The Only Sure Thing In Life Is Death Panels and Taxes
Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.
At the link, the Newsbusters writer falls all over himself to note that Krugman is likely using the term “death panels” in a derisive manner. Fine. But watch the video.
He is quite serious about saying the solution is going to include cutting out certain types of care:
Medicare is going to have to decide what it’s going to pay for. And at least for starters, it’s going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of the health care reform.
Sarah Palin was right in talking about death panels as the end result of ObamaCare.
That’s the Democrats’ health care solution. Death panels and taxes.
Obama 2012!!!
Thanks to a commenter who wishes to remain anonymous for the title of the post and the link.
They aren’t “Death Panels,” Patterico.
They are COTFFRs: cessation of treatment for financial reasons.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/14/2010 @ 1:42 pmAnd the best part? Krugman will simply pay for whatever he likes…while he cheerleads a system for the Great Unwashed.
Aristocracy, all over again.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/14/2010 @ 1:43 pmPatterico is a socialist?
He’s attacking Krugman for saying that we shouldn’t be providing socialist Medicare to everyone for everything.
For once Krugman is right.
How are we going to afford your Medicare in all circumstances, Patterico? Tax the rich?
John Stanford (a76889) — 11/14/2010 @ 1:45 pmActually they call the mechanism, which they tucked into the stimulus bill, FCCER,
narciso (82637e) — 11/14/2010 @ 1:56 pmWe already have death panels. They’re called private insurance companies.
AJB (d64738) — 11/14/2010 @ 1:57 pmSeriously, how can you deny that Americans are dying under the private system because they either can’t afford the necessary treatment or their insurance companies denies them coverage based on some technicality?
I guess as long as only the poor and uninsured middle class have to deal with death panels it’s not a problem.
AJB (d64738) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:00 pmI love this spin. If you oppose death panels, you’re a socialist.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:01 pmThere’s something to this argument, but now it’s a political issue. If you think private companies shouldn’t be motivated by profits all the time, that can be argued too.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:02 pmWell, how do you propose we keep providing infinite care–no matter how unnecessary or wasteful–through Medicare without raising taxes?
AJB (d64738) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:03 pmWow. I do a post showing that Sarah Palin was right about ObamaCare leading to death panels, and suddenly I am a … socialist.
What in God’s name has gotten into people lately?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:04 pmAnd what is this “your Medicare” bit, John Stanford?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:05 pmI don’t know, Patterico. It’s like they want the statists to win.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:06 pmHm, could this possibly be the same Paul Krugman, August 2009?
Right now, the charge that’s gaining the most traction is the claim that health care reform will create “death panels” (in Sarah Palin’s words) that will shuffle the elderly and others off to an early grave. It’s a complete fabrication, of course. The provision requiring that Medicare pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling was introduced by Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican — yes, Republican — of Georgia, who says that it’s “nuts” to claim that it has anything to do with euthanasia.
And not long ago, some of the most enthusiastic peddlers of the euthanasia smear, including Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, and Mrs. Palin herself, were all for “advance directives” for medical care in the event that you are incapacitated or comatose. That’s exactly what was being proposed — and has now, in the face of all the hysteria, been dropped from the bill.
Last week, Mr. Grassley claimed that his colleague Ted Kennedy’s brain tumor wouldn’t have been treated properly in other countries because they prefer to “spend money on people who can contribute more to the economy.” This week, he told an audience that “you have every right to fear,” that we “should not have a government-run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.”
So much, then, for Mr. Obama’s dream of moving beyond divisive politics. The truth is that the factors that made politics so ugly in the Clinton years — the paranoia of a significant minority of Americans and the cynical willingness of leading Republicans to cater to that paranoia — are as strong as ever.
The question now is how Mr. Obama will deal with the death of his postpartisan dream.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:08 pmI propose we cancel social security and medicare. However, I do not know how to make this politically realistic.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:09 pmhe’s right about medicare – controlling costs in large part means rationing care – there’s some market-based stuff you can throw at the problem too but medicare is failed and bankrupt like America is failed and bankrupt… you spended all the monies, silly mericans
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:15 pmPatterico,
It’s not you. There is no consistent philosophy in Obamaland. Otherwise, how could people argue that we can’t sentence a convicted criminal to death because it’s heartless, but it’s fine to abort babies? Similarly, how could they argue that we can’t let an insurance company pay for its insureds while leaving uninsured persons to rely on emergent care, but we can let government decide who lives and dies?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:15 pmDustin is a socialist?
