Balta1701

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 03:28 PM) Not rolling my eyes at all. I think the focus on drugs and cures rather than wellness and prevention are the root of our health problems in this country. I believe that the difficulty in changing the mindset of the healthcare industry will be negligible compared to changing the mindset of the public overall. It's not perfect (nothing in this bill is) but there's actually an effort in the bill to change that. One of the medicare changes that kicks in after 2014 is to start changing how medicare pays out. Currently, as you note, most health providers get paid based on numbers; you do more treatments, you earn more. This, of course, encourages doctors to over-prescribe and over-treat, rather than focusing on the outcome, because that's where the profit is. There is a task in the Medicare change part that will, at least at some level, put incentives into Medicare payments for positive overall health care outcomes, rather than number of procedures. No one knows at this point if it'll work and it's somewhat complex, but that's exactly how you want the pay structure to work.

Of course...if we really wanted to make a difference in people's lifestyles, there are other levers we could push. For example, we could stop dumping tens of billions of dollars a year into corn subsidy programs.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 11:28 AM) ahhhhh ok. That clears it up for me. I was under the impression the exchanges were basically a non-profit insurance company. Thanks! We wanted that. That's what the "public option" would have been, but that did not make the final version of the bill. States are allowed to set up not for profit co-ops that are allowed to compete in the exchanges, but that is left to the states to do (they can already do this anyway if they want, most choose not to do so because the insurance companies wind up dumping their sickest patients onto the state co-ops and those co-ops then wind up in the insurance death spiral).

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 11:14 AM) Here's my impression of this. Based simply on the little I've read about the Small Business Health Options Programs ("SHOP Exchanges"), these exchanges will make existing private companies have to be a little more competitive to compete with exchanges... as I believe these exchanges are non-profit. I'm going to have to correct you here. There's a possibility in the bill for states to set up their own not for profits, but it's not mandated and there's no overarching public plan. Here's how the exchanges work. Right now, if you want to buy insurance on the individual market or as a small business, you have no bargaining power, especially if you're in an "at risk group" of any sort (you've had the flu in the past 10 years, you're over the age of 30, you've bruised an arm before, you're married, you're not married, whatever). Small businesses and the self-employed are massively screwed, as is anyone who loses a job. Thus, the individual insurance market has been the real disaster this bill aims to fix. If you're working for a large company or the government, that company can get better prices by polling all of its employees together. Yes, there's going to be some high-risk people, but there's also going to be enough low-risk people that the insurance company will take them on, and they benefit at the same time from savings due to simply growing larger and having more people in their pool. In the exchanges, basically, you are set up with everyone else in the exchange. Plans are offered inside of the exchanges, and the exchanges are able to work like a larger corporation; when you pool people together, you reduce the risk inside that pool and bring economies of scale in at the same time. So insurance companies sell for-profit plans inside the exchanges but they can't single out and remove certain high-risk groups. It is a huge boon to small business in reality; it gives them a chance to purchase insurance at the type of rates that larger companies would be able to negotiate even if they're small.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 10:58 AM) 2) How does the CBO think we're going to SAVE money when we're adding so many people who, i'm assuming, can't/won't pay much of their share for their new insurance, and who are probably going to essentially be covered by the government? Has the federal government EVER had a cost cutting spending program like this? I'm thinking of you know, the post office, which loses 200 billion a year, or defense, whose spending rarely gets cut, etc. Is there a cap on the use of this? What's going to stop people from abusing the hell out of this system? "I have the sniffles, i'm going to the doctor. Since I have no obligation to pay my own share, I can go whenever I want." Are they not concerned about costs going out of control? I could respond to all of these, but I'm going to only answer a few of them. First of all...the post office loses $200 billion a year? When did we start mail delivery to Mars? Secondly...there's an infinite number metaphors for how you can save money while adding so many more people. It's all about spending money more efficiently, which this bill does in a number of ways. For example, it's cheaper to have a cavity treated than to wait and wind up having a root canal or a tooth pulled. It's cheaper to get yourself on cholesterol lowering drugs than it is to wait until you've had the heart attack. It's cheaper to use a cheaper treatment if you've done the research to discover whether or not the cheaper treatment works better than the more expensive one. Third...going to the doctor isn't like buying TV's. People typically don't like going to the doctor. People usually hesitate to go to the doctor, and the data suggests, they often hesitate longer than they should for financial reasons. It would actually be, on the whole, cheaper for the country if people went to the doctor when they got the sniffles rather than waiting until they wind up in the ER. Overuse of health care isn't a problem in other countries that cover everyone; in fact, it's quite simply cheaper to do it that way. Health care isn't like a number of other things in the economy. If you get sick, genuinely sick, you can't save yourself money by just putting it off, because it's likely to get worse rather than better. If you get sick, it's likely to wind up impairing your ability to do other things in your life. If you get sick and you can't get treatment, you can't do your job, you can't find a job, you're either in bankruptcy or you're bouncing between ER's that are required to treat you anyway.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 10:35 AM) The biggest hope for the Sox is that with the big jump in payroll, they aren't able to put as much in their minor league system. Have they ever been big spenders in their minor league system though? Mauer was drafted because he was cheaper than Prior. Santana was a rule 5 steal. Nathan and Liriano were swiped in the AJ deal. Morneau was only a 3rd round pick. If you go to the lower guys...Span wasn't exactly a huge money guy. Garza didn't break the bank when they drafted him. Their whole bullpen is made up of guys swiped at low-cost deals, half of them at one time were in the Sox org. They're not exactly signing Strasburg/Chapman type deals to get where they are.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 10:33 AM) In a big picture sense you can, because now you are paying for everyone's heath. That's been true in this country for centuries.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 08:56 AM) Good Morning, Comrades!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 09:07 AM) Is Woodridge real America? Or do we have to find some podunk town in Kansas to fit that bill? Based on the 2000 census: Clearly, that's not real america.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 08:51 AM) We're already over $3 in Chicago - I think I paid $3.25 last night. And its near $3 in the burbs. Chicago is a city. That doesn't count, it isn't real America.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 07:39 AM) I am hoping that they use the wave of political capital that will follow this health care thing, to pass a decent energy bill. Somehow I doubt that happens. Probably they'll do immigration reform next, as you said, and wait for energy until summer when gas prices are far higher. Frankly, it's up to Lindsay Graham. Which is just bat sh*t insane. Anyway, what's likely to happen to get an energy bill moving this summer is $3+/gallon gas again.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 01:20 AM) Don't want to come in here acting ignorant, but can you guys point me somewhere that will explain what this reform does for average folks like myself? Without knowing your exact economic situation it's hard to say exactly. There's a number of goodies that do start immediately, the moment the president's ink dries. If you're uninsured currently and you apply for insurance, you can't be turned down because of a pre-existing condition. If you're currently insured and you get sick, the insurance company can't cancel your policy. If you're currently in college, you can now stay on your parent's insurance until you're 26. If you're really sick, lifetime caps on insurance company payouts are eliminated, so you can't run out of coverage just because you (or a family member) gets cancer. There's also a small business health insurance tax credit that starts this year, and a number of other "Goodies" if you qualify for Medicare. Long term, the bill does a couple things. It gets you better treatment by spending money to see if treatments we're doing actually work. It saves you a freaking boatload on your long-term tax bill. Puts at least 10 years more stability onto Medicare, maybe more if the cost controls work better than the CBO thinks. It completely reforms the individual insurance market so that people who aren't employed or who work for small businesses or who start a business don't lose their insurance or can buy it. It mandates that there is a fine if you don't have insurance, but it also offers subsidies if you can't afford it.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 09:50 PM) Gotta love the tea party folks. They know how to get on TV Step 1: "Be White and male" Step 2: "Don't be not white and not male."

