Politics

[Buster Bluth]

This really goes beyond a polictical party thing as well. Many corporations sponsor members in both parties.

Which is why your constant hate on the GOP is rather silly.

 

[Buster Bluth]

If you're referring to the fact that for first time in American history the federal gov't is forcing private citizens -- simply because they're alive -- to purchase a product from a select group private corporations, then I would tend to agree.

That, and a thousand other ways.

For the majority of regulations the federal government puts into law, there is a group of corporations writing checks to politicians so that it will get passed. Increase the regulations to increase the barriers of entry into the marketplace, and buy everyone up. It's Corporatism 101.

 

[Cackalacky]

OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting

One of my favorite sites on the web. Who is getting the money and what for????


"In a letter to Ryan analyzing an earlier iteration of his budget plan, the Roadmap for America’s Future Act of 2010, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office wrote that individuals would likely pay higher premiums with private coverage than under Medicare, because they have less negotiating leverage than the federal program; also, administrative costs are higher for individual plans.

Over the course of Ryan's career in Congress, insurance has been the top industry (after retired people) contributing to his campaigns, with $895,928 in contributions since he first campaigned for his House seat, according to OpenSecrets.org data.The Health Professionals and Pharmaceutical industries follow close behind as his fourth and seventh most supportive industries, contributing $626,249 and $350,282, respectively, since 2000."

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00002408&type=I
Jim Clyburn, SC also gettin the money from Healthcare...

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I understand this and you did clarify some points but why negotiate prices? I am not saying medical procedures should be a McDonald's menus, but a Cat scan is a Cat scan.

I luckily don't have limited choices in doctors but I do have limited choices in hospitals to go to. The negotiating for fees is a bureaucratic waste of time and effort IMO.

I also have the luxury of being in a town with a teaching hospital/university that is primarily government run and is one of the top hospitals in the Nation (MUSC). Anyone can go to it. Though they still have to negotiate with insurers......bah

Because providers want to charge as much as they can, and plans want to pay as little as they can. One's a consumer the other a producer. Market forces are how resources get allocated efficiently to the most desired levels of care. If a practice is a good one, they get paid more and tend to expand. For poor practices the opposite is true, and they have to rely on lower reimbursement or Medicare.

And your hospital doesn't have to negotiate with insurers -- it just sounds like these plans are big enough where the hospitals need to, else they won't have as many patients.

If it helps, hospitals are the providers with whom plans have the least leverage (you don't really check your in-network documents after a chain-saw accident), and they really are the most wasteful providers, cost-wise. A tylenol in a hospital generally will cost you about $10.00 if you don't a plan compressing the price. A lot of that's not necessarily their fault per se, because the overhead and liability is higher than everywhere else, but you get the point.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Love him or hate him, Rick Perry nailed this one:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/C8CTZ-YviaY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Buster Bluth]

That speech = meh, so far.

Okay, I watched it all. The beginning was horrible, full of classic deception designed to get you to think something that isn't totally true but not a lie. Borrowing money from "banks...in place like China." Get a clue..

The middle was fine, ripping the federal government for not having flexible programs. I agree with that.

That end was back to bullshit. We need a western hemisphere energy policy! GTFO. That ignores so many factors.

So yeah, it was a very mediocre speech and I get annoyed by politicians spewing their crap like that. It was classic election stuff right there.

 

[Cackalacky]

Because providers want to charge as much as they can, and plans want to pay as little as they can. One's a consumer the other a producer. Market forces are how resources get allocated efficiently to the most desired levels of care. If a practice is a good one, they get paid more and tend to expand. For poor practices the opposite is true, and they have to rely on lower reimbursement or Medicare.

And your hospital doesn't have to negotiate with insurers -- it just sounds like these plans are big enough where the hospitals need to, else they won't have as many patients.

If it helps, hospitals are the providers with whom plans have the least leverage (you don't really check your in-network documents after a chain-saw accident), and they really are the most wasteful providers, cost-wise. A tylenol in a hospital generally will cost you about $10.00 if you don't a plan compressing the price. A lot of that's not necessarily their fault per se, because the overhead and liability is higher than everywhere else, but you get the point.

I do and its stupid..... thanks. Appreciate the insight.

 

[DSully1995]

Love him or hate him, Rick Perry nailed this one:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/C8CTZ-YviaY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Still cant take him seriously

 

[chicago51]

I can just laugh at this... talk about smoke and mirrors... someone please think of the children!?!?!? How many millions are still uninsured under Obamacare?? I honestly think your emotions cloud your logic here...

