Trump's Final 100 days
Quote: billryanPart of Trumps problem was a good many experienced people wanted nothing to do with his administration, and he wanted nothing to do with people who didn't support him. Put them together and the pool he had to chose from was small and shallow to start with. Not sure what the opposite of the Best and the Brightest is, but its what we have.
In the past, candidates fought for the nomination but when the nomination and election was over, they joined the administration. Clinton lost a tough fight to Obama but joined his cabinet. Johnson lost a brawl to JFK but came on as his VP. I don't think there is a single person who ran against Trump that is now in his cabinet or administration. Even guys like Giuliani, Christie, and Gingrich ,who at least had some administrative or legislative experience weren't picked for his team.
I believe the result speak for themselves. How's that Rose Garden victory party when the House passed the healthcare bill looking?
I think the White House is a classic example of what happens when a f**kwit of some sort ends up in the leadership position. The workplace becomes dysfunctional.
Plenty of people disliked Bush, Clinton, and Obama, but things didn't implode like this in their White House.
Quote: boymimboUntil you get cancer, heart disease, or stroke. Or get hit by a car. Or fall down and break your leg. Look, I'm a completely viable 48 year old man, fat. I go for a checkup each year, for the past 30 years, the worst condition i have had is a little dermatits. My blood and cholesterol check out every time. Between my company and I, we pay about $800 HMO per month of which I pay about $230.
I would rather pay that then risk running into cancer or some other catastrophic condition that is really out of my control. All the youth say, "naw, I can get away with no health insurance because I am healthy", when in fact all you are doing is decreasing the pool of participants and increasing your own cost when you decide that you need to participate.
And that's the rub. Make insurance optional, and you have only the sick buying insurance which forces premiums way higher. The only way you are going to drive down costs and make it work is Medicare for all., paid by taxes. You pay doctors, hospitals, and take health insurance companies out of the profit loop. You negotiate for drug prices and they come down. if you have money then you can pay for your own private care off the top. Let that still exist.
I don't think you read what gamerfreak wrote, since he said, "...I'd 100% get a plan that only covered trauma or other critical diagnosis like cancer". This is EXACTLY what insurance should be. This is exactly what I want. I don't want to be covered for BS I don't need to be insured for, like cough medicine or whatever else the hell insurance covers.
Insurance is a scam in the sense it covers you for the smallest stuff. Since everything insurance covers is taken at a premium -- ie: there's a "house edge", then there's no reason to be insured for stuff that is very likely to happen. I only want insurance to cover me in those crazy circumstances that are very unlikely to happen (cancer etc.). I don't know what the percentages are, but for example, let's say I have a 1% chance of getting cancer and if I get cancer then it'll cost me $100k....so my expected cost for getting cancer is $1,000. If I could pay $2,000 right now and I'd be covered for cancer -- I'd totally do that (or whatever a "fair" amount is to pay for that insurance). This is how insurance SHOULD work. However, this is how it really works:
You expect to go to the doctor for the flu 10 more times in your life (I'm making up numbers). And each time it's going to cost you $200. Your expected cost for getting the flu is thus $2,000. But instead of having a $2,000 cost you can buy insurance for twice the cost at $4,000. But guess what -- it would be cheaper any way you cut it NOT to be insured for the flu, because your expected cost is $2,000 and there's almost no possible way you can collect on $4k+ worth of doctors visits for the flu to make up for it.
I'n RS fairyland you have only a 1% chance.Quote: RSII don't know what the percentages are, but for example, let's say I have a 1% chance of getting cancer .
IRL you probably have the same chance as you do winning a hand of BJ.
Quote:Per capita lifetime expenditure is $316,600, a third higher for females ($361,200) than males ($268,700). Two-fifths of this difference owes to women's longer life expectancy. Nearly one-third of lifetime expenditures is incurred during middle age, and nearly half during the senior years.
The Lifetime Distribution of Health Care Costs - NCBI - NIH
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/
Quote: billryanYep, and when I was paying three hundred thousand a year in taxes, and collecting upwards of a million in sales taxes for the government, people were benefiting at my expense.
I already said things need to be adjusted, that a portion of the people are getting screwed under the formula. But I don't want to screw 50% of the people to help 10%. I want to find a way to help the 10%. The republicans want to pretty much screw everybody but the top 5% with their inane top down trickle down tax programs. Ask the people of Kansas how that worked out for them.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Trickle%20down%20economics%20and%20Kansas&pc=cosp&ptag=C1A2761E1787A&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127
Again I don't know your situation, age or why you made the decisions you did to stop earning money that paid that level of taxes, so I'm going to put it in general terms for everyone.
Why should others subsidize your Insurance payments when you have proven you are capable of earning enough to pay for it yourself? Your life decisions are yours to make but getting help from the government to live them shouldn't be an option. That should be saved for those with legitimate Mental and Physical disabilities that can't help themselves. Or for the elderly that have worked their entire life expecting something that was promised to them when they reached a certain age.
