed are SWAG estimates.
>
>Ah, George, medical data like that is available in excrutiating detail from
>commercial sources. Medicare also has highly detailed actuarial data. That's
>how insurers set their rates and how Medicare and Medicaid costs are
>projected.
There are indeed tons of information. The problem is that little
of this is reduced to data, and the little data that is available
is not being used, other than in the most selective and
self-serving way.
One of the problems is that to effectively use such a model, you
must ask detailed and explicit questions, and to do this you must
understand the problem. Ask the wrong questions and you get the
wrong answers.
Given that there is finite pot of money available, it would seem
logical to structure coverage and policies so that the greatest
number of people and largest number of conditions will be
covered, but again there is no definitive problem statement to
this effect. Unfortunately, such a model (if honest) model will
produce answers you don't want or that are
politically/ideologically unacceptable when treatment of certain
conditions or groups are found to be not cost effective and thus
should be excluded or receive [much] lower funding/treatment
priority.
There is also the problem that after the model is created and
validated, the results will be ignored if they are not what "the
boss" wants to hear. This appears to have been what occurred
with the financial/derivative programs and computer simulations
at many of the banks and brokerages.
>
>Here ya' go. Knock yourself out. There's lots more where this came from:
>
>http://www.cms.hhs.gov/nationalhealthexpenddata/03_nationalhealthaccountsprojected.asp
>
>>
>> By this time it should be possible to input changes such as
>> medical priorities, exclusions or $ caps for certain conditions
>> and population groups [e.g. illegals in or out? to see how the
>> total cost changes. What we getting are ever increasing amounts
>> of heat and smoke (as in blowing up the public's ***), but no
>> light.
>
>It's been done for decades.
For medical insurance company profit optimization, with
qualifications such as pre-existing condition exclusion.
Now lets do it to maximize coverage, and lets get the results
into a format that the public can understand. Does anyone know
if either the OMB [Office of Manpower and Budget] or the CBO
[Congressional Budget Office] have [access] to such a model, and
how many "what if" alternatives have they evaluated?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
http://www.cbo.gov/
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm
196 page report
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf
>
>> Such a computer model is a major undertaking, but very necessary
>> if we are to minimize the chances for unpleasant surprises as the
>> priorities and caps for conditions change and various
>> demographic/socio-economic groups are covered or excluded.
In one sense I am simply complaining about human nature where we
never learn from past mistakes, but continue to lurch, stagger
and reel from one debacle, catastrophe and fiasco to the next.
Ed Huntress
I don't know where you get that idea, but insurance companies are extremely
good at using actuarial data. My understanding is that Medicare and Medicaid
are equally good. But the actual math of it is pretty arcane stuff for us
non-specialists, so I have never looked at the analyses they draw from the
data.
Their purposes are to analyze costs by doing extensive "what if" iterations
to their models, and to analyze the cost effects (and uncertainties)
involved with different boundaries established for their insured
communities. Is there something else you'd want them to do? Maybe they
already do it; I don't know the full extent of their analyses.
>
> One of the problems is that to effectively use such a model, you
> must ask detailed and explicit questions, and to do this you must
> understand the problem. Ask the wrong questions and you get the
> wrong answers.
>
> Given that there is finite pot of money available, it would seem
> logical to structure coverage and policies so that the greatest
> number of people and largest number of conditions will be
> covered, but again there is no definitive problem statement to
> this effect.
In the case of private insurance, that's what their medical board, ethics
board, legal board, and regulatory compliance boards are for. They're full
of reviewers. And the financial people get involved once the options are
analyzed and reported.
Medicare and Medicaid work similarly, only they don't need the marketing
people. That saves quite a bit of money.
> Unfortunately, such a model (if honest) model will
> produce answers you don't want or that are
> politically/ideologically unacceptable when treatment of certain
> conditions or groups are found to be not cost effective and thus
> should be excluded or receive [much] lower funding/treatment
> priority.
That's one of the problems with private insurance. It's not a trivial
problem for the government insurers, either.
>
> There is also the problem that after the model is created and
> validated, the results will be ignored if they are not what "the
> boss" wants to hear. This appears to have been what occurred
> with the financial/derivative programs and computer simulations
> at many of the banks and brokerages.
The business of medicine and related industry is a very different animal
from finance. You know I criticize them frequently but you have to give them
credit, IMO, for doing what they can within the incentive structure they
have to work with. I've met a lot of people in pharma and some from the
insurance industry, and I've sat through a few of their meetings and
seminars. They're mostly fine people -- even if they're a bit overpopulated
with egotists. But that's the medical field in general.
They're trying to do a humanitarian job in a profit-seeking environment.
That's bound to cause personal conflicts, like soldiers trained to kill
while trying to win "hearts and minds." In my limited experience with that
industry, there is a high frequency of cynical remarks and other evidence
that many of the people who work in it are at least somewhat conflicted.
There are two points worth making here. First, medical ethics is a
fast-growing field of employment and it deals with the enormous problems of
"maximizing coverage." It's a tough field. Benthamist Utilitarianism is not
an answer, although you'd think it was to hear some of the more simplistic
advocates of universal care.
Second, "learning from past mistakes" assumes that you know which decisions
were the mistakes. This depends a lot on how long your view is, in terms of
time, and how statistical you can be with human lives. Anecdotes are very
strong in this field because individual human outcomes affect us with strong
emotion -- there, but for the grace of God, go I.
It's rightly the province of politics, in the classical sense of the term.
Right now, with the realities of medicine in the midst of a historic
transition, when we can suddenly do more than we can afford to do, the
ethical questions are inevitably (IMO) a chaotic mess. But that's not an
excuse to do nothing. We have to do the best we can. We are not doing it
now.
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>There are two points worth making here. First, medical ethics is a
>fast-growing field of employment and it deals with the enormous problems of
>"maximizing coverage." It's a tough field. Benthamist Utilitarianism is not
>an answer, although you'd think it was to hear some of the more simplistic
>advocates of universal care.
Utilitarianism [the greatest good for the greatest number] tends
to rapidly fall into the trap that this requirement is frequently
maximized by providing a very large number of people with a very
small amount of "good." The total amount of "good" may be indeed
maximized, but the affect on any single individual is minimal.
We then have the result that large amounts of money are spent
with minimal benefit to anyone.
see
http://www.utilitarianism.com/
and
http://www.siue.edu/~evailat/i-mill.html
Wes
>>>Each state runs its own Medicaid. State governments in general are
>>>incompetent to do much more than name the official state bird. James
>>>Madison
>>>had it right: the more local the government, the less competent it is
>>>likely
>>>to be.
>>
>> I'm a big fan of state sovereignty so we will just have to disagree on
>> that.
>
>And there are so many fine examples for you to point to, like California,
>Louisianna, Illinois, New York, Michigan, New Jersey, etc., etc. d8-)
Those sound like democrat controlled states. Take my governor, I hear she is hot. Just
take her away, please. ;)
>
>Half the state governments in the country have a chance of becoming the
>subjects of comic books.
Better half the state governments rather than all of the USA at the federal level.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The trouble with it is that the private insurers will try to co-opt it,
>>>>>through lobbying, so that it becomes the sinkhole for people with
>>>>>pre-existing conditions. Then costs will go up, and the private insurers
>>>>>can
>>>>>go back to printing money.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ed, I hope you realize there are a lot of people that really think the
>>>> public option is
>>>> going to be affordable as in 100 to 200 bucks a month. That isn't going
>>>> to happen.
>>>
>>>I don't know who those people are, Wes. For some people with *very* low
>>>incomes, it may well come out to a cost like that -- as will subsidized
>>>private insurance.
>>
>> As you know since I mention it often, I catch all three hours of C-Span
>> Washington
>> Journal. The call in portions of the program is where I'm hearing it.
>
>If you want, see if I can find anything serious. It may all just be wild
>speculation; as I said, I haven't paid much attention. I don't listen to
>call-ins of any kind. They depress me.
Now that you mention it. A lot of callers to C-Span are depressing. This is offset by
some real gems of reason that get through. That was non-sarcastic.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd still like to see a rate schedule for the public option, the
>>>> particulars of what is
>>>> covered, co pays, and all that messy stuff that ruins the dream.
>>>>
>>>> Wes
>>>
>>>Have you looked for one? There have been some projections. I haven't paid
>>>much attention to them myself.