He just said that he opposes death panels.
Dustin thinks that everyone should be entitled to unlimited socialist Medicare care.
I’ve got an idea, Dustin: Why don’t you pay for yourself, and I’ll pay for myself? No one is denying you the right to be cared for. If you are just to lazy, that’s your fault.
So how are we gonna pay for you and everyone else who doesn’t take care of themselves, Dustin? Tax the rich? Typical response.
John Stanford (a76889) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:17 pmPatterico, I understand your point, and in fact I think you are right…However, I have listened to enough conservatives complain about Medicare Part D to know that there is a certain amount of politics to all this.
For instance, the Part D program under Bush actually costs less than it was supposed to and it was part of a deal that included Health Savings Accounts and Medicare Advantage, both of which conservatives tend to like. The Democrats under Obamacare are changing Part D to do away with the socalled donut hole that required more input from patients and to do away with the provisions that kept negotiations with drug companies in the private sector. In other words, they have taken a private/public plan and tried their best to turn it into a public plan.
Ask most older people what they are more concerned about: loosing their discount drug coverage or death panels…and I am sure it will be losing the drug coverage because that is a program that helps them every day. The truth is old people have been denied certain care for years once they get to an advanced age. This is not something really new. It is just not something we talk about.
Terrye (3d4bc9) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:19 pm“I guess as long as only the poor and uninsured middle class have to deal with death panels it’s not a problem.”
AJB – Remind me again how many people in this country are uninsured and also why they are uninsured.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:19 pmStanford, what is your problem?
We all oppose ObamaCare.
Don’t you get it?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:19 pmAJB – Does being uninsured mean you have no access to health care?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:20 pmDana, Krugman knew he was misrepresenting the issue in that column, his intentional lies are all the more obnoxious for their obviousness.
Stanford, is there a reason you are giving us your ridiculous rhetoric and misrepresentation of the issue? Some sort of Moby trolling act that you find amusing?
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:21 pmI propose we cancel social security and medicare. However, I do not know how to make this politically realistic.
Comment by Dustin — 11/14/2010 @ 2:09 pm
I think both of these systems need a great deal of reform, however, if they just ceased to exist the economy would collapse. Don’t think it wouldn’t. There are a lot of people out there who are able to send their kids to college or buy a house because their parents have social security. And there are a lot of older people out there who are able to leave some property to their adult children and maintain some independence because they have social security and medicare.
I work for a home health care agency. Most of our clients are either medicaid or medicare or veterans. Take away these benefits and not only would their lives change, but their families’ lives would change too. And some older people without family would just be s.o.l.
Reform is necessary, but going back to the 1920s is not going to happen. Not on purpose anyway.
Terrye (3d4bc9) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:25 pmWell, how do you propose we keep providing infinite care–no matter how unnecessary or wasteful–through Medicare without raising taxes?
Comment by AJB
The original intent of Congress, when it created Medicare, was to pay only 80% of the cost of care. They did not anticipate that private insurance companies would write policies to pay for the other 20%. There are a number of problems with Medicare that contribute to the cost. One is the fact that it pays for routine care. Second, when it began in 1965, the pay schedule for physicians was quite generous. Too generous but that contributed to the acceptance by physicians and that made the program so popular. Seniors were getting first class care. I was a medical student when the law passed and went into effect. Once it was in effect, the elderly disappeared from the County Hospital. That was a real benefit but it led to very high expectations. We see them every day in the scooter commercials on TV. If you practice near a retirement community, as I have for almost 40 years, you quickly realize that the elderly are very demanding. They want everything and have no idea about how Medicare is going broke.