I deal with applicants all the time that state they can only work x number of hours a week because it would cut into their benefits. They have figured the system out and are smart enough to know at what point it doesn't make sense to work. Sad but the truth about a certain segment of todays America. They are young healthy people who are making more by NOT working then by working.
I also remember many of the trade workers laid off in 07-09 drinking in my bar everyday stating they paid into the system for years and now it's time to collect instead of looking for work. They even had the far left fighting to get them extended benefits after their 99 weeks were up. And then they woke up and realized others had taken the jobs that were left while they were enjoying the UC check and now what do I do?
The bottom line to me is you get out of life what you put into it and those looking for shortcuts always find someone to blame. Absolutely something needs to be done about HC costs but creating more taxes and debt for the country while rewarding poor life decisions isn't the answer. And that goes for people on both sides of the political spectrum. The GOP has their share of lazy people living on the government dime and off the backs of hard workers everywhere.
Quote: billryan
Damn straight I'm worried about police brutality. Somehow I hold our sworn officers to a higher standard. Silly, isn't it.
Peter King, the Republican Congressman for the area wants police to check the immigration status of everyone they interact with. What better way to allow gangs to grow than to make it hard for its victims to complain. What better recruitment tool does a gang need than for the government to want to deport your parents, or even yourself.
These POS are 10,000 mostly foreign born invaders. Terrorists and enemy combatants whose atrocities compare with ISIS. They should be dealt with the same way as any battlefield enemy.
'Please don't be too nice.’" ’You could take the hand away, OK”, doesn’t move me to sympathy.
Eradicate them by any means necessary.
As for “What better way to allow gangs to grow than to make it hard for its victims to complain”, do you actually believe MS13 victims would report them or complain? They have their own ways of making it hard for their victims to complain.
Obamagrants
Quote: TankoThese POS are 10,000 mostly foreign born invaders. Terrorists and enemy combatants whose atrocities compare with ISIS. They should be dealt with the same way as any battlefield enemy.
Shot on sight?
Quote: BozAgain I don't know your situation, age or why you made the decisions you did to stop earning money that paid that level of taxes, so I'm going to put it in general terms for everyone.
Why should others subsidize your Insurance payments when you have proven you are capable of earning enough to pay for it yourself? Your life decisions are yours to make but getting help from the government to live them shouldn't be an option. That should be saved for those with legitimate Mental and Physical disabilities that can't help themselves. Or for the elderly that have worked their entire life expecting something that was promised to them when they reached a certain age.
I deal with applicants all the time that state they can only work x number of hours a week because it would cut into their benefits. They have figured the system out and are smart enough to know at what point it doesn't make sense to work. Sad but the truth about a certain segment of todays America. They are young healthy people who are making more by NOT working then by working.
I also remember many of the trade workers laid off in 07-09 drinking in my bar everyday stating they paid into the system for years and now it's time to collect instead of looking for work. They even had the far left fighting to get them extended benefits after their 99 weeks were up. And then they woke up and realized others had taken the jobs that were left while they were enjoying the UC check and now what do I do?
The bottom line to me is you get out of life what you put into it and those looking for shortcuts always find someone to blame. Absolutely something needs to be done about HC costs but creating more taxes and debt for the country while rewarding poor life decisions isn't the answer. And that goes for people on both sides of the political spectrum. The GOP has their share of lazy people living on the government dime and off the backs of hard workers everywhere.
Seems to me the only one blaming anybody is you.
I sold my main business, am a silent partner in others and am taking advantage of the same tax codes that many others have. Rich people wrote these codes, and didn't write them with working class folk in mind.
Quote: billryanSeems to me the only one blaming anybody is you.
I sold my main business, am a silent partner in others and am taking advantage of the same tax codes that many others have. Rich people wrote these codes, and didn't write them with working class folk in mind.
No blame here, I always say when someone is looking to blame why their life has turned out the way it has, look in the mirror. That's the correct answer 99% of the time.
As for your situation, it's exactly why the law sucks, yea it sucks. Any benefit you are getting toward your Health Insurance is BS. You could at least thank people like me subsidizing you or give us a reach around.
Quote: RSI don't think you read what gamerfreak wrote, since he said, "...I'd 100% get a plan that only covered trauma or other critical diagnosis like cancer". This is EXACTLY what insurance should be. This is exactly what I want. I don't want to be covered for BS I don't need to be insured for, like cough medicine or whatever else the hell insurance covers.
Insurance is a scam in the sense it covers you for the smallest stuff. Since everything insurance covers is taken at a premium -- ie: there's a "house edge", then there's no reason to be insured for stuff that is very likely to happen. I only want insurance to cover me in those crazy circumstances that are very unlikely to happen (cancer etc.). I don't know what the percentages are, but for example, let's say I have a 1% chance of getting cancer and if I get cancer then it'll cost me $100k....so my expected cost for getting cancer is $1,000. If I could pay $2,000 right now and I'd be covered for cancer -- I'd totally do that (or whatever a "fair" amount is to pay for that insurance). This is how insurance SHOULD work. However, this is how it really works:
You expect to go to the doctor for the flu 10 more times in your life (I'm making up numbers). And each time it's going to cost you $200. Your expected cost for getting the flu is thus $2,000. But instead of having a $2,000 cost you can buy insurance for twice the cost at $4,000. But guess what -- it would be cheaper any way you cut it NOT to be insured for the flu, because your expected cost is $2,000 and there's almost no possible way you can collect on $4k+ worth of doctors visits for the flu to make up for it.