The plan is to get the gov. the hell out of the way and open the market to real competition, thus lowering prices for all... it's gov. that is keeping that from happening. This was already established many times here... so yeah you can stop now with the GOP is extreme and not responsible adults now... and on that note, i find it curious that people should not be responsible for themselves, but the GOP should be.

I want to point that there is no conservative party in this country. There are only 2 big government parties fortunately or unfortunately. One is more on the side of a big social safety net, and one that is one the side big business. Both parties are guilty of "too big" to fail oligarchies arising by not "trust busting".

The GOP being the party of small government is the most hypocritical thing in the world:
Abbortion and Women's Health Care: Telling a women what she can and can't do is clearly big government.

Corporate Welfare (aka all these tax loopholes): This cleary big business. Most of these loopholes only benefit the most wealthy corporations. Not small business not start ups. If the GOP was serious of being the party of business it would be all business not just the fortune 500. I think this whole closing loophole thing during the campaign was clearly just a ploy to drop taxes. You notice the GOP won't do it now because it is not revenue neutral. They are supposed to deficits hawks. They against personal welfare but not corporate welfare? What gives? SCOTUS said corporations are people so technically if the GOP is against welfare they should be for closing these loopholes regardless of what the tax rate is.

When comes to police, wire tapping most of the GOP is very in favor of big government. The libertarian movement is opposing this so may this will change with GOP in the future.
George W Bush ballooned the size of government by adding the department of Homeland Security.

These states with the right to work laws that have taken away from the strength of unions are examples of big government. Regardless of what you think of unions I think everyone realizes that is the private sector. Interfering in the private sector is clearly big government.

Both parties are for or against big government in certain areas. There is no party of small government and claiming to be the party of small government is a joke.

 

[Cackalacky]

Still cant take him seriously

you mean this guy?

 

[chicago51]

Love him or hate him, Rick Perry nailed this one:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/C8CTZ-YviaY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I disagree with his big statements on how nominating a conservative candidate would have won them the election.

Romney honestly probably would have won if it wasn't for the 47% video and to a lesser extent Hurricane Sandy. Sandy didn't cost Romney the election but it probably gave Obama some swing voters in some key states that made margins in some battle ground states a little bit bigger. Before the video though Romney had closed and even pulled ahead in some pulls. After the video he dropped like 7 points. He got some it back after the first debate but things kind of stabalize at 3% to 4% for the President afterward.

Did you see how super conservatives did in Senate races in Missouri, Indiania, North Dakota, and Montana? The national geography of the Senate and the House favors the GOP. They only have themselves and the religous zelots for not winning the Senate. While the vote for President favors the Democrats the legistlature really sets up well for the GOP right now.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I disagree with his big statements on how nominating a conservative candidate would have won them the election.

Romney honestly probably would have won if it wasn't for the 47% video and to a lesser extent Hurricane Sandy. Sandy didn't cost Romney the election but it probably gave Obama some swing voters in some key states that made margins in some battle ground states a little bit bigger. Before the video though Romney had closed and even pulled ahead in some pulls. After the video he dropped like 7 points. He got some it back after the first debate but things kind of stabalize at 3% to 4% for the President afterward.

Did you see how super conservatives did in Senate races in Missouri, Indiania, North Dakota, and Montana? The national geography of the Senate and the House favors the GOP. They only have themselves and the religous zelots for not winning the Senate. While the vote for President favors the Democrats the legistlature really sets up well for the GOP right now.

I...agree with all of this.

Romney would have won in a landslide, too, if the conservative candidates would have jumped off a bridge in the primaries instead of dragging Romney through the mud for their own personal gain.

 

[DSully1995]

I...agree with all of this.

Romney would have won in a landslide, too, if the conservative candidates would have jumped off a bridge in the primaries instead of dragging Romney through the mud for their own personal gain.

Thanks rick the dick

 

[Cackalacky]

The primaries are like a bad Jerry Springer show. Or a train wreck. I am a total rubbernecker during primaries.

 

[RDU Irish]

I understand this and you did clarify some points but why negotiate prices? I am not saying medical procedures should be a McDonald's menus, but a Cat scan is a Cat scan.

I luckily don't have limited choices in doctors but I do have limited choices in hospitals to go to. The negotiating for fees is a bureaucratic waste of time and effort IMO.

I also have the luxury of being in a town with a teaching hospital/university that is primarily government run and is one of the top hospitals in the Nation (MUSC). Anyone can go to it. Though they still have to negotiate with insurers......bah

This is exactly why prices on elective procedures drop like a rock while anything paid for by health insurance skyrockets in price. Laser eye surgery use to cost thousands, now a couple hundred bucks and you are done. Those operations are run like a business maximizing throughput, marginal cost is minimal to run the million dollar laser a few extra times per day so they figure out how to line up the procedures. 3D ultrasounds are another great example.