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 08:58 PM) Doubtful. Lowell's older, injury-prone and expensive. Better to move Beckham back to 3B if they get desperate. Who takes over the other IF spot? Retherford?

Today, over 200,000 protesters gathered on the Capitol steps to protest the Health Care bill. As per usual, the media ignored them completely. Damn liberal media. Oh wait, they were immigration reform advocates. They're ok to ignore. Look, 200 tea-baggers!

The vote will happen in the 10:00 EST Hour. The President is scheduled to speak at 11.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 09:04 PM) The truth is somewhere in the middle. We're a great nation and will do health care better than any other nation on earth. For everyone. Not yet, but this will get us closer.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 07:12 PM) There are so many ways to spend $ at that position. If it was a less popular player, many would here be saying that deal cost us a second championship. Frankly, that's hard to believe. Not only would it have been opening another hole in the lineup that we'd have to have filled somewhere...but the only way it could truly have cost us a championship is if you could take that $60 million and manage to nail several bargains correctly with it. The odds are that we'd have wound up spending $20 million of it on Andruw Jones in 2007 or out-bidding the Cubs for Soriano or something like that.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 07:19 PM) You can argue against that. But not well.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 07:07 PM) You could argue the Yankees getting better is good for baseball. I am not prepared to create that argument at this time, nor do I know I want to. but it can be done. Saying "You can argue" something doesn't mean you can argue it well.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 06:40 PM) I do believe that the Republican party has shifted hard to the right on a number of issues, and that being a moderate Republican is very hard, but I'm not convinced that the Republican Party's electoral fortunes are hurt by this. Could the Republican party really be hoping to retake both houses if there was little controversy on this and the bill was more of a compromise? We'll see, I doubt it. Update: There may also be a little bit of self-interest at play here. Frum might know what kind of commentators MSNBC wants. Do you get paid to be a pundit? I don't think he's arguing that the Republicans have hurt their electoral chances in November by choosing outright opposition, but that they've done longer-term, deeper damage by their choices. He illustrates it more clearly in the video or the full text.

This is good for baseball. We can debate whether it's a good deal for the Twins or not, whether he'll stay at catcher or not, but I can live with it being good for baseball.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 05:17 PM) Canadian! RINO! Wuss! Here's the coup de grace from that discussion.