There has to be some sort of rationing of care. My preference would be higher co-pays, which would discourage excessive usage. Some of the residents of Leisure World in Orange County, with 25,000 Medicare beneficiaries, make doctors’ appointments to have something to do for the day. I’ve had patients who came to the office without appointments to read the paper and visit with the front office staff. As a surgeon, my office wasn’t busy most of the time so they would just drop in. Doctors’ appointments are part of the social life of some of the residents.
There is a lot of talk about how 20% of the patients use 80% of the resources. That’s where the death panels come in. In fact, most real elderly, over 70, are reluctant to have expensive procedures. Utilization peaks at 70. People are having total hips so they can play golf. Somewhere price has to come into the decision process.
I am convinced that Medicare cannot be controlled until balance billing is allowed and reimbursement for procedures is limited to a flat fee determined, not by the doctor’s price, but by the ability of the system to pay. The huge cuts in reimbursement that are being considered would be a viable alternative if the doctor could charge for the rest of the fee. The problem is that we are still dealing with Lyndon Johnson’s promise of free care.
Mike K (568408) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:31 pmPerhaps you can explain something to me, Terrye. I have a family member who needs home health care services but we have difficulty finding agencies that will provide services to a private pay client. They only want to care for Medicare and Medicaid patients. I know the private pay insurance pays more than a Medicare reimbursement but apparently they don’t like the paperwork. Have you seen this? Does it factor into your belief that the system will crash if Medicare and Medicaid is changed?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:32 pmWe had an economy before these programs existed.
Not that you’re wrong. You’re probably right that just canceling them suddenly wouldn’t work well (and it’s completely off the table politically, of course, anyway).
But I personally want to add that I’ve been paying social security taxes for a long time, but always realized they were really just revenue for government operations that were even then in severe deficit. We should not pretend we’re owed any social security benefits just because some politicians pretended some money was doing something completely other than what it was.
And they had our consent to spend in severe deficit, too. We really aren’t owed anything… the justification for social security is basically Terrye’s rational point and my pessimism about what we can accomplish politically.
I guess you’re afraid of arguing with me and are more comfortable arguing with this figment of your imagination. I don’t blame you… I’d wipe the floor with you.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:33 pmDRJ:
I did not say they should not be changed, in fact I said they needed reform. I just said that I did not think it was a good idea to just do away with them.
As for the remark about only wanting Medicare and Medicaid…I honestly do not know what you are talking about. A lot of companies have stopped doing medicaid, because reimbursements are down. Medicare does not pay as well as veterans in fact. In my company we do private pay and insurance, but to be honest if you do private pay you are better off going with an individual than an agency a lot of times.
In fact a decade ago we had a lot of people who were bed fast, now almost all of those people are either in hospice or nursing homes.
So, I don’t know who you are talking to, but maybe the problem is with your provider because I know for a fact that my company will do visits for insurance payer sources.
Terrye (3d4bc9) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:37 pmThanks, Terrye. Hopefully our experience is a local issue, although I’ve run into it in more than one Texas city.
How do you feel about raising co-pays as Dr. Mike K suggests?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:41 pmDustin:
Well, we had an economy before we had electricity and paved roads too…so what? One of the reasons the government came up with social security was to get people out of the labor force and make room for younger workers.
I think Paul Ryan has some good ideas about reform.
But if you just killed these programs the economy would collapse…there would have be some transition and accomadtion. People don’t just use those social security checks to pay the lottery..they pay bills with that income. That is all I am saying. People forget that this is not just about debt, it is also about millions of people pouring money into the economy every day.
Terrye (3d4bc9) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:42 pmthere may have been some merit to Sarah Palin’s shrieky death panel bibble babble if it had halted Obamacare but it didn’t, so now we’re left cleaning up the mess of her silly demagoguery…
Health care costs in our pitiful declining little country are unsustainable.
Right now the plan – whether it’s Obamacare or the status quo ante – is for boomers and seniors to spend spend spend on doctors doctors doctors knowing full well they’ll leave a crappy husk of America for their kids what will make death panels look like benevolent fairy godmothers.
That’s kind of a sucky plan I think.
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:43 pmMike:
Actually higher co pays are not a bad idea. But then again the idea that Ryan has of giving people vouchers is not a bad idea either.