CAT scanners sit idle more often than not. If I was paying for it and they had to compete for my needed scan, I would price shop and drive 20 miles to save $500 bucks. As is, good luck figuring the cost prior to the exam, and your doctor ordering it needs the scan done within the system he operates, and the contracted rate is what is getting paid regardless, and on and on and on.

This is the fallacy of the third party payor system. The end consumer is not price conscious which turns the focus only to convenience. In the case of the CAT Scan, if I could get a flash drive with the scan data I would shop the service to the lowest cost provider because I have a high deductible HSA plan (unless I was way over deductible, then I don't care right!). I am motivated to stretch my healthcare dollar. Unfortunately the health care system is not set up that way.

I just bought 50 urine test strips online for $20. That will save me lots of $150 trips to the pediatrician when my 5 year old is suspected of having a UTI, won't have to skip work either. I am now looking at buying a bunch of rapid strep tests, a little pricier at 20 for $50 but darn well worth it for the same reason. I will still have to pay $150 for the antibiotics and retest when they come up positive but at least I can avoid the false positives and test it sooner (that preventative medicine thingy).

 

[RDU Irish]

That is $150 to see the pediatrician and re-run the same test. The antibiotics are only about $5 from the pharmacy.

I wonder what powerful lobby gets in the way of me getting that antibiotic? The pharmacuetical company sharing $5 with Walgreens or the doctor getting paid $150 (OK $110 at the negotiated rate) for 10 minutes of stating the obvious?

But if it is a Medicaid clientele, prison population or rural community, somehow the doctor turns into a Nurse Practitioner. Doctors pinch them out of desirable, insured markets and make them do the work where they don't want to. Let that same NP set up shop in my neighborhood and charge $50 a visit and I'll go there every time. I'll take the best nurses over the worst doctors any day of the week. (Sure some of the best in class go internal medicine but everyone in healthcare knows the top of the class become surgeons and specialists).

 

[chicago51]

I want to point that there is no conservative party in this country. There are only 2 big government parties fortunately or unfortunately. One is more on the side of a big social safety net, and one that is one the side big business. Both parties are guilty of "too big" to fail oligarchies arising by not "trust busting".

The GOP being the party of small government is the most hypocritical thing in the world:
Abbortion and Women's Health Care: Telling a women what she can and can't do is clearly big government.

Corporate Welfare (aka all these tax loopholes): This cleary big business. Most of these loopholes only benefit the most wealthy corporations. Not small business not start ups. If the GOP was serious of being the party of business it would be all business not just the fortune 500. I think this whole closing loophole thing during the campaign was clearly just a ploy to drop taxes. You notice the GOP won't do it now because it is not revenue neutral. They are supposed to deficits hawks. They against personal welfare but not corporate welfare? What gives? SCOTUS said corporations are people so technically if the GOP is against welfare they should be for closing these loopholes regardless of what the tax rate is.

When comes to police, wire tapping most of the GOP is very in favor of big government. The libertarian movement is opposing this so may this will change with GOP in the future.
George W Bush ballooned the size of government by adding the department of Homeland Security.

These states with the right to work laws that have taken away from the strength of unions are examples of big government. Regardless of what you think of unions I think everyone realizes that is the private sector. Interfering in the private sector is clearly big government.

Both parties are for or against big government in certain areas. There is no party of small government and claiming to be the party of small government is a joke.

Wanted to add to this.

I have to ask what the "small government" people think of the Republican Governor Rick Snyder essentially stripping the local government of its authority and appointing an emergency manager.

The thing is the law that allows this was repealed by a ballet iniative but then the legistlature passed it again without the option to repeal it via ballet iniative.

I know people have a wide range of views when it comes to Detriot. This post is not about Detroit. It is about a GOP controlled state government taking over a local government. This has been in other area in MI not just Detroit. This has essentially stripped local democracy from the citizens in those areas.

Any thoughts? Is this not big government on the part of the Republican party?

Kind of goes with my point that there is no "small government" party out there right now.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...This is the fallacy of the third party payor system. The end consumer is not price conscious which turns the focus only to convenience...

Exactly. We're basically designing a system precisely to over-consume a resource.

Once we've paid our co-pay, we want that extra MRI whether we need it or not, and whether it costs a hundred, a thousand, or a million to give. What do we care? We don't pay for it.