>>
>> My ear radar is on alert, I've never heard anything. My googlefu hasn't
>> turned up
>> anything solid either.
>>
>>>I'm more interested in putting an end to the
>>>unpaid emergency room care; getting a grip on pharmaceutical costs (which
>>>isn't really in the bill, but which it will enable); and putting the AMA
>>>on
>>>the spot to start doing something about health care costs. Right now
>>>that's
>>>in the hands of the private insurance companies, and they've failed at it,
>>>utterly. That's not because they're stupid or evil. It's because they have
>>>no incentive to do so. In fact, their incentive is quite the opposite.
>>
>> How do you deal with unpaid emergency care? That appears to be a factor
>> in the overall
>> cost of insurance since in the end, someone has to pay.
>
>You make sure it isn't unpaid. First, you try to reduce it with a universal
>system that, one hopes, will lead to more early detection.
Okay, you are saying not using the E room as the place of last resort. I wonder just how
much real care the unfortunate get there. Do they often get admitted to the hospital for
real care?
>
>For example, once Gunner had his stents a few years back, he should have
>been on a regular stress-test schedule that could have detected his
>impending second heart attack. They may not have had to saw him open. Then
>he may not have had a stroke.
Gunner needs to quit smoking. I don't care to speak about my specific heart issues but I
know for a fact that if I still smoked, I'd be dead now. Do you smoke was the only thing
my doctor wanted an answer to. I asked why do you ask and he said because if you do and
don't quit, it isn't worth my time treating you. How is that for blunt?
I don't make a habit of slagging Gunner since I like him and think he is a good guy when
not playing a bit of Walter Mitty on Usenet but he needs to make a change in his life.
Point is, more medical testing isn't going to take care of the core problems. We are part
of our treatment. As a diabetic you know you have to do you part. I know I have to do my
part for my issues. Gunner needs to drop the cigs and start living right.
Perhaps the extra testing might have convinced him. I don't think I recall him mentioning
stopping smoking yet. I'd think the first encounter would have had him flying right but
it didn't.
>
>This is all statistical/actuarial stuff. The numbers are out there, in the
>professional medical literature.
>
>Once you have a rational, universal system going, you fold the remaining
>emergency-room care into the total insured community. It already is,
>actually, except that we pay it now in the form of taxes and substantially
>higher hospital bills.
This is something that bothers me. We pass a law telling a business that you will serve
bad credit risks, those that cannot pay, and you spread the losses to other customers.
Do you think that would fly if the business was say a auto company instead of a medical
center? How about a bank?
>
>>
>> Now on pharmaceutical costs, I don't think we should have to pay a dime
>> more than any
>> other western country. One world price for the developed nations unless a
>> case can be
>> made for extra costs for litigation or testing by country. Discounts to
>> third world
>> countries, I'm willing to pay for.
>>
>> I've heard that in the case of other countries, they have laws under the
>> WTO agreements
>> that if a deal on pricing can't be cut, they can make the drug inhouse
>> reguardless of US
>> patents.
>>
>> http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_E/trips_e/pharma_ato186_e.htm
>>
>> Go half way down. Closest thing I can find at the moment.
>
>Yeah. TRIPS. It's a very fluid thing. There's a lengthy discussion about it
>in a recent book that I just read, _Bad Samaritans_. The US is trying to ram
>it down the world's throat, with mixed success. You may be interested that
>Canada didn't recognize foreign drug patents until the '90s. I think it was
>about the same for Switzerland -- 1988, IIRC. So it isn't a third-world
>thing.
Thank you for validating that.
>
>That's true for the US, too, BTW. We invoked it a few years ago by breaking
>a European patent (Sanofi? I forget who held the patent.) on an antidote for
>anthrax. Our military is using it now, but we made millions of doses for the
>general population after the anthrax letter scare.
Given the concern at the time, that sounds rational. I wonder if we cut a deal after the
fact? Considering how much wealth we have expended defending Europe, I don't really feel
too bad if we nicked something.
>
>It's complicated. The European Union produced a report a few years ago,
>slamming the countries of Europe for putting price controls on drugs,
>producing all kinds of tables and numbers showing that the US had grabbed
>most of the world's pharma research because this is where they make their
>money. They showed the jobs and tax revenues that were generated from it,
>and it showed that the US came out ahead. In fact, I had one of those jobs,
>so I'm not entirely skeptical.
I have not doubt it is complicated. Pharma and the Military are two things I truly think
the EU takes us for a ride on.
>
>But I'm wary of it. It's one of those macroeconomic views of a microeconomic
>situation, which don't show all of the mal-distribution of costs throughout
>a society. My gut feeling is that we'd be better off with price controls on
>drugs, just like every other developed country has done. But I'm sure that
>the European report was as least partly correct, that we'd lose most of the
>industry if we did so. They'd move to India and to the Third World, because
>drugs can be made anywhere.
You mean like a fair chunk of US non-drug manufacturing?
>
>We'd get the same result if we could re-import US-made drugs from other
>countries. Once you do that, the drug companies have no incentive to keep
>their HQ's and production facilities in the US. None.
You can only re-import US drugs if enough drugs are exported. You think pharma is going
to ramp up exports to cut their throat? That isn't going to happen.
>
>>
>> I wish I could give you cites but last night while I was listening to
>> Cspan-1, I heard
>> that most medical centers have a year over year expectation of a 7% annual
>> increase in
>> returns.
>
>You'd need to see a full analysis of that. The raw figure doesn't mean much.
Like that is going to happen.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Once the system is somewhat rationalized, with universal care and some
>>>tools
>>>that let us grab medical care and insurance by the balls, it will be a
>>>matter of how intelligently we use those powers. That's a big "if." But
>>>right now, it's running out of control, with no incentives for anyone to
>>>control costs. As David Brooks put it, it's a system of "perverse
>>>incentives."
>>
>> I can agree that there are a lot of forces in action. Now will both sides
>> agree to
>> eliminate the perverse parts?
>
>Absolutely not. The conservatives will not accept the fact that the
>essential problem with health care in the US is multiple market failures
>that are inherently unfixable. They'll keep trying to jimmy the rules to
>make a real market out of it. On this one, I agree with the Democrats: there
>is no way that anyone knows of to make a real market out of the health care
>business. You can squeeze the balloon but the air keeps moving to another
>end.
>
>If one is discovered, I'd be all for it. But I don't believe that such a
>thing exists.
Health care went down hill when it went from being a calling (religious sense) to being a
business.
Wes
Hawke
>>> If people knew how half the things in government work, they'd stop voting
>>> for pretty-boy populist buttheads who spend their time on talk radio and
>>> TV
>>> pundit shows, and start voting for real representatives.
>>>
>> I had the TV on this morning and saw the same old politicians at the tea
>> party meeting saying the same old things about reform... I thought the
>> "contract with America" was going to change everything for the good. A
>> bunch of politicians, and politicians has become a dirty word. You never
>> hear anyone called a Statesman any more.
>>
>> John
>
> It's grisly. Evan Bayh has said some things that are really ruffling
> feathers. I wish it would start a real conversation and some real change,
> but my fear is that we'll just blow by it and go back to business as usual.
>
I can't help but chuckle when I hear all the bitching and whining about
the rotten politicians. It's funny because they same guys bitching about
no turnover in Washington all vote for the same guy on election day they
always vote for. The south is particularly bad about this. They never
send anyone new to Washington but most of the people complaining the
loudest are from the south. In the last decade the percentage of
incumbents reelected was 98%. It's almost a guaranteed lifetime job once
you get elected. If you don't die, retire, or go to jail, everybody gets
to keep their job forever. So as usual it's the stupid "folks" who are
to blame for not sending anyone new to congress. That and they way the
politicians all got together and put in a system of redistricting that
virtually guarantees everyone a safe seat. Between voters who vote for
the same people time after time and crooked politicians who put in a
system that guarantees them reelection it's no wonder it's always
business as usual in Washington.
Hawke
Hawke
Hey Ed, I saw you mentioned in your last post that you just read Bad
Samaritans. I read that a year or so ago after I saw the author on Book
TV. I was wondering what you thought about it. Me, I thought he was on
the button in a lot of areas. The hypocrisy countries show on
protectionism is pretty amazing. When you read about how his country,
Korea, went from nothing to the modern world in 40 years and did it by
protecting targeted industries, it makes the free traders look like
idiots. At least to me. What's your take on it?
