mr_genius

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 15, 2010 -> 07:42 PM) Don't forget to bomb all the factories in Germany and Japan first. China too for good measure Might as well get India on the way to China. Just to be a bit more thorough.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 14, 2010 -> 06:53 PM) Ok, my answer is whiskey and challenging you to a fight. I dodged arguments about cost reduction? I'm offended by that. The problem with insurance companies is not the profit margin...it's the overhead. They increase that profit margin slightly by spending enormous additional amounts on overhead. Even more effective cost regulation in other countries has been found by having single-payer systems. They streamline everything, reduce paperwork, and massively reduce overhead at just about every level, and provide solid cost control by enabling effective preventative care. Yeah, they occasionally deny certain types of care, but you've just accepted that as necessary for our system anyway. Yeah, the U.S. is a different system, but you've just argued that there's something to learn from the way other countries do it. When developing countries are building systems from scratch, they keep going single-payer for good reason; it's cheaper per person and more effective for everyone except for the top of the top; which is where our system wins. Well I certainly don't think the US government would lower overhead. If anything it could spiral hopelessly out of control. And still, even if they could operate at an efficiency equal to an insurance company (which I don't think they could) you still haven't addressed the biggest issue with health care cost in the US. Now you just have medical provider charging the government outrageous prices instead of them sending outrageous bills to the insurance company. Not really an upgrade IMO. But no one has the cojones to take on the medical/drug lobby.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 14, 2010 -> 06:32 PM) You're kidding, after the last 1.5 years of political discussion, you're using the "the U.S. spends 2x as much per capita on health care as any other country" as an argument against me? As though I didn't know that? After the last year? I have an urge to faint. Or like down a half liter of Whiskey and then challenge you to a fight. I'm not sure which. Probably both. Anyway, yes, the U.S. pays 2x as much as everyone else for worse health care. We spent about a year and a half arguing about why. I certainly have seen zero evidence that the lack of a long term cap drives the cost higher. I can argue against it; in the private insurance market, most plans did have lifetime caps, and the private sector insurance continued to cost more per person than Medicare, and continued to grow at higher rates. If the key flaw in our system was the lack of a lifetime cap, then Medicare should be really and truly exploding compared to the private sector, to the point that nothing else can overwhelm it. From what I read, you usually dodged arguments about cost reduction. You were more concerned with the insurance companies 3% profit margin. As far as caps, I am talking about procedural caps (a procedure or visit type has a cost cap), not a cap as far as how much medicare cost a patient incurs over a lifetime. These types of procedure caps have been proven to be effective cost regulation measures in other countries. Of course, if a patient wants to go outside of medicare, they are free to spend as they please.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 14, 2010 -> 06:20 PM) In reality...the real problem is that we established last year that no one will tolerate having the government make the decision about which doctors will be paid for, or which doctors will have to take a hair cut. We'd never have passed anything had that been proposed. Well, they are going to have to tolerate it or learn to love the deficit and probably higher taxes. Most countries that have big government paying for programs like medicare have caps. Obviously the US does not. Look at the cost per capita we spend. It's nearly twice as much as other countries which would be considered in the same economic class as the US. http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992-com...-oecd-countries

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 14, 2010 -> 05:58 PM) I'd actually be in favor of increasing the number of visas. That's a worthwhile tactic. Doctors should be fast tracked to a green card if they accept a certain percent of medicare patients at reasonable rates. That might be true. Certain types of caps are important and need to be reasonable. The highest paid doctors and hospitals will take a hit though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 14, 2010 -> 05:56 PM) Unless Obama proposes them. well once they were re-coined as life panels I changed my mind.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 14, 2010 -> 05:43 PM) They definitely need to be reigned in...but declaring "We'll cap the growth at this rate" is just silliness. Edit: I propose a panel that will decide based on how expensive people's care will be whether or not they'll get their treatment paid for. We'll call it a "life panel". I'm sure no one will come up with any alternate phrases. i support those panels.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 14, 2010 -> 05:43 PM) They definitely need to be reigned in...but declaring "We'll cap the growth at this rate" is just silliness. I disagree. Allowing medicare costs to increase at this pace is unsustainable. Cap the growth rate, increase the supply of doctors / care providers with legal immigration (you aren't a xenophobe are you?), crack down on fraud, ect. I think it is becoming very clear we need to cut medicare costs. It isn't really a fanciful option, it is a necessity.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 14, 2010 -> 05:17 PM) You'll recall how controversial it was to create a very limited panel to make Medicare expenditure recommendations earlier this year. That one was tasked with deciding which treatments were best solely based on effectiveness; that should take a chunk out of costs as well, but that's somewhat incedental. Forcibly denying people care to impose a 1% Medicare cost growth when Medical costs grow by 10% a year? Such that 5-10 years in, Medicare is only paying for 1/2 of the costs of treatment? Medical costs need to be reigned in as well. Yes, 1% on top of GDP increase - medicare growth maximum. Find a way to cut medical care costs. I can be on that commission too. Problem will be solved (of course).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 14, 2010 -> 01:19 PM) The fun part of those is still none of them say "How" it would happen. Capping Medicare at GDP + 1%...how do you decide what to cut? Who gets the authority? That's part of the reason why this "Panel" isn't at all a serious solution. someone obviously had the 'authority' to implement this stuff, someone can have the 'authority' to make cuts.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 14, 2010 -> 01:14 PM) They did that, I believe. what was the list of names they got on there?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11...graphic.html?hp pretty good interactive application in the NY Times. I managed to balance the 2015 and 2030 projected budgets with the numbers reconciliation coming from 25% in tax increases and 75% from spending cuts.