Who cares if I smoke? Who cares if I exercise? I'll just pay my co-pay and they'll have to fix me no matter what. My plan participants will pick up the tab next year when premiums rise, but it's ok. They're good for it.

 

[GoIrish41]

So the government's solution should have been to open up competition and fight to end the monopolies/oligopolies. Quite literally, the plan not is to make everyone buy their product. Boy, it almost sounds like the damn corporations wrote the bill! ...oh wait.

And if you don't think that prices for medication and whatnot aren't negotiated in backroom deals with government controlling agencies, you're crazy. They're all in bed with each other.



No, the reason is government-mandated monopolies and a total lack of competition. People on this board have been very open about this.

I took a class with Stanford last year, and the professor had a great point: do you know what the difference between for-profit and nonprofit is? 7%. That's it. The average profit margin for companies on the S&P is 7%, for nonprofits it's obviously 0%. In my opinion, it's equally insane to excoriate the for-profit hospitals. That isn't the problem, at all. Markets should have a profit incentive. But while you're innovating, your opponent is too and the price of the goods/services plummets as a result. The proof is everywhere every time you buy a piece of technology.

We have a marketplace problem; it's not a "more government/less government" deal. The government needs to be destroying copyrights on generic drugs and open up the damn markets.



If there is competition they can't hike the price arbitrarily.

I'm not sure what you are talking about when it comes to monopolies. At work, I have my choice of a dozen different insurance plans from as many different companies. If I don't like any of those, I can reject them all and go to any one of dozens of plans available on the open market. I have my pick of hundreds of doctors within driving distance of my house to use as a primary care provider (one that has to be in my insurer's network, of course) and if I'm really sick I can go to one of four different hospitals within 20 miles of my house. If there is anything I can see that resembles a monopoly it is the pharm companies that can charge outrageous prices for their drugs. I have crohn's disease and give myself two injections of a biological drug called Cimzia once a month and it is just crazy expensive. I understand the government gives them 7 years, I think, to really make money before a generic version can come on the market but the prices they charge are outrageous. But even this isn't a monopoly because there are different formulations and drugs to treat almost every disorder or disease. Can you help me understand what you are talking about with regard to monopolies? Are you talking about what is going to happen with Obamacare? because I don't see any medical monopolies right now.

 

[Downinthebend]

The Political Compass - Test

This is pretty cool if you want figure out exactly were you are politically.

I wasn't able to abstain on some of the nonsensical (to me) propositions, so I can't complete it lol.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I wasn't able to abstain on some of the nonsensical (to me) propositions, so I can't complete it lol.

Here is where I was:

Since I last took the test two or so years ago, I've moved one square left and one square down.

 

[GoIrish41]

Since I last took the test two or so years ago, I've moved one square left and one square down.

At that rate by the time you are my age you will be enlightened. lol

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think it's more a matter of clicking "strongly agree" versus "agree" or whatnot a time or two more.

Regardless, this isn't a test that shows what you feel about 1) government's ability to do X Y Z job, or 2) what level or government has the responsibilities for X Y Z job.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think it's more a matter of clicking "strongly agree" versus "agree" or whatnot a time or two more.

Regardless, this isn't a test that shows what you feel about 1) government's ability to do X Y Z job, or 2) what level or government has the responsibilities for X Y Z job.

I was just kidding.

Oh and can you answer the question I asked about the monopolies in healthcare? I seriously want to know what you were referring to.

 

[chicago51]

Here is where I was:

Since I last took the test two or so years ago, I've moved one square left and one square down.

What's crazy is that Romney and Obama were not all that far apart. At least not according to the site.

 

[GoIrish41]

not sure how to post a picture so if this didn't work that is why. Here is where I landed on the political compass quiz.

edit: haha. told you I didn't know how to post a pic.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'm not sure what you are talking about when it comes to monopolies.

I'm using the word liberally in conjunction with oligopoly and corporatism. Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors don't have a monopoly per seon the beer market, but they do in effect.

At work, I have my choice of a dozen different insurance plans from as many different companies. If I don't like any of those, I can reject them all and go to any one of dozens of plans eligible on the open market. I have my pick of hundreds of doctors within driving distance of my house to use as a primary care provider (one that has to be in my insurer's network, of course) and if I'm really sick I can go to one of four different hospitals within 20 miles of my house.

Insurance companies sell the cost of healthcare, and many times are the preventative measure stopping the rise in costs. But they're limited geographically from competing over statelines. So immediately, your options are legally limited. It is not at all an "open market." Then there are the healthcare companies monopolies (Hospital Monopolies: The Biggest Driver of Health Costs That Nobody Talks About - Forbes), markets naturally form oligopolies and healthcare is no different.