Hawke
Ed Huntress
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hlv6nu$9cs$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Chang is a rare combination of economic historian and iconoclast; he doesn't
accept the standard histories without checking them out on his own. That
produces some very interesting reading, of which _Bad Samaritans_ is a good
example.
I got the feeling that he isn't done, that he'll eventually take on the
conventional wisdom about trade and put New Trade Theory to the test.
However, he said a couple of times that developed economies benefit from the
fewest trade restrictions, while making it clear that it is not in the
interest of developing economies to play along. Meantime, I had just
finished Krugman's _The Return of Depression Economics_, and I was
interested to see the parallels and contrasts in how they viewed the
economic collapses of Latin American countries and the Asian Tigers over the
past few decades, including the involvement of the IMF and the World Bank.
Both Chang and Krugman are macroeconomists. I want to see either one of them
really take on the microeconomic results of free trade. Krugman tips his hat
to it but doesn't get into thorough analysis. Maybe Chang is the one who
will do it.
All it all, both books opened my eyes to several issues and both were worth
reading.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Each state runs its own Medicaid. State governments in general are
>>>>incompetent to do much more than name the official state bird. James
>>>>Madison
>>>>had it right: the more local the government, the less competent it is
>>>>likely
>>>>to be.
>>>
>>> I'm a big fan of state sovereignty so we will just have to disagree on
>>> that.
>>
>>And there are so many fine examples for you to point to, like California,
>>Louisianna, Illinois, New York, Michigan, New Jersey, etc., etc. d8-)
>
> Those sound like democrat controlled states. Take my governor, I hear she
> is hot. Just
> take her away, please. ;)
She has to be an idiot to take that job in the first place, so you can keep
her.
Regarding the Democratically controlled states: hey, somebody has to pay the
bills for those red states that get more federal money than they pay out in
taxes. <g> Alaska is the real welfare queen. Besides getting almost $2 back
for every dollar they're taxed, that great free-market governor of theirs
rigged things so they skim enough off of the oil companies to send a nice,
fat, $4,000 welfare check to every crackpot and rug rat in the state. Of
course, we pay for all of it.
It's like a friend of mine, an expert on classical music, says about country
music: There are a lot of talented people in that business and no doubt
there are some gems among the swarf, but you'll go deaf and blind waiting
for it to show up. Most callers to talk radio and TV make me wonder how they
made it through high school. They make me fear for the republic.
I don't know how they're treated. I've never asked.
>
>>
>>For example, once Gunner had his stents a few years back, he should have
>>been on a regular stress-test schedule that could have detected his
>>impending second heart attack. They may not have had to saw him open. Then
>>he may not have had a stroke.
>
> Gunner needs to quit smoking. I don't care to speak about my specific
> heart issues but I
> know for a fact that if I still smoked, I'd be dead now. Do you smoke was
> the only thing
> my doctor wanted an answer to. I asked why do you ask and he said because
> if you do and
> don't quit, it isn't worth my time treating you. How is that for blunt?
>
> I don't make a habit of slagging Gunner since I like him and think he is a
> good guy when
> not playing a bit of Walter Mitty on Usenet but he needs to make a change
> in his life.
>
> Point is, more medical testing isn't going to take care of the core
> problems. We are part
> of our treatment. As a diabetic you know you have to do you part. I know
> I have to do my
> part for my issues. Gunner needs to drop the cigs and start living right.
That's true, but you also have to be able to test and measure where you are,
and you need an expert to put it all together. I'm full of surprises, for
example. <g> Many people are.
>
> Perhaps the extra testing might have convinced him. I don't think I
> recall him mentioning
> stopping smoking yet. I'd think the first encounter would have had him
> flying right but
> it didn't.
>
>>
>>This is all statistical/actuarial stuff. The numbers are out there, in the
>>professional medical literature.
>>
>>Once you have a rational, universal system going, you fold the remaining
>>emergency-room care into the total insured community. It already is,
>>actually, except that we pay it now in the form of taxes and substantially
>>higher hospital bills.
>
> This is something that bothers me. We pass a law telling a business that
> you will serve
> bad credit risks, those that cannot pay, and you spread the losses to
> other customers.
>
> Do you think that would fly if the business was say a auto company instead
> of a medical
> center? How about a bank?
This isn't about peoples' retirement funds, Wes. It's life and death. In a
civilized society, you don't treat it like a business, and you don't ignore
people who are dying, whether it's their own fault or not. That's for
savages.
The idea of patents was to encourage innovation, not to enrich people who
make discoveries. Our original patent and copyright laws granted exclusivity
for 14 years. Now copyrights are for the life of the author plus 75 years;
90 years for corporate authors. I'm not sure what it is for pharma patents
now but I think it's 28 years. Then there is a little trick they use to
double that, which is producing a "new" drug which is just the metabolytes
of the original one.
It's a farce. It's also evidence of the power of lobbies.
>
>>
>>It's complicated. The European Union produced a report a few years ago,
>>slamming the countries of Europe for putting price controls on drugs,
>>producing all kinds of tables and numbers showing that the US had grabbed
>>most of the world's pharma research because this is where they make their
>>money. They showed the jobs and tax revenues that were generated from it,
>>and it showed that the US came out ahead. In fact, I had one of those
>>jobs,
>>so I'm not entirely skeptical.
>
> I have not doubt it is complicated. Pharma and the Military are two
> things I truly think
> the EU takes us for a ride on.
>
>
>>
>>But I'm wary of it. It's one of those macroeconomic views of a
>>microeconomic
>>situation, which don't show all of the mal-distribution of costs
>>throughout
>>a society. My gut feeling is that we'd be better off with price controls
>>on
>>drugs, just like every other developed country has done. But I'm sure that
>>the European report was as least partly correct, that we'd lose most of
>>the
>>industry if we did so. They'd move to India and to the Third World,
>>because
>>drugs can be made anywhere.
>
> You mean like a fair chunk of US non-drug manufacturing?
A much higher percentage. It would take a while, because the expertise is
here now. But it would go away.
>
>>
>>We'd get the same result if we could re-import US-made drugs from other
>>countries. Once you do that, the drug companies have no incentive to keep
>>their HQ's and production facilities in the US. None.
>
> You can only re-import US drugs if enough drugs are exported. You think
> pharma is going
> to ramp up exports to cut their throat? That isn't going to happen.
They're in a tough spot. We've already seen that with Canada, a few years
ago, when seniors started taking their bus tours to buy drugs.
If they tighten up exports too much, foreign countries will just break the
patents and start producing those drugs on their own. And our legislators
know what will happen if they allow re-importation. That's why such a
popular idea has not taken root.
Some things just don't fit the business model. We used to know that, but we
forgot.
--
Ed Huntress
rangerssuck
> "rangerssuck" <rangerss...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5c80ca33-98de-4db4...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 21, 10:53 am, "Buerste" <buer...@buerste.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "William Wixon" <wwi...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:jk2gn.635$e%2....@newsfe08.iad...
>
> > > the public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator
> > > michael bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent actions.
> > > you can make a donation through act blue's website.
>
> > >http://www.actblue.com/
>
> > Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR
> > money?
> > No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride healthcare.
> > The
> > lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And Spend"!
>
> Don't you mean Gunner's free health care? They don't come much further
> to the right than Gunner, nor do they come much more crooked.
> Remember, Tom, you are the guy who's Gunner's great fan, who would be
> proud to have him working side-by-side with you. He's a thief, a tax
> cheat and a drain on society. So, when you're complaining about how
> you're getting burned by public health care, remember it saved your
> buddy's life.
> *********************************************
>
> And , do you have proof of anything? If so, show it. You typically respond
> in knee-jerk fashion on any hear-say or rumors you happen to like. I doubt
> you know what goes on in your own home.
Proof of what? That Gunner is a tax cheat? Just take a look at his
property tax records, or his endless posts about how he's exempt from
income, sales & use taxes just because he doesn't think the rules
apply to him. That his healthcare is at the expense of the government?
Surely you must be joking. That he's your buddy? Well, if you've seen
the light and decided to bail on him, good for you.
John Husvar
In article <4b8368d4$0$22543$607e...@cv.net>,
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:8jEgn.343419$IU1.2...@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com...