I would have just found a bunch of people with names similar to Murkowski, got them on the ballot, and then disputed anything and everything. Obviously these votes were intended for Mekwonsky, or Morkisky, Merkorsky, or even McCominsky.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 14, 2010 -> 12:19 PM) The same people who think the deficit commission report is a wonderful idea think that the wars are a wonderful idea. If they liked the Iraq war, they will REALLY love this new bill. S.98667 - 'The Patriotic Unite Families and Support the Troops act of 2011 to Stop Terrorism and Create Jobs' No one is voting against that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 14, 2010 -> 12:13 PM) I think the deficit commission leadership report is a complete joke. Who do you think in Congress is going to want to be the person who "voted to cut benefits and pay for our troops" in the middle of a war? I'd like to pretend that was Kaperbole, but it flat out isn't. I would increase permanent flight home from Iran/Iraq benefits by 5000% and frame it that way. Barely anyone supports these stupid wars anymore.

I saving my book buying budget for when Grayson releases his memoirs

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-vicep...,18444/?slide=1 A pretty good slideshow dedicated to Joe Biden.

From what I've read and heard (which is fairly incomplete) about the commission report, I support the measures.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 11:47 AM) sorry, that should be billion billion shmillion. just raise taxes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 10:01 AM) It was on the ballot. I'm glad Brady didn't win, but I'm sad that Quinn did. Also, politicians should not be allowed to use the word "mandate" anymore, or they get automatically impeached. Ah yes and it passed RECALL

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 09:13 AM) After it took two days to declare a winner, I don't want to see anyone complain about the Republicans calling this election a mandate. This from the worst governor in the entire country. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11...e-tax-pat-quinn I really hate this guy. Wasn't there talk about implementing a recall apparatus in Illinois? If so, begin the recall campaign soon.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 02:13 PM) A user comment in the article I linked: I was actually thinking the guy meant to say 200 million rupees a day.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 02:06 PM) Pardon if this has been posted already. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11...deo.php?ref=fpa

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 11:25 AM) I dont think anyone believes that India will cut ties with America. But I dont think its a good idea to snub them either. I also dont believe that the US is spending money just to spend money, and that if it is $200mil a day, there is a justifiable reason. What would be the incentive to spend lavishly in India for no reason? And we rely on India too. India will become one of the largest markets in the world. The US will need the Indian markets. Its just not a risk Im willing to take. And because I doubt the US is spending money just to spend money, than the $200mil, $200bil or whatever it may be is worth it. If I were to bet, I would guess Obama is pulling out all the stops because he is going to deny some requests and make some suggestions. India actually has some extremely protectionist economic policies. Obama will probably address that. India wants more H1b-L1 visas for their outsourcing operations, which Obama is probably going to deny. There was also a big fee increase on a visa (H1b) that they use. They want that fee gone, Obama will probably tell them the fee stays. I don't see why he would spend a lot of money on the trip just to give them good news.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 11:16 AM) FWIW, it costs about $160M/year to operate a Nimitz-class carrier, which has, coincidentally, a crew of about 3,000. So, I'm a little skeptical of the $200M figure. yea it has to be way too high. still haven't seen what i would consider a legit source on the cost. himm, if we find out that the cost is more like 5 million a day, will people will still argue that 200 million a day was a reasonable cost?