There is so much waste and paper work and administrative costs in health care that the actual cost of the care itself gets lost in all the nonsense.
Terrye (3d4bc9) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:45 pmWell, to her credit, it did a lot of damage to the effort, which passed only narrowly after ridiculous throat-shoving-down.
Sadly, no one else was able to stop it, either. And the legislation was less-awful thanks to Palin’s effort leading to some change.
We need to completely depart from the entitlement ponzi scheme. It just can’t work.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:47 pmIt’s obviously nice that older people can feel less dependent on others, that doesn’t make it fiscally prudent or efficient. It has the same drawbacks that welfare has.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:48 pmAgreed. But I mainly agree because I think Ryan’s plan is actually feasible. It’s not my ideal.
I think my point stands that we actually could have a great country without entitlements. Getting there seems impossible, but the concept seems pretty sound to me.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:49 pmNo, she was right pikachu and the statements of the Medicare administrator Mr. Berwick, validate that point, but folks had to pass it in order to know what was in it, among failed lifeydoodle, your words, Stupak, who bought this pig in a poke,
narciso (82637e) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:50 pmthat’s why this has to be ‘nuked from orbit, just to make it sure’ And you can’t do it piecemeal, either, you remove the mandate, without the preexisting condition exclusion, you make private
healthcare illegal, quite a game of chenga
it’s a runaway dirty socialist health care train and Sarah Palin was one of them what made sure it didn’t have any breaks
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:52 pm*brakes* I mean… cause of it being like a train what needs to stop and all
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:53 pmI just don’t trust the government to handle this kind of rationing.
But I think your reaction makes more sense in hindsight. We were fighting this ‘reform’, and it wasn’t at all clear who was going to win, and Palin identified a nasty little part of the bill and brought the truth out to the public.
Indeed, we had to pass the bill to figure out much of what else is in there. I bet we still don’t know the half of it.
What should Palin have done? We’re talking about a facebook comment, after all.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:56 pmThe complete lives system,’ Carousel’ for those recalling Logan’s Run
narciso (82637e) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:57 pmPalin didn’t remove death panels from the legislation… ya know, on account of her not being Nancy Pelosi.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/14/2010 @ 2:57 pmyes failed governor Sarah Palin doesn’t actually have responsibility for anything but running her mouth so you can’t hold her accountable… nevertheless dirty socialist healthcares without cost containment mechanisms is the very very worst kind of dirty socialist healthcares.
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:00 pmTell us, pikachu, where are you going to cut the spendings in this deal
narciso (82637e) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:01 pmand I don’t trust the government to handle this kind of rationing either Mr. Dustin… but better that than a policy to pretend that an unsustainable health care system is sustainable… we can see the consequences relatively immediately (and perhaps change course as a result)… or we can wait for the trainwreck… and it’s going to be a very spectacular trainwreck even more better than this one
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:04 pmThe Culture of life strikes again.
Truth (782fe1) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:06 pmMr. narciso you cut the spendings like Mr. Krugman says – you limit spending on procedures and treatments what are proven to be not particularly helpful – especially end of life stuff – that’s just how dirty socialist health care works…
how else can a no budget-having debt-ridden currency-devaluating rapidly-aging international laughingstock of a little country afford to have dirty socialist health cares on the level of medicare much less on the scale of obamacare?
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:09 pmDUUUUUCK!
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/palin-uninspiring-tax-policy-record/
EricPWJohnson (e83e82) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:10 pmTry to sell that, they will roast you on a spit, the problem lies in what has allowed to happen under the HMO bill, Ted Kennedy never stops giving,
narciso (82637e) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:14 pmwe need more doctors, to restructure ERISA, not this perversion of the very hippocratic oath, look
at NICE in the UK, or similar instances in Holland, or begging a goodwin turn, late Weimar Germany
EricPWJohnson – What was the rationale for that higher severance tax? Was it higher or lower than other states? Throwing something out like that in isolation tells us nothing.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:21 pmPatterico, I’m not sure what has gotten into people lately, but I hope it gets out soon.
A huge problem is how the playing of politics and relying on sound bites makes rational discussion among the public virtually impossible.