> This isn't about peoples' retirement funds, Wes. It's life and death. In a
> civilized society, you don't treat it like a business, and you don't ignore
> people who are dying, whether it's their own fault or not. That's for
> savages.
Some "savages" did/do better. There's archaeological evidence the
Neanderthals took care of injured and ill group members. Some of the
skeletons showed what would have been disabling conditions, rendering
the individuals practically "useless" to the group.
Somehow I always thought we moderns could do at "least" as well as the
Neanderthals.
> >
> > Health care went down hill when it went from being a calling (religious
> > sense) to being a
> > business.
Agreed. Medicine was a vocation, a highly honored profession that
required great sacrifice for the benefit of others, long before it
became the Health Care Industry
>
> Some things just don't fit the business model. We used to know that, but we
> forgot.
Yep.
Something's got to keep the doors open, the lights on, the staff paid,
etc. etc. at the hospitals and doctors' offices, of course, but there
also should be some balance between the money and the medicine.
Hawke
I haven't read any of Krugman's newer books. The last one I read was
something like the Unwinding(?). It's clear to me that Krugman knows his
field. Chang just confirmed what I had known from other things I've
read. The biggest protectionists are the most successful countries. They
were all protectionist when they needed it and when they become the
elephant in the room, economically, they decry other countries doing
what they did. It would be nice if countries like ours would own up to
the truth and just go ahead and protect what they think is critical to
the country and let what isn't be subject to free trade. I'm not going
to hold my breath waiting for us to do that though. Free trade nutbars
are too firmly in control these days.
Hawke
John R. Carroll
It's the result of people buynig into the "Spirit of America" bs.
There are smart, hard working, "can do", ambitious people all over the
world.
That isn't what sets America apart.
There was a long stretch, one that might not be over, where the PRC would
pay a manufacturer ten percent of everything they exported.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
You may know that I wrote a series of long articles about China trade early
in the last decade, and I had a chance then to talk to a lot of the
government people involved with trade. FWIW, this is my short take:
Everyone involved at that level knows that Chang is right. They also know
that having China and other developing countries get rich as soon as
possible is in the best interest of the US. That's the best way for them to
become a market for us, and to level off trade, through a combination of
increased domestic consumption on their part, increased consumption of
imports, and rising costs -- which are inevitable as they become wealthier.
There are several caveats there, of course, but the relevant point here is
that we really don't try very hard to force them into a "fair trade" model.
That's hokum for the yokels, as Krugman puts it, for use by politicians when
an industry or two in their district have just tanked, and the yokels are
looking for someone to blame. We pay it lip service to keep the lid on
public discontent. The reps start yelling about "unfair trade" and hold
Congressional hearings until it dies away. Of course it's unfair. There's no
such thing as "fair trade," and we wouldn't like it if we had it. How do you
compete "fairly" with 80 cents/hour wages, when manufacturing technology is
a commodity available to anyone in the world? The idea is absurd. We, along
with all other developed countries, are deeply committed to making it
"unfair" with a system of indirect subsidies, starting with our military and
government expenditures on research and government-supported higher
education, and to the aerospace and electronics industries; moderate but
crucial tariffs; direct subsidies to agriculture; and on and on. These are
things that the Japanese seized on decades ago and tried, in some areas, to
go us one better. The Europeans did it largely with direct subsidies and
import quotas.
It may in fact be the Chinese who precipitated their downfall, but almost
every time, it was because the US companies set themselves up for it through
a combination of hubris and ignorance. That's what happened to the US
machine tool industry in the early '80s, when the "culprit" was Japan. The
real culprit was a 1930s business model that they refused to change. It's
also what happened to our car industry. That was a 1950s business model.
But our system of trade supports is uneven, and a captive of ideological
nonsense. It was summed up by the top execs of Mitsubishi, I think it was,
who were quoted in David Halberstam's book _The Reckoning_, asking "What we
don't understand is, why don't you protect yourselves?" We go after the
chimeras, like "dumping," as if it were all a matter of adhering to some
fantasy about "free trade," when the real issue is what we should do
tactically to keep the jobs that have a future. We do very little.
This is not to say I know any better how to do it, or that anyone I know has
any great insights. Alan Tonelson of the US Business and Industry Council,
whom you'll see on CNN from time to time, is a friend of mine who knows the
subject far better than I do, and he's helped me out several times. But I
don't think that Alan looks at the big picture, either. He sees it as a
perpetual trade war and a zero-sum game.
I'm trying hard, once again, to see the big picture on trade. But don't get
me started. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
================
Some time back the standard excuse was "you can't make an omelet
without breaking eggs."
This problematique appears to arise because of the failure to
clearly disorientate between short term gain, as in "take the
money and run," for a very few sociopaths, and the long term
interests of the American people/society/economy as a whole.
From the viewpoint of the financiers and "buy-ruin-sell"
scam-artist management, everything is going fine, thank you very
much. They have their second homes in Switzerland or other safe
havens, and their assets widely diversified in many banks and
currencies.
By contrast, the vast majority of people in the developed
countries [not just the United States] have taken it on the shin
but good, with the high paying, high value, high multiplier jobs
and small businesses, on which a viable middle class depends,
being exported or destroyed in droves, and the tax burden for
governmental operations increasingly shifted onto their
shoulders.
The majority of the accountability for this situation lies with
our elected representatives. They spend entirely too much time
in the company of the elite few in their gated communities and
country clubs, breathing the Potomac swamp gas, and forget about
the 99% of the American citizens that live in the real world
where the good jobs with benefits (and the value of their assets
such as their homes and IRAs/401ks/pensions) are disappearing.
Wes
>> Those sound like democrat controlled states. Take my governor, I hear she
>> is hot. Just
>> take her away, please. ;)
>
>She has to be an idiot to take that job in the first place, so you can keep
>her.
Maybe the same could be said about our current President. :)
>
>Regarding the Democratically controlled states: hey, somebody has to pay the
>bills for those red states that get more federal money than they pay out in
>taxes.
Well, the state of New York sure picked the nations pockets. Think derivatives.
><g> Alaska is the real welfare queen. Besides getting almost $2 back
>for every dollar they're taxed, that great free-market governor of theirs
>rigged things so they skim enough off of the oil companies to send a nice,
>fat, $4,000 welfare check to every crackpot and rug rat in the state. Of
>course, we pay for all of it.
At least Alaska sends us oil and natural gas, something we need. Delaware, just sends
higher credit card bills. Well, some of us, I pay my charges off inside of 20 days so I
don't get hit with interest.
Oh, I left out the govermental industry centered around Washingon DC, that one sure sucks
the cash out of the rest of the country.
I hope you didn't get hit too hard with the snow.
Wes
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> Those sound like democrat controlled states. Take my governor, I hear
>>> she
>>> is hot. Just
>>> take her away, please. ;)
>>
>>She has to be an idiot to take that job in the first place, so you can
>>keep
>>her.
>
> Maybe the same could be said about our current President. :)
>>
>>Regarding the Democratically controlled states: hey, somebody has to pay
>>the
>>bills for those red states that get more federal money than they pay out
>>in
>>taxes.
>
> Well, the state of New York sure picked the nations pockets. Think
> derivatives.
Hey, that's good ol' conservative, free-market bidness, Wes! Hands off 'dem
businessmen! What kinda conservative are you, anyhow? d8-)
>
>><g> Alaska is the real welfare queen. Besides getting almost $2 back
>>for every dollar they're taxed, that great free-market governor of theirs
>>rigged things so they skim enough off of the oil companies to send a nice,
>>fat, $4,000 welfare check to every crackpot and rug rat in the state. Of
>>course, we pay for all of it.
>
> At least Alaska sends us oil and natural gas, something we need.
That's not Alaska. That's the oil companies that drill it and pipe it.
Alaska sends us blubber, frozen halibut, and crackpot politicians.
> Delaware, just sends
> higher credit card bills.
More good ol'....bidness. It's a free market! You aren't a closet commie
now, are you? You can just switch to another, competitive credit-card
company. Competition guarentees that they always have the lowest possible
rates. <g>
> Well, some of us, I pay my charges off inside of 20 days so I
> don't get hit with interest.
>
> Oh, I left out the govermental industry centered around Washingon DC, that
> one sure sucks
> the cash out of the rest of the country.
Then they pass most of it out to the red states. Did you ever look at which
states send tax money in, and how much each one gets back? Sheesh.