The insurance industry of course is out to make a profit. You buy insurance to cover the variance and the ramifications of if/when that variance hits. Let's use the example; "cover me for the cost of cancer". Well, how do you know you have cancer? Answer: routine screening via medical checkups every year, including:
mammoraphy, PSA tests, pap smears, blood work, x-rays, MRIs, visits to dermatologists, CT Scans, etc. In short, the whole regular medical system. And let's say that you go, and instead of cancer, they diagnose you with an extremely high risk of stroke instead. I guess because you aren't insured for that the doctor would have to tell you that you are about to have a stroke, but for a price. After all you aren't covered for stroke. Could you then go out and buy insurance for stroke, given your pre-existing conditions that you discovered while screening for cancer?
Financial aid is based on taxable income, not assets. So when a hypothetical businessman, let's call him Ronald Chump, declares no income, his children get tax payer assistance to go to private schools.
You want to blame people for following the tax codes rather than blame the people who wrote them. Do you think the tax code is a gazillion pages because it's authors were trying to help the poor?
Quote: billryanYou want to know what sucks?
Financial aid is based on taxable income, not assets. So when a hypothetical businessman, let's call him Ronald Chump, declares no income, his children get tax payer assistance to go to private schools.
You want to blame people for following the tax codes rather than blame the people who wrote them. Do you think the tax code is a gazillion pages because it's authors were trying to help the poor?
Actually that sounds exactly like you from what you described.
You come off as the typical Bernie/ Hollywood elite liberal. "Blame the rich, tax the Rich". Wait, no not me the bad rich Republican business owners. They are screwing you, not us, we are the good rich.
From your track record , I'm thinking you aren't.
No point in continuing this.
Quote: boymimboQuote: RSI don't think you read what gamerfreak wrote, since he said, "...I'd 100% get a plan that only covered trauma or other critical diagnosis like cancer". This is EXACTLY what insurance should be. This is exactly what I want. I don't want to be covered for BS I don't need to be insured for, like cough medicine or whatever else the hell insurance covers.
Insurance is a scam in the sense it covers you for the smallest stuff. Since everything insurance covers is taken at a premium -- ie: there's a "house edge", then there's no reason to be insured for stuff that is very likely to happen. I only want insurance to cover me in those crazy circumstances that are very unlikely to happen (cancer etc.). I don't know what the percentages are, but for example, let's say I have a 1% chance of getting cancer and if I get cancer then it'll cost me $100k....so my expected cost for getting cancer is $1,000. If I could pay $2,000 right now and I'd be covered for cancer -- I'd totally do that (or whatever a "fair" amount is to pay for that insurance). This is how insurance SHOULD work. However, this is how it really works:
You expect to go to the doctor for the flu 10 more times in your life (I'm making up numbers). And each time it's going to cost you $200. Your expected cost for getting the flu is thus $2,000. But instead of having a $2,000 cost you can buy insurance for twice the cost at $4,000. But guess what -- it would be cheaper any way you cut it NOT to be insured for the flu, because your expected cost is $2,000 and there's almost no possible way you can collect on $4k+ worth of doctors visits for the flu to make up for it.
The insurance industry of course is out to make a profit. You buy insurance to cover the variance and the ramifications of if/when that variance hits. Let's use the example; "cover me for the cost of cancer". Well, how do you know you have cancer? Answer: routine screening via medical checkups every year, including:
mammoraphy, PSA tests, pap smears, blood work, x-rays, MRIs, visits to dermatologists, CT Scans, etc. In short, the whole regular medical system. And let's say that you go, and instead of cancer, they diagnose you with an extremely high risk of stroke instead. I guess because you aren't insured for that the doctor would have to tell you that you are about to have a stroke, but for a price. After all you aren't covered for stroke. Could you then go out and buy insurance for stroke, given your pre-existing conditions that you discovered while screening for cancer?
If you want to go pay a huge premium for stroke insurance after you know you have it, then sure. People have the right to make stupid decisions. Would be better to already have stroke-insurance (or as gamerfreak said I think, "trauma and critical diagnosis").
Quote: billryanNevada Sen.Heller folded like the empty suit he is. So much for alll his bullshit about protecting Nevada residents over party.
Heller's polling was telling him that if he voted no he would lose his seat. There's a theory that McCain voted no at least in part to allow him and one or two others to vote yes.
"This may come down to, What did Trump know, and when did his son-in-law tell him?"
I don't care where you stand, that's funny.
