A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by megaloman
Pay attention. You might learn something.

I already read the Economist. And his other stuff is based on what the neighbor says -- I will just start hanging out in known R locations to hear anecdotal crap. Uh I mean anecdotal wisdom.

[Chef's Biggest Fan]

has anyone seen Chef? I am his biggest fan and rumour has long had it that he is a frequent socker on these greedy politico boards.

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
Seems a stretch. You must make an affirmative opt-in (by paying a fee) in order to get the signal - so, no argument about exposing innocent viewers to outrage, which is what the purpose of the protection is supposed to be.

it remains to be seen if they can reach a majority, but you think this actually matters to those who get bent out of shape over "indecency?"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Juan Cole re the news from Egypt:

• Egyptian President Husni Mubarak is going to allow multiparty competition for the presidency. But note that only offically recognized parties can field candidates. This step excludes the Muslim Brotherhood, probably the only serious competitor with Mubarak's party. Will blog more on this later . . . I'm really sleepy and it is late. But just to say that while it is a step in the right direction, there is less to it than meets the eye and it is too early to get very excited. In a sense, Egypt's step now makes its presidential elections somewhat analogous to those in Iran, where candidates are vetted beforehand.

[Spanky]

Hey guys: Below is part of an email I received from Assemblyman Keity Richman. He is a Republican State Assemblyman from Los Angeles (somewhere in the Valley) and I have given a lot of money to him from my PAC (he is also a Medical Doctor). He is running for California State Treasurer next year and I am on his "election advisory board" which means I sit on conference calls where half the stuff goes way over my head. The pertinant information is down below.

Comments? Thoughts? Opinions?


Attached is information about the Universal Healthcare Act, the eight-bill bipartisan healthcare reform package Assemblyman Joe Nation and I will introduce this week. We have worked with the RAND Corporation and academic experts throughout California to develop this package that improves access, controls costs and enhances the quality of health care. We held meetings in Los Angeles, Fresno, Berkeley and San Diego where nationally recognized experts and local stakeholders discussed a variety of reform options. The package includes an individual mandate to purchase insurance, purchasing pools to reduce the costs, subsidies for low income workers, greater use of federal matching funds, electronic medical records, increased use of generic drugs, end of life care information and a center for science-based quality medicine. We are confident that our package is a more viable alternative than the single-payer and employer mandate systems which have gained attention in recent years.

The full report can be accessed at: http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/pd...thcare0205.pdf or you can open the attachments below.

Please take a moment to review the material and provide me with any comments and suggestions.


Sincerely,

Keith S. Richman, M.D.
Member of the Assembly

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Hey club --

When Syria sent troops into Lebanon in 1976, it did so with U.S. support, and our Secretary of Defense was an up-and-comer named Donald Rumsfeld. Do you think he's had a real change of heart about whether the Lebanese ought to run their own affairs without outside interference?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Hey guys: Below is part of an email I received from Assemblyman Keity Richman. He is a Republican State Assemblyman from Los Angeles (somewhere in the Valley) and I have given a lot of money to him from my PAC (he is also a Medical Doctor). He is running for California State Treasurer next year and I am on his "election advisory board" which means I sit on conference calls where half the stuff goes way over my head. The pertinant information is down below.

Comments? Thoughts? Opinions?


Attached is information about the Universal Healthcare Act, the eight-bill bipartisan healthcare reform package Assemblyman Joe Nation and I will introduce this week. We have worked with the RAND Corporation and academic experts throughout California to develop this package that improves access, controls costs and enhances the quality of health care. We held meetings in Los Angeles, Fresno, Berkeley and San Diego where nationally recognized experts and local stakeholders discussed a variety of reform options. The package includes an individual mandate to purchase insurance, purchasing pools to reduce the costs, subsidies for low income workers, greater use of federal matching funds, electronic medical records, increased use of generic drugs, end of life care information and a center for science-based quality medicine. We are confident that our package is a more viable alternative than the single-payer and employer mandate systems which have gained attention in recent years.

The full report can be accessed at: http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/pd...thcare0205.pdf or you can open the attachments below.

Please take a moment to review the material and provide me with any comments and suggestions.


Sincerely,

Keith S. Richman, M.D.
Member of the Assembly

I really don't understand why it makes sense to "mandate" that individuals purchase health care, instead of simply providing a basic level through the government and taxing people to pay for it.

What happens if people don't get it? You have to catch and punish them, and presumably it means a lot of people aren't covered, defeating the purpose of the regime.

You can object that the government shouldn't be in the business of supplying the basic level of healthcare, and I understand the concern. But there are ways that the government could privatize this function to create competition, and -- this is key -- if you "mandate" that people buy something, you're pretty much distorting the market in the same way.

I don't really know policy in this area well, but you should get RT to chime in. As always, she has my proxy.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I really don't understand why it makes sense to "mandate" that individuals purchase health care, instead of simply providing a basic level through the government and taxing people to pay for it.

1) People appreciate the value of something more (thereby using it more effectively and efficiently ) if they buy it themselves.
2) cuts down on the government bureacracy which can turn into a huge money hemmorage.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What happens if people don't get it? You have to catch and punish them, and presumably it means a lot of people aren't covered, defeating the purpose of the regime.