What do you think they do with that money in Washington? Stuff it into their
mattresses? It gets converted into pork and sent back out to the states --
mostly the ones with old Senators.
>
> I hope you didn't get hit too hard with the snow.
<sigh> It's all over, for a while. We wound up with about another 12 inches.
I just finished shoveling the driveway an hour ago and my back is
recovering. If I was in shape for it, I'd get out my cross-country skiis and
just say screw the driveway. I can ski to the train station in about three
minutes and the supermarket in ten -- or I could, 20 years ago.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>> Well, the state of New York sure picked the nations pockets. Think
>> derivatives.
>
>Hey, that's good ol' conservative, free-market bidness, Wes! Hands off 'dem
>businessmen! What kinda conservative are you, anyhow? d8-)
A thinking conservative.
>
>>
>>><g> Alaska is the real welfare queen. Besides getting almost $2 back
>>>for every dollar they're taxed, that great free-market governor of theirs
>>>rigged things so they skim enough off of the oil companies to send a nice,
>>>fat, $4,000 welfare check to every crackpot and rug rat in the state. Of
>>>course, we pay for all of it.
>>
>> At least Alaska sends us oil and natural gas, something we need.
>
>That's not Alaska. That's the oil companies that drill it and pipe it.
>Alaska sends us blubber, frozen halibut, and crackpot politicians.
Barney Frank and Pelosi are not from Alaska.
>
>> Delaware, just sends
>> higher credit card bills.
>
>More good ol'....bidness. It's a free market! You aren't a closet commie
>now, are you? You can just switch to another, competitive credit-card
>company. Competition guarentees that they always have the lowest possible
>rates. <g>
Remember when Congress wanted to put limits on credit card interest an administration ago?
Soon we were hearing it would cause the colapse of the financial industry and the idea was
abandoned. Sounds like both parties are owned.
>
>> Well, some of us, I pay my charges off inside of 20 days so I
>> don't get hit with interest.
>>
>> Oh, I left out the govermental industry centered around Washingon DC, that
>> one sure sucks
>> the cash out of the rest of the country.
>
>Then they pass most of it out to the red states. Did you ever look at which
>states send tax money in, and how much each one gets back? Sheesh.
What is it, 45K private sector workers, 74K governmental sector workers. Where are those
governmental sector workers bunched up at? Not a red state. Some one pays them. Must be
trickle up.
>What do you think they do with that money in Washington? Stuff it into their
>mattresses? It gets converted into pork and sent back out to the states --
>mostly the ones with old Senators.
I'm not going to look up what amendment made direct election the rule but I still like the
idea of the state legislature picking senators. Even if the legislature isn't my party.
It would be a sure thing Levin would have been retired long ago. Some states are going to
be pick your party strongholds but a lot of them change parties periodically.
Okay, I looked it up 17th.
>
>>
>> I hope you didn't get hit too hard with the snow.
>
><sigh> It's all over, for a while. We wound up with about another 12 inches.
>I just finished shoveling the driveway an hour ago and my back is
>recovering. If I was in shape for it, I'd get out my cross-country skiis and
>just say screw the driveway. I can ski to the train station in about three
>minutes and the supermarket in ten -- or I could, 20 years ago.
I haven't broke out my skis once this year. Pretty pathetic on my end.
I gotta snow blow in the morning, nothing stopping me other than it is hard to back up the
driveway without running off an edge when there isn't any sharp edges to see.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Wes
>You may know that I wrote a series of long articles about China trade early
>in the last decade, and I had a chance then to talk to a lot of the
>government people involved with trade. FWIW, this is my short take:
>
>Everyone involved at that level knows that Chang is right. They also know
>that having China and other developing countries get rich as soon as
>possible is in the best interest of the US. That's the best way for them to
>become a market for us, and to level off trade, through a combination of
>increased domestic consumption on their part, increased consumption of
>imports, and rising costs -- which are inevitable as they become wealthier.
>
I've always maintained that the sooner China's standard of living rises, the better it
will be for us. I'd rather be in a race to the top than a race to the bottom.
Wes
dca...@krl.org
>
> I've always maintained that the sooner China's standard of living rises, the better it
> will be for us. I'd rather be in a race to the top than a race to the bottom.
>
> Wes
Then you will be glad to hear that the NYT had an article today on the
wages in China increasing because of the labor shortage there.
Signing bonuses for accepting employment, 20% increase in factory
wages is recent months, Wenzhou alone posted a shortage of up to one
million workers.
Dan
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> Well, the state of New York sure picked the nations pockets. Think
>>> derivatives.
>>
>>Hey, that's good ol' conservative, free-market bidness, Wes! Hands off
>>'dem
>>businessmen! What kinda conservative are you, anyhow? d8-)
>
> A thinking conservative.
Uh-oh. A RINO, eh? <g>
>>
>>>
>>>><g> Alaska is the real welfare queen. Besides getting almost $2 back
>>>>for every dollar they're taxed, that great free-market governor of
>>>>theirs
>>>>rigged things so they skim enough off of the oil companies to send a
>>>>nice,
>>>>fat, $4,000 welfare check to every crackpot and rug rat in the state. Of
>>>>course, we pay for all of it.
>>>
>>> At least Alaska sends us oil and natural gas, something we need.
>>
>>That's not Alaska. That's the oil companies that drill it and pipe it.
>>Alaska sends us blubber, frozen halibut, and crackpot politicians.
>
> Barney Frank and Pelosi are not from Alaska.
>
>>
>>> Delaware, just sends
>>> higher credit card bills.
>>
>>More good ol'....bidness. It's a free market! You aren't a closet commie
>>now, are you? You can just switch to another, competitive credit-card
>>company. Competition guarentees that they always have the lowest possible
>>rates. <g>
>
> Remember when Congress wanted to put limits on credit card interest an
> administration ago?
> Soon we were hearing it would cause the colapse of the financial industry
> and the idea was
> abandoned. Sounds like both parties are owned.
It started in 1980; the culprit in breaking down the old interest rate
limits was South Dakota, not Delaware; and Dan Quayle is the one who gave
the signal, in 1991, that the President (Bush I) would veto the bill if it
got through the House.
You may find this brief history of the credit card industry entertaining. It
doesn't go all the way back to the Sears Revolving Credit card, but it's a
good history of the past few decades:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/more/rise.html
>
>>
>>> Well, some of us, I pay my charges off inside of 20 days so I
>>> don't get hit with interest.
>>>
>>> Oh, I left out the govermental industry centered around Washingon DC,
>>> that
>>> one sure sucks
>>> the cash out of the rest of the country.
>>
>>Then they pass most of it out to the red states. Did you ever look at
>>which
>>states send tax money in, and how much each one gets back? Sheesh.
>
> What is it, 45K private sector workers, 74K governmental sector workers.
> Where are those
> governmental sector workers bunched up at? Not a red state. Some one
> pays them. Must be
> trickle up.
There are just over 2 million federal employees (not counting 3 million
active and reserve military personnel). Approximately 85% of the 2 million
work *outside* of the D.C. metro area. So you're looking at around 300,000
federal employees in and around Washington, including the nearby areas of
Maryland and Virginia.
If they earn an average of $74k (it's just slightly less), that's $22
Billion. Federal tax revenue is $2.1 Trillion.
Wes, that's 1% of the tax revenue. I think you'll have to look elsewhere for
your scapegoat. <g>
(This agrees closely with the total federal nondefense civilian salaries and
wages of $163 Billion, nationwide).
If you want to see where all our tax money goes, in moderate detail and from
a variety of angles, see the government's Consolidated Federal Funds Report:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/cffr-08.pdf
>
>
>>What do you think they do with that money in Washington? Stuff it into
>>their
>>mattresses? It gets converted into pork and sent back out to the states --
>>mostly the ones with old Senators.
>
> I'm not going to look up what amendment made direct election the rule but
> I still like the
> idea of the state legislature picking senators. Even if the legislature
> isn't my party.
> It would be a sure thing Levin would have been retired long ago. Some
> states are going to
> be pick your party strongholds but a lot of them change parties
> periodically.
>
> Okay, I looked it up 17th.
You have a lot of faith in state legislatures. As far as I can see, most of
them are second- or third-raters, and even more ideological and politically
polarized than Congress.
Retired congressmen have commented in several places lately that the
gerrymandering of districts has forced individual congressmen to reach for
the political poles, whereas they used to have to try to cover the center.