First, you have to understand the problems and the genesis of the problems, the unintended consequences of medicare and medicaid, the theft from social security from nearly the beginning, the way costs are shifted instead of taken care of, anticipating what a given change will really do. None of this can be done while people are trying to win elections by making promises that can’t be kept and demonizing the “villain of the month” instead of explaining the real issues.
For example, this thread was simply to be about how an Obamacare apologist acknowledges that the critics were right about the false promises that were made, and we get a bunch of nonsense that is off point, distorted, and wrong. I’d rather have Mike K. and others make their insightful comments and questions as part of a logical discussion.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:27 pm“Now, to be sure, Krugman was likely being derisive using that term.”
Likely? These guys are geniuses.
imdw (ce700c) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:28 pmEricPWJ #46 – and the reference is significant, why ?
It’s not even strong enough to be a duck-under-a-different-name – a canard …
Alasdair (205079) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:30 pmTerrye:
Fair enough. I should have said “Does it factor into your belief that the system will crash if Medicare and Medicaid is
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:33 pmchangedeliminated.” What kind of changes do you support?Actually, what Krugman said is entirely correct and reasonable — and also a dishonest dig at Palin. Notice what he did there: Palin’s original reference to “death panels” was to government panels that decide to ration treatment based on subjective judgements about its cost-effectiveness; i.e. a treatment that is undoubtedly effective, and which would be given to a 20-year-old without question, will be denied to an 80-year-old because the perceived benefit to “society” isn’t enough to justify the expense to that same “society”. But Krugman cleverly changed the subject to treatments that are defunded because they’re judged not to be effective; presumably such a treatment would not be funded for a 20-year-old either. And of course a panel that only denies people ineffective treatments can by definition not be a death panel, since such denial can’t possibly contribute to anyone’s death, and is actually likely to save lives.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:48 pmGreat point, Milhouse.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:51 pmPS: I’m sure Palin would have no problem, in principle, with defunding ineffective treatments. She might have a problem with government panels making that judgment and imposing it on everyone, especially if they have a conflict of interest because they’re also charged with saving money; there’s a danger that they may get it wrong, whether accidentally, negligently, or even deliberately. But in principle, such treatments shouldn’t be funded, whether by government, insurance companies, or private patients paying out of pocket. Nor would anyone want them, assuming they knew them to be ineffective.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:53 pmDRJ
Interesting how paperwork can make the premium disappear… that is one of the reasons why our world is upside down.
Mike K.
Thanks for the on the ground insights.
On to the comment that we have death panels now… they are called insurance companies… well, I have a friend who used to be the CEO of the Northwest region of a big healthcare company.
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 11/14/2010 @ 3:58 pmShe is one of the most caring people you’d ever meet.
She’d tell me about the hundreds of thousands of people they service well, but the focus is the.01% that have some issue that falls into a crack in this system that has to manage costs in order to remain liquid (todays profits pay for tomorrows extraordinary care).
I’ll never forget the time back when she was running a little local HMO and VONS grocery offered them as an option… so a guy who was a mutual friend asked his wife (who worked at VONS) to sign with her because she was a friend… well, the guy was an alcoholic who had completely screwed up his internal organs… he was OK if he didn’t drink, but when he’d fall off the wagon it was hundreds of thousands of dollars for care… she calls me up nearly in tears because her friendship had completely torpedoed their profits, emptied their reserves and they’d nearly gone under.
Insurance companies go to extraordinary lengths every day.
I’m very happy with my level of care, but I pay well for it too… if I was paying $250 a month or a whopping $3000 a year, $120,000 over the course of the rest of my life can I really expect millions of dollars of care in return? No.
___________________________________________
My preference would be higher co-pays, which would discourage excessive usage. Some of the residents of Leisure World in Orange County, with 25,000 Medicare beneficiaries, make doctors’ appointments to have something to do for the day. I’ve had patients who came to the office without appointments to read the paper and visit with the front office staff.