Quote: RS
If you want to go pay a huge premium for stroke insurance after you know you have it, then sure. People have the right to make stupid decisions. Would be better to already have stroke-insurance (or as gamerfreak said I think, "trauma and critical diagnosis").
If you run a business where you run big financial risks not knowing whether your customer can pay the full cost, you'll probably be out of business.
So, it is a stupid decision for our government to do it.
Our government already does that for poor people, but everyone wants it, and that makes even less sense.
The only thing that makes sense is mandatory health insurance.
Quote: Boz...
Meanwhile everyone who is self employed and pays for their own Health Insurance without help will continue to see their rates go up in the name of "Fairness". Just another strike against hard work and making the right decisions in life.
So, Boz, here's the thing.
I've never had a house fire. Why am I paying for a fire department?
There are hundreds of federal highways I've never driven and never will. Why am I paying to build and maintain them?
I didn't have kids. So why am I paying for schools with my taxes?
More specific to health care; since I didn't have kids, why am I paying more as a woman than you have to as a man? They justify the rate break for maternity costs, but I never had them and now I won't. How is that "fair"?
I think it goes back to how you see this country. For me, raised in the Midwest, taxes go back to a single concept from pioneer times. Everybody who farmed was a small businessman. They were almost completely self-reliant. Except when it came time to build a barn; then everyone for many miles would show up to the farmstead for a weekend, and working together, would raise the walls and attach the rafters.
They did this for each farm in turn. It was part of being a farmer. There were other group efforts, such as working together to harvest quickly sometimes, but the barn raising is the metaphor that built this country. Male, female, any color, any age, everyone had a role.
So yeah, I pay my taxes. I pay my inflated healthcare rates. I paid my private college tuition, both undergrad and master's. I consider myself lucky to be rich and healthy enough to be a taxpayer, educated, HC donor in this country.
Are you and Mrs. Boz getting screwed? Probably, though you could also be paying a debt from your raising - kids years, when maybe you were under charged. Or maybe building equity for an otherwise - bankrupting condition one of you has yet to experience.
No argument from me that HC is inequitable. My problems with that situation are:
1. a lot of current policy we're stuck with was written by health care lobbyists; both parties are at fault for this. There's an incredible amount of industry protection built into that law. Why should the govt guarantee health providers, insurance companies, and drug companies a profit? If we weren't servicing shareholders and inflated administrative costs WITH TAXES, your premiums would not be nearly so much.
2. in the 8 years since enactment, there has been repeated and protracted sabotage of the concepts and implementation, nearly all of it politically motivated, nearly all Republican governors and Congressional appropriations responsible. They WANT their constituents to feel the pain of things going as badly as possible. It's NOT a coincidence that most, if not all, of the abandoned or single-provider counties are in Republican dominated states; that happened on purpose.
3. The ACA was intended as a start, not a finish. It was not meant to be static. But there was more political wealth in whining about it than continuing to update and improve it. Is there any piece of software or hardware that hasn't had an update in 8 years? Do you still have every appliance and piece of furniture, every piece of clothing and can of food you had 8 years ago? Of course not.
IMO, the answer lies, in part, by the govt providing DIRECT competition, using Medicare pricing (negotiated for 10's of millions already) and administrative costs (2% of premiums!! Wow) in every county that has zero or one provider available. You want to see private insurance snap to and lower their pricing to keep ANY customers? Give 'em true competition.
A simple change in the law about who qualifies for Medicare pricing would start the dominoes falling; just charge private people the Medicare premiums rather than the govt paying for them. Disaster for private providers? Gee, Billionaire Rick Scott, you f!#/ing healthcare crook and Florida governor, too f!#/ing bad.
There should also be a rearrangement of drug policy. Drug pricing should be capped at a worldwide market price, at least. We pay for all the R&D and the tortious litigation involved with developing new products that are then sold cheaper everywhere else.
That needs to change, but the R&D needs to continue, so the likely answer is that drug/malpractice torts have to be capped (for Healthcare providers as well: I know several doctors who had to leave their practice simply because of the malpractice premiums). Gee, millionaire contingency and class-action Democrat lawyers; too f!#/ing bad.
You are angry about $1600/month. Imagine paying $250,000/quarter for malpractice insurance as a single OB/GYN, which is common. (God knows what SOOPOO would have to carry if he were not now staff under his hospital's umbrella; maybe he'll weigh in.)
That's lot of what drives health care costs in the US - malpractice awards. Some kind of Good Samaritan consideration, where practitioners and hospitals do the best they can, should protect them in the case of less than optimal outcomes. Negligence or malice proven, that's one thing; best effort is another.
Start with changing those 2 things. See what falls out of the tree. Fix and refine it again. And again. Repeat as needed.
Quote: billryanAre you capable of having a conversation without resorting to name calling.
From your track record , I'm thinking you aren't.
No point in continuing this.
At least we can end this in agreement that calling someone a Bernie/ Hollywood liberal is an insult. Finally common ground!