It makes sense to me. And that's a function of state governments. They set
the districts.
Wes
>
>"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:qFjin.374108$N07.1...@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, the state of New York sure picked the nations pockets. Think
>>>> derivatives.
>>>
>>>Hey, that's good ol' conservative, free-market bidness, Wes! Hands off
>>>'dem
>>>businessmen! What kinda conservative are you, anyhow? d8-)
>>
>> A thinking conservative.
>
>Uh-oh. A RINO, eh? <g>
ROTFLMAO! The snow hasn't hurt your sense of humor.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>><g> Alaska is the real welfare queen. Besides getting almost $2 back
>>>>>for every dollar they're taxed, that great free-market governor of
>>>>>theirs
>>>>>rigged things so they skim enough off of the oil companies to send a
>>>>>nice,
>>>>>fat, $4,000 welfare check to every crackpot and rug rat in the state. Of
>>>>>course, we pay for all of it.
>>>>
>>>> At least Alaska sends us oil and natural gas, something we need.
>>>
>>>That's not Alaska. That's the oil companies that drill it and pipe it.
>>>Alaska sends us blubber, frozen halibut, and crackpot politicians.
>>
>> Barney Frank and Pelosi are not from Alaska.
>>
>>>
>>>> Delaware, just sends
>>>> higher credit card bills.
>>>
>>>More good ol'....bidness. It's a free market! You aren't a closet commie
>>>now, are you? You can just switch to another, competitive credit-card
>>>company. Competition guarentees that they always have the lowest possible
>>>rates. <g>
I don't actually need a credit card and as long as it doesn't cost me I'll have one. The
only reason I keep one for the most part is to maintain the credit history behind it. For
some perverse reason, canceling a card cancels the history from what I've been told.
>>
>> Remember when Congress wanted to put limits on credit card interest an
>> administration ago?
>> Soon we were hearing it would cause the colapse of the financial industry
>> and the idea was
>> abandoned. Sounds like both parties are owned.
>
>It started in 1980; the culprit in breaking down the old interest rate
>limits was South Dakota, not Delaware; and Dan Quayle is the one who gave
>the signal, in 1991, that the President (Bush I) would veto the bill if it
>got through the House.
>
>You may find this brief history of the credit card industry entertaining. It
>doesn't go all the way back to the Sears Revolving Credit card, but it's a
>good history of the past few decades:
>
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/more/rise.html
That was a good read. Initially there was an issue with usury laws and inflation. From
there it went down hill. My view of banks as businesses and partners has rapidly moved
toward predators. This isn't limited to just banks
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Well, some of us, I pay my charges off inside of 20 days so I
>>>> don't get hit with interest.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I left out the govermental industry centered around Washingon DC,
>>>> that
>>>> one sure sucks
>>>> the cash out of the rest of the country.
>>>
>>>Then they pass most of it out to the red states. Did you ever look at
>>>which
>>>states send tax money in, and how much each one gets back? Sheesh.
>>
>> What is it, 45K private sector workers, 74K governmental sector workers.
>> Where are those
>> governmental sector workers bunched up at? Not a red state. Some one
>> pays them. Must be
>> trickle up.
>
>There are just over 2 million federal employees (not counting 3 million
>active and reserve military personnel). Approximately 85% of the 2 million
>work *outside* of the D.C. metro area. So you're looking at around 300,000
>federal employees in and around Washington, including the nearby areas of
>Maryland and Virginia.
Do you have a count of the contractors that owe their living to serving DC?
>
>If they earn an average of $74k (it's just slightly less), that's $22
>Billion. Federal tax revenue is $2.1 Trillion.
>
>Wes, that's 1% of the tax revenue. I think you'll have to look elsewhere for
>your scapegoat. <g>
But what percent of drag on the economy as they try to make themselves useful by
constantly pushing for and enacting job killing regulations?
>
>(This agrees closely with the total federal nondefense civilian salaries and
>wages of $163 Billion, nationwide).
>
>If you want to see where all our tax money goes, in moderate detail and from
>a variety of angles, see the government's Consolidated Federal Funds Report:
>
>http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/cffr-08.pdf
I'm looking at page 21 in that pdf. To look at it you see large areas of the country at
the top rate, not sure what is going on with Utah, but that is per capita. The east coast
has a lot of people in their tiny states. In a state like WY, basic things like the
interstate highway, national parks and such can skew the numbers.
Then things like people moving from a high wage high tax state on retirement to a cheaper
state are going to show up in that same chart. What is that spike with WV?
I see Virginia and Maryland both clean up on defense and other agencies.
>
>>
>>
>>>What do you think they do with that money in Washington? Stuff it into
>>>their
>>>mattresses? It gets converted into pork and sent back out to the states --
>>>mostly the ones with old Senators.
>>
>> I'm not going to look up what amendment made direct election the rule but
>> I still like the
>> idea of the state legislature picking senators. Even if the legislature
>> isn't my party.
>> It would be a sure thing Levin would have been retired long ago. Some
>> states are going to
>> be pick your party strongholds but a lot of them change parties
>> periodically.
>>
>> Okay, I looked it up 17th.
>
>You have a lot of faith in state legislatures. As far as I can see, most of
>them are second- or third-raters, and even more ideological and politically
>polarized than Congress.
State legislatures are the farm teams. Where do you think our US congress people come
from?
>
>Retired congressmen have commented in several places lately that the
>gerrymandering of districts has forced individual congressmen to reach for
>the political poles, whereas they used to have to try to cover the center.
>It makes sense to me. And that's a function of state governments. They set
>the districts.
Under guidance and consent decrees administered by the DOJ. Some of that gerrymandering
has a heavy federal hand in it.
Darn, weekend went too fast once again.
Wes
Wes
>On Feb 28, 1:33=A0am, Wes <clu...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've always maintained that the sooner China's standard of living rises, =
>the better it
>> will be for us. =A0I'd rather be in a race to the top than a race to the =
>bottom.
>>
>> Wes
>
>Then you will be glad to hear that the NYT had an article today on the
>wages in China increasing because of the labor shortage there.
>Signing bonuses for accepting employment, 20% increase in factory
>wages is recent months, Wenzhou alone posted a shortage of up to one
>million workers.
>
> Dan
Who are they selling to? Is their internal economy having a lot of growth?
dca...@krl.org
>
> Who are they selling to? Is their internal economy having a lot of growth?
>
> Wes
> --
> "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
> government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
> in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
The article really did not say except that the Chinese stimulus
program created a lot of new jobs in the interior.
Dan
Wes
So it isn't just the Western world trying to put their economy on lifesupport. Business
is evil until the tax revenue drops off. ;)
Wes
Ed Huntress
There are a lot of opinions about this. We've provided the tools for
predation and greed, through relaxed regulation. Technology and greed took
over. Then it became the price of staying in business, especially for hedge
funds. They either had to produce incredible returns or they'd lose their
investors. Then another wave of greed took over as they began making major
investments on their house accounts.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Well, some of us, I pay my charges off inside of 20 days so I
>>>>> don't get hit with interest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I left out the govermental industry centered around Washingon DC,
>>>>> that
>>>>> one sure sucks
>>>>> the cash out of the rest of the country.
>>>>
>>>>Then they pass most of it out to the red states. Did you ever look at
>>>>which
>>>>states send tax money in, and how much each one gets back? Sheesh.
>>>
>>> What is it, 45K private sector workers, 74K governmental sector workers.
>>> Where are those
>>> governmental sector workers bunched up at? Not a red state. Some one
>>> pays them. Must be
>>> trickle up.
>>
>>There are just over 2 million federal employees (not counting 3 million
>>active and reserve military personnel). Approximately 85% of the 2 million
>>work *outside* of the D.C. metro area. So you're looking at around 300,000
>>federal employees in and around Washington, including the nearby areas of
>>Maryland and Virginia.
>
> Do you have a count of the contractors that owe their living to serving
> DC?
No. What would that show you? You can look for a breakdown of procurements
by state, but, economically, it doesn't matter much whether they're
government purchases from private suppliers or private purchases.
>>
>>If they earn an average of $74k (it's just slightly less), that's $22
>>Billion. Federal tax revenue is $2.1 Trillion.