1) You can't really help people if they are unwilling to help themsevles.
2) I see the purpose of the regime is to get more people into the system and reduce inefficiencies. This system seems to do both. In the real world you will never really get universal healthcare.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop You can object that the government shouldn't be in the business of supplying the basic level of healthcare, and I understand the concern. But there are ways that the government could privatize this function to create competition, and -- this is key -- if you "mandate" that people buy something, you're pretty much distorting the market in the same way.

Yes you are distorting the market. But the market is already heavily distorted by the government. This system does not really distort the market much more and increases inefficiency.

From the point of view that politics is the art of the possible, if you were sitting on the california legislature would you vote for this? Obviously this system is not what you think is the best system, but do you think it is better than the system we have now?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But there are ways that the government could privatize this function to create competition, .

Could you elaborate on this? If this is boring people you can send me a personal commincation (if it is not too much trouble).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) People appreciate the value of something more (thereby using it more effectively and efficiently ) if they buy it themselves.
2) cuts down on the government bureacracy which can turn into a huge money hemmorage.

[3]) You can't really help people if they are unwilling to help themsevles.
[4]) I see the purpose of the regime is to get more people into the system and reduce inefficiencies. This system seems to do both. In the real world you will never really get universal healthcare.

1: People pay for their own health insurance now (at least partly), yet all the ins. cos. are constantly restructuring to make sure people don't "waste" health care (e.g., deductibles, copays, etc.)

2: Yet increases another one to enforce the mandate

3: So what does the mandate do? How many people do you know have the opportunity to buy insurance, yet forgo it? Perhaps a few recent college grads? The issue is access and affordability--some people have no access; others can't afford it (and perhaps those are in the first group I asked about). but a mandate cures neither of those problems.

4: Both salutary goals, but neither accomplished by a mandate. This isn't like mandatory hikers insurance, where a non-purchase can be punished

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
If this is boring people you can send me a personal commincation

This is what the board is for. Keep it here.

(Please.)

Originally posted by bilmore
This is what the board is for. Keep it here.

(Please.)

Oh sure, but when I want to post my irrefutable evidence of AfghanPipelineGate you're quick to tell me to PM Hank with the charts and articles and stop cluttering the board.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
Oh sure, but when I want to post my irrefutable evidence of AfghanPipelineGate you're quick to tell me to PM Hank with the charts and articles and stop cluttering the board.

By the way, there was a naked picture of your sister in the last attachment file. Not sure if that was to keep my interest, or was for advertisement or was just a mistake.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Could you elaborate on this? If this is boring people you can send me a personal commincation (if it is not too much trouble).

I'm not quite sure what Ty has in mind, but the government expand its current health care plans for federal workers to be available to everyone. Gov't would decide how much to pay. Basically now the gov't has different health ins. cos. offer to provide health care coverage within certain parameters to fed'l workers. Fed'l workers can choose from a menu. Gov't picks up about 75%, but with a cap on the total it will pay for each employee. No reason the gov't couldn't do the same here--it pays for 100% (or a means-tested amount), up to some cap, but one can choose a better plan that costs more and pay the difference.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
Comments? Thoughts? Opinions?

hmmm . . .

Mandatory coverage: Just like PIP for auto. I imagine the enforcement comes through denial of governmental subsidies when someone is hospitalized and is found to NOT have purchased the mandatory minumum. Will likely work as well as the PIP provisions do - a boost, but not a huge one. But, a step in the right direction. (Query - one stated aim is to reduce medical bankruptcy. But, given that providers bill full ticket for individuals, but discount up to 70% for plan participants, bankruptcy might well be the most efficient means of controlling costs - turns a $200k individual bill into a $60k write-off.)

Pool purchase: good in theory, but really just a way to bypass underwriting tools. To the extent that we are all put into one big pool, there's no longer incentive to use health care efficiently - we'll only have to worry about the overall societal stats, not the "how healthy is our group - make Johnny quit smoking" concerns.

Spends an inordinate amount of time talking about how a streamlined, easier-to-figure-out system of enrollment will boost insurance enrollment by the uninsured. I'm guessing money - or its lack - is a more determinative factor than "too many forms."

(I like the section that talks about making people much more aware of "end of life directives." But then, I'm morbid. Any system that saves money by encouraging people to sign "pull the plug" forms is a good one, in a horror-movie kind of way.)

Maybe they should do something as simple as mandate one cost level across the board - no 70% discount for treatment bills to some entities - let the individual walk in and pay cash, with no huge penalty for not letting an insurer handle it. I would be more willing to pay directly for med care, and only buy cat coverage, if I wasn't forced to pay hugely inflated rates simply by dint of not being an insurer-paid patient. It should cost me, and Medicare, and Allina, the same for my kid's stitches. There's a lot to be said for going back to a cat-only coverage system - usage would be so much more controlled, health decisions would become a priority - of course, there would be secondary economic effects, such as the collapse of the snowboard and skateboard industries . . .