Managing use of force is one of the most difficult challenges faced by law enforcement agencies. The ability of law enforcement officers to enforce the law, protect the public, and guard their own safety, the safety of innocent bystanders, and even those suspected or apprehended for criminal activity is very challenging. For these reasons, law enforcement agencies develop policies and procedures, as well as conduct extensive training, to ensure that any use of force is carefully applied and objectively reasonable considering the situation confronted by the officers.
Law enforcement officers are trained to treat all individuals, whether they are a complainant, suspect, or defendant, with dignity and respect. This is the bedrock principle behind the concepts of procedural justice and police legitimacy.
Meanwhile, the WH is denying the site was chosen for its address on Crooked Hill Rd. They were offered a larger room that would have fit more people but chose that specific site.
“As a department, we do not and will not tolerate roughing up of prisoners,” SCPD tweeted later.
Similarly, the Gainesville Police Department in Florida said it rejected Trump’s speech, which it claimed “endorsed and condoned police brutality.”
Now think about why the government did this. It wanted its government to care for its seniors, most of which would never have saved for the actual cost of self-insurance. Government did not want eugenics so it created a fund to take care of all seniors.
There is no reason not to extend this coverage to everyone and increase the tax system to cover costs. it's actually the right thing to do and will cost the least over time. Evidence: every other single westernized country.
But back to Trump, please.
Priebus is gone. Kelly in. Will the leaks now stop? Does the public not have a right to know what is going on in its elected leader's Whitehouse?
My caveat to that statement is that I want the rumors to be true that Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is considering a run for President in 2020.
I would LOVE to see a debate between Trump and The Rock. As long as The Rock did his homework, he would absolutely obliterate Trump.
OBLITERATE.
Quote: GWAEI don't follow politics much but when was the last president to fire this many people in the first 6 months. Doesn't he appoint them all when he takes over?
Try never.
And the problem hasn't been any of the people he's fired so far. The fish rots from the head, I'm told.
Quote: beachbumbabsSo
Medicare pricing
You are angry about $1600/month. Imagine paying $250,000/quarter for malpractice insurance as a single OB/GYN, which is common. (God knows what SOOPOO would have to carry if he were not now staff under his hospital's umbrella; maybe he'll weigh in.)
That's lot of what drives health care costs in the US - malpractice awards. Some kind of Good Samaritan consideration, where practitioners and hospitals do the best they can, should protect them in the case of less than optimal outcomes. Negligence or malice proven, that's one thing; best effort is another.
Start with changing those 2 things. See what falls out of the tree. Fix and refine it again. And again. Repeat as needed.
Amazingly, local anesthesiologists just pay around 10k a year for malpractice insurance. It was around 20 k a year when I started 27 years ago. Anesthesiologists are the leaders in patient safety, and have made bad outcomes from anesthesia maybe 5 times as unlikely as when I started practicing. If this weren't true I can assure you our rates would not have gone down.
The problem with Medicare is that they pay docs a take it or leave it fee. No negotiation. If I do your total knee at age 64 with private insurance, I get somewhere around $1000. If I do it for a Medicare patient it is around $300. So private insurers are basically subsidizing the government. If there were no private insurers the government would probably need to double their rates they pay us. Or there would be no more us (anesthesiologists). No one is calculating those additional costs when they tout single payer, I can assure you!
Quote: rxwineIf you run a business where you run big financial risks not knowing whether your customer can pay the full cost, you'll probably be out of business.
So, it is a stupid decision for our government to do it.
Our government already does that for poor people, but everyone wants it, and that makes even less sense.
The only thing that makes sense is mandatory health insurance.
I'm not sure what the first line means. Are you talking about hospitals? I'm not seeing the financial risk -- if you have insurance or have the money to pay, they treat you....if you don't, they don't. Just like any other business. In rare cases where they can't identify if you have the money or insurance to cover it (life & death emergency like a crazy car crash), they go ahead and treat you.....I'd be willing to pay taxes on that, which covers everyone.
Not sure what lines 2 and 3 have to do with it.
Quote: SOOPOOAmazingly, local anesthesiologists just pay around 10k a year for malpractice insurance. It was around 20 k a year when I started 27 years ago. Anesthesiologists are the leaders in patient safety, and have made bad outcomes from anesthesia maybe 5 times as unlikely as when I started practicing. If this weren't true I can assure you our rates would not have gone down.
The problem with Medicare is that they pay docs a take it or leave it fee. No negotiation. If I do your total knee at age 64 with private insurance, I get somewhere around $1000. If I do it for a Medicare patient it is around $300. So private insurers are basically subsidizing the government. If there were no private insurers the government would probably need to double their rates they pay us. Or there would be no more us (anesthesiologists). No one is calculating those additional costs when they tout single payer, I can assure you!
Fair enough. So Soopoo what you are saying is that insurers are paying you too much and medicare too little. What about a middle ground, where you are paid say 50% over Medicare and get rid of insurance companies?
That's the problem with going to single payer, of course, is that wage structures are going to change drastically for all, and it will put inefficient companies out of business and will drive people elsewhere or to retirement.