>>
>>Wes, that's 1% of the tax revenue. I think you'll have to look elsewhere
>>for
>>your scapegoat. <g>
>
> But what percent of drag on the economy as they try to make themselves
> useful by
> constantly pushing for and enacting job killing regulations?
>>
>>(This agrees closely with the total federal nondefense civilian salaries
>>and
>>wages of $163 Billion, nationwide).
>>
>>If you want to see where all our tax money goes, in moderate detail and
>>from
>>a variety of angles, see the government's Consolidated Federal Funds
>>Report:
>>
>>http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/cffr-08.pdf
>
> I'm looking at page 21 in that pdf. To look at it you see large areas of
> the country at
> the top rate, not sure what is going on with Utah, but that is per capita.
> The east coast
> has a lot of people in their tiny states. In a state like WY, basic
> things like the
> interstate highway, national parks and such can skew the numbers.
As the Tax Foundation can tell you (and it may also be in the CFFR), most of
the states that get the most federal money per capita are poor states. There
are some exceptions, of course.
>
> Then things like people moving from a high wage high tax state on
> retirement to a cheaper
> state are going to show up in that same chart. What is that spike with
> WV?
Ah, that's because of Senator Porkbarrel -- Robert C. Byrd. He's losing his
edge, but, for decades, he was the champion pork wrestler in the Senate.
>
> I see Virginia and Maryland both clean up on defense and other agencies.
Yes, that's where a lot of them are located.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What do you think they do with that money in Washington? Stuff it into
>>>>their
>>>>mattresses? It gets converted into pork and sent back out to the
>>>>states --
>>>>mostly the ones with old Senators.
>>>
>>> I'm not going to look up what amendment made direct election the rule
>>> but
>>> I still like the
>>> idea of the state legislature picking senators. Even if the legislature
>>> isn't my party.
>>> It would be a sure thing Levin would have been retired long ago. Some
>>> states are going to
>>> be pick your party strongholds but a lot of them change parties
>>> periodically.
>>>
>>> Okay, I looked it up 17th.
>>
>>You have a lot of faith in state legislatures. As far as I can see, most
>>of
>>them are second- or third-raters, and even more ideological and
>>politically
>>polarized than Congress.
>
> State legislatures are the farm teams. Where do you think our US congress
> people come
> from?
If you take the best one or two out of 100 for federal office, that leaves
98 turkeys. That was James Madison's argument. As he said in Federalist 10:
"In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic
may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to
guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they
must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion
of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not
being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being
proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the
proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small
republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a
greater probability of a fit choice."
In other words, your chance of electing turkeys is greater in a state than
in the national government.
>
>>
>>Retired congressmen have commented in several places lately that the
>>gerrymandering of districts has forced individual congressmen to reach for
>>the political poles, whereas they used to have to try to cover the center.
>>It makes sense to me. And that's a function of state governments. They set
>>the districts.
>
> Under guidance and consent decrees administered by the DOJ. Some of that
> gerrymandering
> has a heavy federal hand in it.
I'm not aware of that, Wes. The Supreme Court has allowed the states a free
hand in setting districts, and Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004) pretty much iced
any chances of making them more fair.
>
> Darn, weekend went too fast once again.
>
> Wes
Always.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
Whoops, I missed one of your questions the first time:
>>
>>There are just over 2 million federal employees (not counting 3 million
>>active and reserve military personnel). Approximately 85% of the 2 million
>>work *outside* of the D.C. metro area. So you're looking at around 300,000
>>federal employees in and around Washington, including the nearby areas of
>>Maryland and Virginia.
>
> Do you have a count of the contractors that owe their living to serving
> DC?
>>
>>If they earn an average of $74k (it's just slightly less), that's $22
>>Billion. Federal tax revenue is $2.1 Trillion.
>>
>>Wes, that's 1% of the tax revenue. I think you'll have to look elsewhere
>>for
>>your scapegoat. <g>
>
> But what percent of drag on the economy as they try to make themselves
> useful by
> constantly pushing for and enacting job killing regulations?
You'd have to be more specific here. Most regulations that directly effect
jobs come from statutes, which are passed by Congress. If you're speaking of
administrative rules enacted by the agencies, then I'll stick my neck out a
bit and say that, much like the percentage of taxes that pay for federal
employees in Washington, you may be wildly overestimating how much of that
goes on. If you have some examples, I'll try to check them out.
Keep in mind, though, that most administrative rules are nothing more than
the implementation of orders from Congress, required to fulfill the
agencies' mandates under statutory law.
Any way you look at it, it almost always comes up looking like a school of
red herrings. As is the case with taxes, the US has very few regulations
compared to most other developed countries, but it doesn't seem to help our
competitiveness or per capita GDP. The IMF ranks us 9th; the World Bank
ranks us 12th; the CIA World Factbook ranks us 10th.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>"Buerste" <bue...@buerste.com> wrote in message
>news:RFcgn.18137$OJ6....@newsfe22.iad...
>>
>> "William Wixon" <wwi...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>> news:jk2gn.635$e%2....@newsfe08.iad...
>>> bold progressives www.boldprogressives.org is calling for supporters of
>>> the public option to make donations to the campaign funds of senator
>>> michael bennett and senator kirsten gillibrand for their recent actions.
>>> you can make a donation through act blue's website.
>>>
>>> http://www.actblue.com/
>>>
>>
>> Then why don't Progressives just pay for the public option with THEIR
>> money? No, they want Conservatives to pay for the left's free ride
>> healthcare. The lefts' motto of "Tax And Spend" is now "Steal And Spend"!
>
>If there's a public option, the people who opt for it WILL pay for it with
>their own money.
>
>You're criticizing a program and yet you have no idea how it works, do you,
>Tawwwwwwm?
========
It is becoming more obvious that the only viable option is the
mandatory single payer public option. This is based on two
observations:
(1) Enormous amounts of health care dollars are being skimmed off
the top for executive compensation and perks, stock holder
dividends, advertising, sales commissions and construction of
ornate [and expensive] physical plant. Additionally, there is
significant amounts of duplication in support services such as
computer programming, IT, and large amounts of health care
dollars are expended to deny rather than provide service. much of
this wasted money will be [re]captured with a single payer public
plan.
(2) Without mandatory participation, with subsidies as required,
there will be excessive numbers of "free loaders," who will not
pay into the system, but who will receive medical care anyhow.
Much of the present trouble with the existing US health delivery
system can be traced back to the failure to tax employer provided
health insurance like any other compensation.
All of the economic development texts I have read indicate that
one of the worst techniques for development of an economic sector
is to provide a tax exemption. In short there are two main
reasons: (a) it distorts the economy, and (b) it is hidden, i.e.
"out of sight -- out of mind." We now have the result that
people with no or minimal employer health insurance are
subsidizing those with health insurance, including the ultra high
earners with gold plated health plans, because of the shifted tax
burden.
==>Does anyone have an estimate of how much tax revenue is
currently lost (a) because of the health benefit tax exemption,
and (b) the deductibility as a business expense by the
employer?<==
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Keep in mind, though, that most administrative rules are nothing more than
>the implementation of orders from Congress, required to fulfill the
>agencies' mandates under statutory law.
=========
This is most likely a conscious ruse. This allows Congress to
pass the necessary enabling legislation and the President to sign
into law, but then the regulatory agencies take the heat.
Congress, particularly in the financial area, e.g. _CFTC
Modernization Act of 2000_, quickly rescinds any administrative
regulations that limit corporate profit.
Ed Huntress
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:m8doo5dnseopffeha...@4ax.com...
Either that, or a private insurance system with not-for-profit insurance
companies. That switches the incentives all around. The way they run in
Switzerland, insurance executives are compensated on the basis of how many
people they cover and how much they cut operating expenses. Maybe we'll have
one or the other a generation from now.
> This is based on two
> observations:
>
> (1) Enormous amounts of health care dollars are being skimmed off
> the top for executive compensation and perks, stock holder
> dividends, advertising, sales commissions and construction of
> ornate [and expensive] physical plant. Additionally, there is
> significant amounts of duplication in support services such as
> computer programming, IT, and large amounts of health care
> dollars are expended to deny rather than provide service. much of
> this wasted money will be [re]captured with a single payer public
> plan.
If it's run very, very well.
>
> (2) Without mandatory participation, with subsidies as required,
> there will be excessive numbers of "free loaders," who will not
> pay into the system, but who will receive medical care anyhow.