Comment by Mike K — 11/14/2010 @ 2:31 pm
In a similar vein, how about all the “undocumented” or others who use public-health services or emergency rooms in cities like Los Angeles at least be required to pay a nominal fee for the service they’re getting? How about getting them to open their wallets or purses for at least a token amount of, say, $30.00?
It drives me nuts to think that people without insurance drop in for medical care, receive perhaps hundreds of dollars worth of service, and then walk away without forking over even 10 bucks or, for that matter, even 10 cents.
Mark (411533) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:03 pmHere’s something related to our discussion: Texas may consider opting out of Medicaid.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:08 pmRe: Patterico comment #11
Um… It says right here in your own post that you are against so-called “death panels.” You think that everyone on the socialist government run and government subsidized Medicare plans should be entitled to all the car they want. (you were against Krugman’s assertion that expensive inefficient care shouldn’t be offered)
So yeah, you are supporting Medicare against those who want rational reforms to save the taxpayer.
John Stanford (a76889) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:15 pm“ctually, what Krugman said is entirely correct and reasonable — and also a dishonest dig at Palin. Notice what he did there: Palin’s original reference to “death panels” was to government panels that decide to ration treatment based on subjective judgements about its cost-effectiveness; i.e. a treatment that is undoubtedly effective, and which would be given to a 20-year-old without question, will be denied to an 80-year-old because the perceived benefit to “society” isn’t enough to justify the expense to that same “society”. But Krugman cleverly changed the subject to treatments that are defunded because they’re judged not to be effective; ”
Sounds more like an honest dig at palin. He’s pointing out she’s wrong. Also note that when the death panel stuff came up, she also pointed to coverage of end of life planning. A different canard.
imdw (8bb588) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:16 pmFWIW, I don’t think Texas will opt out of Medicaid but the Legislature might very well look at ways to limit how the funds can be used.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:16 pm“FWIW, I don’t think Texas will opt out of Medicaid but the Legislature might very well look at ways to limit how the funds can be used.”
So… death panels?
imdw (8bb588) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:22 pm“Um,” can you point me to the part where I say I support Medicare?
Since I didn’t say that, never have, and don’t believe it … it seems to me that you are making up things as you go along.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:22 pmHey, imdw. Did you actually post Patterico’s address, or are you still claiming that some sooperdooper hacker hacked your account.
Maybe you aren’t imdw after all?
Nah. Just a troll who won’t own his crappy behavior.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:23 pm“You think that everyone on the socialist government run and government subsidized Medicare plans should be entitled to all the car they want.”
John Stanford – Are you a psychic?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:23 pmAll the car they want?
Me, I want a Ferrari.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:24 pmCan never have too much health car. 😉
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:28 pmIt’s the upkeep, not the mileage, isn’t it, Stashiu3?
Great to see you post.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:30 pmMr. Stanford:
I think Patterico’s point is (in his words):
Further, he could also be pointing out the inconsistency between Krugman’s statement last year, when he said death panels are a “complete fabrication,” and statements like this.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:39 pmWelcome to what Tricare has been doing for sometime for active duty and military retirees. The PCM determines who gets what treatment and referrals. Usually the PCM is a nurse or MD a couple of years out of school. Got a cold or bad case of the flu – good luck getting seen within 10 days. Same day appointments are limited so one can go online after midnight when the windows are posted and try to get an appointment that way or at 0700 each duty day when appt lines open there is about a 15 minute window to get a call in before everything is booked.
VOR2 (c1f4a2) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:41 pmGo to urgent care facility without PCM recommendation get ready to pay.
Appeals processes are lengthy and a person can get sick beyond help by that time. Took me two years, 10 visits to the PCM and ultimately a one week stay in the hospital due to an infection to finally get referred to a specialist. And that was only after I went to see the medical group commander in person.
One 30 day dose of specific medicine and never had problems with the condition again.
I know of a couple of people who had cancer and couldn’t get to a specialist before it was too late.
Juuust to let you all know – I’m not Stanford…
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:41 pmdaley
It was just a name Palin extorted 1.5 bees from the rest of us so she could do what….
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:43 pmAlasdair,
Cato reports Palin is a taxer not a cutter
In plain (Palin) English:
Not so pro business is she (say not at all)
Oh well, and dont even ASK what he did with those funds…….