How many in the medical professions take to their hippocratic oath and continue to work for less pay?
The government could provide everybody with basic coverage and private companies could offer the collision, glass and theft policy.
Medicare offers basic insurance and companies offer to supplant that. Lower Medicare to 50, and allow people without group insurance to buy into it. Or expand Medicaid to all 50 states. It's crazy that a Governor can penalize his citizens for political nonsense.
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-terrible-president-tweets-about-barack-obama-643818
DONALD TRUMP IS A TERRIBLE PRESIDENT, ACCORDING TO HIS OWN TWEETS ABOUT OBAMA
past trump Tweet Example:
President @BarackObama's vacation is costing taxpayers millions of dollars----Unbelievable!
3:56 PM - Jan 5, 2012
"But Trump is not a victim. He is the hamster spinning the wheel in the massive Rube Goldberg machine that is the spectacle of presidential dysfunction."
source:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-tweets-stupid-20170726-column,amp.html
Quote: boymimboFair enough. So Soopoo what you are saying is that insurers are paying you too much and medicare too little. What about a middle ground, where you are paid say 50% over Medicare and get rid of insurance companies?
That's the problem with going to single payer, of course, is that wage structures are going to change drastically for all, and it will put inefficient companies out of business and will drive people elsewhere or to retirement.
How many in the medical professions take to their hippocratic oath and continue to work for less pay?
If we went to Medicare x 1.5 probably 20-30% retire immediately. Surgery wait times would skyrocket. Those too young to retire will have no viable option. They will be pissed off, but in reality, what can a 40 year old man with kids do? Even if compensation drops to $150k it's not like there are non medical jobs waiting that initially or easily pay that much. Anesthesiologists make 3 times that now.
So, essentially, yes, the private insurers are subsidizing Medicare. Always have. And it's also the RIDICULOUS regulations Medicare makes you jump through to collect their sub standard fees. Google MACRA, MIPS, NACOR, AQI if you want to see the BS I have to deal with. In essence Medicare requires me to hire an additional secretary at a cost of $35k? to try and recoup 2% of the $500,000 my group would collect yearly. Do the math!
Quote: boymimboQuote: RSI don't think you read what gamerfreak wrote, since he said, "...I'd 100% get a plan that only covered trauma or other critical diagnosis like cancer". This is EXACTLY what insurance should be. This is exactly what I want. I don't want to be covered for BS I don't need to be insured for, like cough medicine or whatever else the hell insurance covers.
Insurance is a scam in the sense it covers you for the smallest stuff. Since everything insurance covers is taken at a premium -- ie: there's a "house edge", then there's no reason to be insured for stuff that is very likely to happen. I only want insurance to cover me in those crazy circumstances that are very unlikely to happen (cancer etc.). I don't know what the percentages are, but for example, let's say I have a 1% chance of getting cancer and if I get cancer then it'll cost me $100k....so my expected cost for getting cancer is $1,000. If I could pay $2,000 right now and I'd be covered for cancer -- I'd totally do that (or whatever a "fair" amount is to pay for that insurance). This is how insurance SHOULD work. However, this is how it really works:
You expect to go to the doctor for the flu 10 more times in your life (I'm making up numbers). And each time it's going to cost you $200. Your expected cost for getting the flu is thus $2,000. But instead of having a $2,000 cost you can buy insurance for twice the cost at $4,000. But guess what -- it would be cheaper any way you cut it NOT to be insured for the flu, because your expected cost is $2,000 and there's almost no possible way you can collect on $4k+ worth of doctors visits for the flu to make up for it.
The insurance industry of course is out to make a profit. You buy insurance to cover the variance and the ramifications of if/when that variance hits. Let's use the example; "cover me for the cost of cancer". Well, how do you know you have cancer? Answer: routine screening via medical checkups every year, including:
mammorgaphy, PSA tests, pap smears, blood work, x-rays, MRIs, visits to dermatologists, CT Scans, etc. In short, the whole regular medical system. And let's say that you go, and instead of cancer, they diagnose you with an extremely high risk of stroke instead. I guess because you aren't insured for that the doctor would have to tell you that you are about to have a stroke, but for a price. After all you aren't covered for stroke. Could you then go out and buy insurance for stroke, given your pre-existing conditions that you discovered while screening for cancer?
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/uspstf-a-and-b-recommendations/
Suggest that the following guidelines be used for recommendations in regards to preventive health screening. PSA is a grade D recommendation which is do not test; only CT scan for screening would be for lung cancer IF you have smoked in the last 15 years. USPSTF recommendations are made via cost-benefit ratios, not just monetary but also harm to patients. The idea behind getting people insured and in the pipeline for screening is to avoid catastrophic diagnoses while asymptomatic (heart attack, stroke, advanced kidney disease requiring dialysis, cervical cancer, etc). Screening tests are quick, relatively cheap, low risk of harm to the patient, and probability of a positive result if the condition is present and the condition can be treated. Generally it is thought healthy people or people who cannot afford these screening tests don't seek them out until they become symptomatic. This makes sense if it is inconvenient, or risky, with financial or opportunity or emotional (not wanting to know they have cancer) costs to the individual.