>
> Much of the present trouble with the existing US health delivery
> system can be traced back to the failure to tax employer provided
> health insurance like any other compensation.
>
> All of the economic development texts I have read indicate that
> one of the worst techniques for development of an economic sector
> is to provide a tax exemption. In short there are two main
> reasons: (a) it distorts the economy, and (b) it is hidden, i.e.
> "out of sight -- out of mind." We now have the result that
> people with no or minimal employer health insurance are
> subsidizing those with health insurance, including the ultra high
> earners with gold plated health plans, because of the shifted tax
> burden.
>
> ==>Does anyone have an estimate of how much tax revenue is
> currently lost (a) because of the health benefit tax exemption,
> and (b) the deductibility as a business expense by the
> employer?<==
I don't have it, but I've seen it. You might try the NYT. I think that's
where I saw it.
--
Ed Huntress
William Wixon
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b8c4416$0$5003$607e...@cv.net...
>
-snip-
>> It is becoming more obvious that the only viable option is the
>> mandatory single payer public option.
single payer babeee! (if only just to piss off the guys on this list.)
>
> Either that, or a private insurance system with not-for-profit insurance
> companies. That switches the incentives all around. The way they run in
> Switzerland, insurance executives are compensated on the basis of how many
> people they cover and how much they cut operating expenses. Maybe we'll
> have one or the other a generation from now.
rachel maddow did a segment on public option a few days ago, while i was
watching it i told myself i had to post something to this group, to this
tread, she used the word "incentives" and i kept thinking "that's what ed
keeps talking about". it almost sounded as if she's following this group.
:-)
if you want you can skip ahead to 5:14 past congressman anthony weiner's
comments on the house floor (funny comments though) to hear specifically
rachel's comments.
Ed Huntress
HAHA! Oh, that was great! Thanks, William. I haven't been watching MSNBC for
a while and I haven't heard Rachel go off on a stem-winder like that since
last year. And Weiner is a real piece of work. That's a New Yorker at his
best. <g>
Regarding "perverse incentives," it's actually an old concept in economics
and political science, one of the lenses through which to look at market
failure ("market failure" is an actual economics term, BTW) to see where
things went wrong in business and many other institutions. Unfortunately,
when you get good at it an apply it to various organizations and
institutions that don't seem to be accomplishing what they're supposed to,
you see that an awful lot of them are seriously fu***d up. That's the legacy
of applying business models where they're the wrong models, for one thing,
but it's also a result of simple-minded, knee-jerk market ideology. Often it
works, but when it doesn't, it's FUBAR.
So I can't take credit for Rachel's comment. <g> The idea got some currency
a couple of months ago, I think, when columnist David Brooks applied it to
the health care system:
But Brooks may have had the same policy science professors I had; he uses
the term often to describe such systems. So do I.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>And Weiner is a real piece of work. That's a New Yorker at his
>best. <g>
At least Congressman Weiner is able to tell the difference
between somebody pissing on his leg [and the general public], and
the gentle rain falling from the heavens, which many of the
politicians seem to have trouble with...
Rachel Maddow clip is a keeper.
Ed Huntress
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:50:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>>And Weiner is a real piece of work. That's a New Yorker at his
>>best. <g>
> <snip>
>
> At least Congressman Weiner is able to tell the difference
> between somebody pissing on his leg [and the general public], and
> the gentle rain falling from the heavens, which many of the
> politicians seem to have trouble with...
>
> Rachel Maddow clip is a keeper.
It's a classic. We should re-post William's link in case anyone missed it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/35573472#35573472
--
Ed Huntress
cavelamb
Health Care For Profit.
She's compelling, I'll say that.
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
Hawke
The weird thing is that this health care "problem" is really so simple
to solve. All that really needs to be done is to remove health insurance
from for profit insurance companies and turn it over to the government.
But by that what I mean is the payment system should be turned over to
the government. Medicine should be as it always has been, a private
arrangement between a patient and a doctor. When the entire country
pools the risk of health problems it is the cheapest way to accomplish
the goal of providing at least a basic level of good care to everyone.
That is what having a single payer system will do.
No country is going to be able to provide the kind of health care
millionaires get to all its people, but at least it can afford to give
everyone a good level of care. We can do this and at a much cheaper cost
than we are paying now. The barrier to this is the political interests
that don't want to do what will undoubtedly work the best. They oppose
change for either financial or philosophical reasons but whatever their
reasons they are on the wrong side. So it's really a pretty simple fix.
But as we have seen before, even though it's simple thing it's still
hard to do. But as of right now it looks like the Democrats will pass a
bill through reconciliation. It's been a long hard fight but it'll be
over soon and the Democrats, oops, I mean the public has won, and the
businesses and republicans lost. Chalk one up for the good guys.
Hawke
Hawke
Time passes but nothing changes. This is no different from the days when
cheats used to take gold coins and put them in a bag and shake them up
until small amounts of gold were chipped off the coins. Then they could
take the gold they got off the coins for a profit and go ahead and spend
the coins as if they were the same. In other words they were scamming
the system.
In a wild west world everything goes. We have had that kind of system
going for quite a while now. I say since 1980 when the republican (no
rules for business)party took over the country. Everybody gets to do
anything they want and all in the name of freedom. Rational people call
that lawlessness. Cheating, scamming, and duping the ignorant has gone
on for ever. Those free-booting ways were rampant in the 1920s with
every kind of rip off imaginable happening on a daily basis. After the
debacle of the 1920s passed we came to our senses and put a leash on the
business/financial community. Forty years later, starting in 1980 the
republicans let the dogs off the leash again just like in the 20s. We
got the check for that irresponsibility in 2008 and we're still paying
for it. It looks like nobody learns and every generation or so makes
exactly the same mistakes again and again. It's embarrassing. It makes
us look as stupid as dogs. Are the people never going to learn not to
listen to the republicans when they say they need more freedom, meaning
no restraints on what business does?
Hawke
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> It is becoming more obvious that the only viable option is the
>> mandatory single payer public option.
>
>Either that, or a private insurance system with not-for-profit insurance
>companies. That switches the incentives all around. The way they run in
>Switzerland, insurance executives are compensated on the basis of how many
>people they cover and how much they cut operating expenses. Maybe we'll have
>one or the other a generation from now.
=========
Even with multiple not-for-profit insurance companies you still
wind up with massive duplication. For example each company has
their own Board, Chairman, President, multiple vice-presidents,
and other corporate officers, and each of these has a staff and
perks, etc. You still have duplication of IT and other services.
Each of the non-profits still accumulates "excessive of income
over expenses," as reserves.
It makes much more sense from the standpoint of maximizing the
impact of health care dollars for the public to have a single
payer public option, with the requirement that the salaries are
GSA [with possibly a few GSA "super grades"], the furniture is
GSA, the buildings are GSA, the benefits [medical/retirement] are
government standard, no corporate planes, no excessive executive
perks, etc.
Make no mistake about it. Some people will take it in the shorts
big time with a change to a single payer public system such as
the 30 Well point executives that make over 1 million dollars per
year each, but this largess is funded with money skimmed from
health care.
There is little to no chance that all of the money currently
being skimmed off the top will be recovered and used to pay for
actual health care, but much of it can and will be with a single
payer public option. However, much will depend on how well
Congress "micromanages" the new organization, for example by
specifying staffing/manning to prevent the establishment of
another "all chiefs, no indians" organization and by forcing the
use of GSA services/products where applicable, i.e. no antique
commodes for the executives offices, and GSA standard vehicles.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/thains-office-overhaul-said-to-cost-12-million/
F. George McDuffee
care "canaries in the coal mine" [Miami Fl] is about to keel
over. It can only get worse.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/10/1523476/grand-jury-is-probing-jackson.html
<snip>
With Jackson executives using end-of-life terms like "death
spiral'' and "insolvency'' and a grand jury starting to
investigate the public health system's problems, Miami-Dade Mayor
Carlos Alvarez said Wednesday he would help Jackson get a
short-term loan but demanded its governing body speed up a
decision on a recovery plan.
``At this point, delays are simply too costly to accept
lightly,'' Alvarez wrote to Jackson Chief Executive Eneida
Roldan, who has called for the Public Health Trust to approve a
plan to cut $160 million by March 22. Alvarez wants to see a plan
presented to the County Commission on Tuesday.
<snip>