The American Medical Association said that "70% of metropolitan markets lack competition among insurers, prompting a quick critical response from a payers trade group," that's not optimal competition. Just a year later that figured was upped to 83%.

If there is anything I can see that resembles a monopoly it is the pharm companies that can charge outrageous prices for their drugs. I have crohn's disease and give myself two injections of a biological drug called Cimzia once a month. I understand the government gives them 7 years, I think, to really make money before a generic version can come on the market but the prices they charge are outrageous. But even this isn't a monopoly because there are different formulations and drugs to treat almost every disorder or disease. Can you help me understand what you are talking about with regard to monopolies? Are you talking about what is going to happen with Obamacare? because I don't see any medical monopolies right now.

You're taking the word to literally within the context of my posts. That is my fault for speaking so freely...and you're fault for no reading comprehension.

I agree with you about Big Pharm though. And I believe seven years is correct, but then you'll see some change in the ingredients and it extended whenever possible.

Speaking of seven years, I think that timeframe should be extended to movies, television and music as well.

 

[ACamp1900]

I have trouble posting the pic from an iPad but I always considered myself just to the right side of the very middle overall... Left socially, for the most part and hard right economically... The test has me at a 2.8 economically and 0.4 socially... My dot is just right of the middle most square in the right authoritarian section...

Though some of those questions were just stupid... Who actually wants the gov telling people what they can do in the bedroom? ....

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm using the word liberally in conjunction with oligopoly and corporatism. Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors don't have a monopoly per seon the beer market, but they do in effect.



Insurance companies sell the cost of healthcare, and many times are the preventative measure stopping the rise in costs. But they're limited geographically from competing over statelines. So immediately, your options are legally limited. It is not at all an "open market." Then there are the healthcare companies monopolies (Hospital Monopolies: The Biggest Driver of Health Costs That Nobody Talks About - Forbes), markets naturally form oligopolies and healthcare is no different.

The American Medical Association said that "70% of metropolitan markets lack competition among insurers, prompting a quick critical response from a payers trade group," that's not optimal competition. Just a year later that figured was upped to 83%.



You're taking the word to literally within the context of my posts. That is my fault for speaking so freely...and you're fault for no reading comprehension.

I agree with you about Big Pharm though. And I believe seven years is correct, but then you'll see some change in the ingredients and it extended whenever possible.

Speaking of seven years, I think that timeframe should be extended to movies, television and music as well.

Thanks for the clarification. So you think that all four hospitals I can go to may be owned by the same big corporation. You know as a liberal that makes it even worse for me.

I believe that healthcare providers, insurance companies and pharm companies operate a bit like a cartel. Each needs the other to get away with what they are doing. And, I believe what they are doing is gouging consumers at every level. You pick an insurance company and that company only lets you go to the doctors on their list. I have a buddy who is a doctor and he tells me all the time about how pharm salesmen come into his office and offer what are essentially bribes in the form of trips to the Carribean, lavish means, tickets to concerts, anything you could imagine to get them to prescribe the drug he is selling. Insurance companies cover some medicines and others they don't. I'm certain they have deals with the pharm companies as well. At every point, extremely high prices can be chaged because patients don't really have to be concerned about how much anything costs because the insurance covers it. So doctors charge more. Pharmacies charge more. And the insurance companies, who tie the whole thing together, just raise premiums on customers crying about rising costs of healthcare. Profits in all three of these sectors are at all-time highs and the cost of insurance is made available to fewer and fewer people because the cost is just too high for a guy making $40k a year and supporting a family. That is why I believe that a program that gives 30 million health insurance is good for the little guy. The extent to which the "cartel" doesn't like it is just icing on the cake to me.

 

[GoIrish41]

I disagree with his big statements on how nominating a conservative candidate would have won them the election.

Romney honestly probably would have won if it wasn't for the 47% video and to a lesser extent Hurricane Sandy. .

No doubt the 47% comments were devestating to Romney, but I don't think he would have won even if he didn't say them. And really it comes down to something really simple ... people didn't like him. They didn't like his "say anything" campaign and his painfully out of touch moments when he tried to talk to regular folks. The resented his constant references to his wealth and thought he was lying about his taxes when he wouldn't release his returns. Let's face it, there are a lot of voters out their who cast their ballots and don't know anything about politics at all. They just go by if they like you or not, and people didn't like Romney.

Obama would have had to make a big mistake (the 1st debate cost him some points, for sure) or Romney would have had to do much, much better as painting him as an incompetent socialist who is wrecking the economy for him to lose. People like Obama and he was probably fortunate to be running against a guy who was so disliked.