As a primary care doc, (albeit jaded as I only see patient in a universal health care system (aka Tricare, which also has drawbacks)), I think a single-payer system ran at the state-level might be the most viable solution. Running this type of system works relatively well in countries with 5-10 million people with generally homogenous population demographics. Trying to apply it to 350 million would be very challenging due to population heterogeneity (CT looks very different than AL or AZ). I think you'd get less push back from conservative in regards to wealth redistribution and state self determination. Just would be interesting to see what the conservatives in the less wealthy regions would say when the "hand-outs" start drying up. FYI, I am slightly left of center who works with many birthers and other trickle down theorists. Suspect my colleagues in my corps are somewhat more liberal-minded than the line units.
Quote: SOOPOOIf we went to Medicare x 1.5 probably 20-30% retire immediately. Surgery wait times would skyrocket. Those too young to retire will have no viable option. They will be pissed off, but in reality, what can a 40 year old man with kids do? Even if compensation drops to $150k it's not like there are non medical jobs waiting that initially or easily pay that much. Anesthesiologists make 3 times that now.
So, essentially, yes, the private insurers are subsidizing Medicare. Always have. And it's also the RIDICULOUS regulations Medicare makes you jump through to collect their sub standard fees. Google MACRA, MIPS, NACOR, AQI if you want to see the BS I have to deal with. In essence Medicare requires me to hire an additional secretary at a cost of $35k? to try and recoup 2% of the $500,000 my group would collect yearly. Do the math!
What should be the “fair” salary & benefit for anesthesiologist, OBGYN, heart surgeon, nurse, secretary, engineer, lawyer, pilot, air traffic controller, card dealers, waiter, football player, basketball player …? Answer: Whatever the market decides. I’ve heard plenty of complains and dis-satisfactions about work environment & salary in every professions, but people cannot simply just “take this job and shove it" like they had wished because they have to put foods on the table, don't have other skills, or don’t have huge financial resources.
What other skills that anesthesiologists and football players have, and what would they do if their salaries suddenly drop to a “sub-standard” level of $200,000. I can tell you this, many football players will continue their football career at the new “sub-standard” wage level rather than working as a waiter, but I’m not sure about anesthesiologists. I've heard that card dealers can make well exceed $200,000/year (tip included), but I can’t do the math …
Any big changes to status quo can result in big disruptions, and should be expected, and society can adjusts and adapts to these changes accordingly. Climate change, global trade policy, robot and other advancement in technologies are few examples of the big changes. And any disruption is just temporary will return to stable level overtime due to the efficient & competition of the free market and in the capitalist system.
Let’s use athletic profession as an analogy to discuss the sensitive topic of salary & compensation. Many decades ago, football, basketball, baseball players made "substandard" wage when compared it to the current salaries? Will there still be careers in athletic fields if the current salary suddenly drops to the anesthesiologist, nurse, accountant, or card dealer’s salary level? Of course the answer is an obvious yes because like I had stated before, but people cannot simple just “take this job and shove it” like they wish simply because they have to put foods on the table, don’t have other skills, or are not as rich as the racist, rapist, sexist, scam artist, and con man Trump. We all want to be fairly or highly compensated for our skill and labor, but the point I'm trying to make here is not about what is the appropriate or deserving salary, but it is about the free market force in the capitalist system, and each individual’s circumstances.
I believe in other regions of the world, anesthesiologist and other specialists make “sub-standard” wage, but they all enjoy outstanding, good or decent, and most importantly, affordable health care. I notice people often use the "waiting line" and “sub-standard” care as excuses to resist change and/or to sabotage many attempts to regulate and to make health care affordable to everyone here in America; and sadly, I too see that many have expressed dissatisfaction in our attempt to bring affordable health care to everyone for self-interest reason. And it is troublesome to me that much focus was placed on corporate/personal profits and out of control CEO compensation & benefit, that the hypocritical oath that they learned in med school now has no meaning.
https://youtu.be/k9M5t_7utSs
Quote: billryanScaramucci out after a week. What a joke this administration is. Obviously it's Obama's fault.
So if he kept him on the job after what he did shows Trump made the correct decision, you would be pissed. But he did the right thing and now it's a joke. As long as you keep LEGALLY hiding profits and income while collecting government benefits, not sure why you have an an issue with Trump. Or is he a threat to that as well?
Quote: BozSo if he kept him on the job after what he did shows Trump made the correct decision, you would be pissed. But he did the right thing and now it's a joke.
Gen. John Kelly fired Scaramucci, not Trump.
If Trump was going to fire him for his obscene interview, the time to do that would have been last week...