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:51 pmVOR2,
I’m sorry. I know the same thing can happen with insurance and there won’t be any easy answers as long as we humans are imperfect. But the biggest drawback to me with government care is that it’s hard to appeal and can limit choice. Thus, even if you have the money to pay for care, that doesn’t mean you will be able to get it.
For instance, my family’s experience with home health care illustrates (to me) that many providers will move away from the “niche” market of private care and focus on the higher volume of government care. I think this is especially likely to happen in smaller markets. In addition, we’ve had a similar experience with speech therapists. Virtually all of the area speech therapists who treat children have been hired by local school districts, and now we can’t find one to hire privately.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:52 pmHere’s the Cato link so people can decide for themselves about its view of Palin’s record.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:56 pmDRJ
Home health care (hospice) traditionally is not covered by many insurance programs – never has been. Unfortunately, the risk to the insurer coupled with the nightmare escalation actuarial wise prevents insurers (who make a profit) from creating an investible model for positive returns
If you want to email me privately I think I can get you some sources who specialize in this – ask Pat for my email
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:57 pmDRJ
The link was provided earlier as well in this thread
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:57 pmRe: Patterico #19 and some other people who mentioned me.
Let’s make this simple:
Medicare is a big government waste of money.
Cutting down on big government socialist expenditures will save the taxpayers a lot of money and make society more fair and just.
Paul Krugman argues for cutting big government Medicare spending in this clip (“death panels”).
Patterico (and other anti-“death panels” conservatives) criticize Krugman for saying that we should cut Medicare spending.
So that is it: Krugman said we should cut Medicare spending, and Patterico said we shouldn’t when in fact we should.
That is what I have been saying.
John Stanford (a76889) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:58 pmThanks, Eric. I thought that was in a different thread.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 4:59 pmthe author is the very conservative Chris Edwards
http://www.cato.org/people/chris-edwards
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/palin-uninspiring-tax-policy-record/
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:00 pmDRJ,
VOR2 (c1f4a2) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:03 pmWe will probably take it on the chin to go to Tricare standard which gives us more options but is definitely more expensive. For the time being my wife has blue cross with her employer and as long as she gets timely care/choice of doctors we will stay put. Many other families don’t have that option which is what bothers me more. Ones with special needs children go through lots of paperwork for some of the therapy and pay out of pocket. http://www.tricare.mil/mybenefit/home/overview/SpecialPrograms/ECHO has more info if you are interested in comparing what your family is getting versus the tricare enrollees.
I have a cousin who has been in the medical nursing field for a long time and had an interesting discussion about the health care plan. He said there are a lot of under 35 doctors that value the quality of life and shorter work hours more than they do the private practice route with more money. As a result many don’t mind going under the major HMO’s and do their 40 hours a week and go home. The ones over 35 or so like to stay independent but the malpractice insurance costs are driving many of them to be an employee instead of running their own practice.
Also, some people here are criticizing Palin for raising taxes on oil companies and bringing in lots of revenue.
There’s a lot of reasons why Palin isn’t a very good politician for the conservative movement.
However, raising taxes on oil companies isn’t one of them.
As noted, we need tax revenue. And raising taxes increases revenue in some cases. She did a very targeted tax plan, so look at the specifics. In Alaska, where there are great oil resources that aren’t available in other states, there is no state for companies to move to. Alaska can thus impose relatively high taxes without a decrease in oil production. Then Alaska can use the revenue to pay for the services that the oil companies themselves use, like oil pipelines, environmental protection (including in the event of a spill), leasing public lands, protecting corporations from crime, etc.
John Stanford (a76889) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:03 pmMr. Stanford,
The question is not whether there should be spending cuts but who gets to decide what cuts there will be. How would you like it if I summarized your argument this way?
That’s as fair to you as you are being to Patterico’s point. Is it accurate?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:05 pmYou don’t seem to understand my argument. All you do is offer various mischaracterizations of it.
Do I criticize Krugman for saying we should cut Medicare spending? No. My point is that he is bearing out the arguments of people who opposed ObamaCare, namely, that it would result in government death panels.