Quote: SOOPOOIf we went to Medicare x 1.5 probably 20-30% retire immediately. Surgery wait times would skyrocket. Those too young to retire will have no viable option. They will be pissed off, but in reality, what can a 40 year old man with kids do? Even if compensation drops to $150k it's not like there are non medical jobs waiting that initially or easily pay that much. Anesthesiologists make 3 times that now.
So, essentially, yes, the private insurers are subsidizing Medicare. Always have. And it's also the RIDICULOUS regulations Medicare makes you jump through to collect their sub standard fees. Google MACRA, MIPS, NACOR, AQI if you want to see the BS I have to deal with. In essence Medicare requires me to hire an additional secretary at a cost of $35k? to try and recoup 2% of the $500,000 my group would collect yearly. Do the math!
I personally think the pay of a doctor is the problem. I run a medical billing company. I hear it all the time that doctors whining that their revenue is down. I feel that people in the medical profession make way too much money which drives up medical and insurance costs. Doctors should be doctors to help people and not to become super wealthy.
Right now the current systems are good for me professionally but suck ass for me personally.
BobbleHead
........|..........
Chief of Staff
........|.........
Everyone else.
Looks better to me, except for one thing.
Quote: rxwineSo this is the hierarchy chart at the White House.
BobbleHead
........|..........
Chief of Staff
........|.........
Everyone else.
Looks better to me, except for one thing.
Better, but still sh1t.
At least two problems there: The knob-head at the top of the chart doesn't belong there, or anywhere else in this universe. 'Everyone else' includes hundreds of posts so far without even a nominee.
Oh, and it's far too complex for knob-head to understand and work with. Give it a week to disintegrate.
Quote: billryanScaramucci out after a week and a half. What a joke this administration is. Obviously it's Obama's fault.
“As you know, from the Italian expression, the fish stinks from the head down. I can tell you two fish that don’t stink. That’s me and the president.” Anthony “the Mooch” Scaramucci
Quote: rxwineSo this is the hierarchy chart at the White House.
BobbleHead
........|..........
Chief of Staff
........|.........
Everyone else.
Looks better to me, except for one thing.
Quote: OnceDearBetter, but still sh1t.
At least two problems there: The knob-head at the top of the chart doesn't belong there, or anywhere else in this universe. 'Everyone else' includes hundreds of posts so far without even a nominee.
Oh, and it's far too complex for knob-head to understand and work with. Give it a week to disintegrate.
This comment from Johnpakala in responding to NYT article about the firing of Anthony “the Mooch” Scaramucci best expresses my feeling about the racist, rapist, sexist, scam artist and con-man Trump:
"I don't recognize my country anymore. I would be a better president than trump. so would my neighbor. so would my other neighbor. and my cousins...all of them I could go on, but my head is spinning. trump is a fool."
Quote: BozSo if he kept him on the job after what he did shows Trump made the correct decision, you would be pissed. But he did the right thing and now it's a joke. As long as you keep LEGALLY hiding profits and income while collecting government benefits, not sure why you have an an issue with Trump. Or is he a threat to that as well?
How about the decision to hire him on as communications director when he has zero experience at the job? That happened a week ago. Rather than the right seeing that as an obvious error in judgement, you jump on someone else because of the correct decision to fire him as a credit to Trump. Hypocrisy!!!
You see the balances in power shifting, right? Trump fires Priebus, enemy to Mooch. Kelly comes on an fires Mooch, enemy to Bannon, and so on and so forth. Who knows what's coming next.
Frankly, I wish the drama at the WH would end and that Trump would get on with governing and that the Senate work on trade, tax reforms, and healthcare and fulfill its sordid agenda. Because this show in the Executive branch fits well in some third world country, not in a democracy that has been stable for over 240 years. It's a joke, and a terrible one at that. The US has lost all of its moral authority due to the actions of its Executive Branch since Trump took over.
Winning?
Quote: GWAEI personally think the pay of a doctor is the problem. I run a medical billing company. I hear it all the time that doctors whining that their revenue is down. I feel that people in the medical profession make way too much money which drives up medical and insurance costs. Doctors should be doctors to help people and not to become super wealthy.
Right now the current systems are good for me professionally but suck ass for me personally.
To be fair to SooPoo and other healthcare professionals, they all deserve high salary for their skill and education, and it would be unfair to say the fault lies solely on SooPoo. But considering the state of our out of control healthcare cost, collectively we as a society should pause and ask this, how much is too much profit, or how little is too little profit? And what happen to the Hippocratic Oath, and what can we do to improve the ACA instead of sabotaging it?
I'm aware of many healthcare professionals who vehemently oppose Obama & the Democratic's signature ACA for fear that it will threaten their revenues and incomes (and I can't blame them for loving their family, girl friend, and to maintain their luxurious life style of golfing just like their hero, the racist, rapist, sexist, scam artist and con man Trump). Their fear and resentment on the ACA had led many to sabotage the ACA and to oppose the Democratic party at any cost -- as evidenced by SooPoo's own admission in supporting the known racist, rapist, sexist, scam-artist, and con-man Trump because Hillary has common sense and compassion to reform the ACA.