If his solution is necessary that is because we have put government in charge.
I do not want government in charge.
I can’t make it any clearer than that. I feel confident, though, that you stand ready to come back and distort my position again.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:11 pmIt seems we agree on much of this, Stanford — yet you seem strangely compelled to mischaracterize the position of someone who is seemingly your ideological ally.
I wonder why.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:12 pmThe problem is access to medical care, the solution was not to dump the 30 million that don’t have in the part of the system that was hemorraging money, Medicare. that is called ‘overwhelming the system,’ and it’s a classic Alinsky tactic, it’s how NYC went broke in the 70s, it’s part in parcel of what
narciso (82637e) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:13 pmACORN worked for with mortgages that shouldn’t have been approved, with Obama leading the way.
Patterico
I just put up a new post updating the story with Krugman’s official “clarification.”
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:13 pmMr. Stanford:
I think Palin’s decisions regarding the major oil companies are more complex than you describe. This Beldar post goes into some of those issues.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:14 pm“My point is that he is bearing out the arguments of people who opposed ObamaCare, namely, that it would result in government death panels.”
You didn’t get that he was making fun of those people?
imdw (bae360) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:20 pmI know that lots of us are making fun of you. Did you discuss your statement that you didn’t post his personal information with Patterico? Because most of us think you did, and that you are lying about it.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:22 pmOh, sorry, imdw. Government death panels (snigger at the hicks who actually believe this) meaning, in reality, government panels deciding who lives and who dies based on cost.
But not really! government death panels.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:29 pmPatterico, is that really you posting? It might be someone spoofing your ISP.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:33 pmDRJ
Beldars post left out something that he might not have been aware of.
Alaska Oil exploration is horrifically expensive. The distances involved the fact that it has to be tankered over vast distances as well.
Oil companies invest in oil leases for a lifetime, they were started in the 70’s and 80’s and lost huge amounts of monies, many companies went bust worldwide – just because of Alaska.
So when times were bad the state taxed us heavily, dont even go into the local property taxes and what not, we employed people that demanded astronmically high wages in Alaska.
So when times are good and companies are finally recouping decades of investment and losses
they tax us even more at an even greater rate
Conoco cancelled a refinery, ExxonMobil cancelled an even bigger refinery (these job losses are staggering)
Sure, a case in Houston on severance tax wasnt germain because Palin raised the severance tax almost 100%
in one month
So, in the end, in the next decade you can kiss Alaska – like Louisiana and Colorado – goodbye to the oil industry
We go where we are wanted – we dont make all that much money in the USA anymore – so guess what who cares if you get gas – seriously
Drill maybe drill – I think she was refering to the tax code drilling profits down to zero
Question is this Palin raised TAXES and lost jobs – 2008 wasnt so great an environment to do that and she gave away the money as an entitlement
And you guys want to elect someone like that?
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:33 pmWell spoofery explains some things.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:34 pm“Oh, sorry, imdw. Government death panels (snigger at the hicks who actually believe this) meaning, in reality, government panels deciding who lives and who dies based on cost.”
Milhouse got it. Kind of.
imdw (d8a0c2) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:42 pmEric,
I understand major oil company investments are enormous and are amortized over time, and I’m sure Beldar does, too. The fact that Alaskan investments are so large is why the companies have received special tax considerations and amortization schedules.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:43 pm“If his solution is necessary that is because we have put government in charge.
I do not want government in charge.”
The reason this comes across as a weak defense is you and other opponents of these Medicare cuts attack he idea of there being a death panel at all rather than it being a government one.
TomO (72d137) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:46 pmYour argument is unconvincing because you don’t say why the alternatives an HMO death panel or just being too poor or sick too afford care are better.
So yeah, ranting about death panels is scoring cheap points while making it impossible to address the growing problem.
Whoa, let me stop you right there.
I would like Medicare to go away completely.
How does that make me an opponent of Medicare cuts again?
Are you related to John Stanford? He too enjoys mischaracterizing me.
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:49 pmTomO, the reality is that you are the one missing the entire point.
The point is that some of us find it unacceptable that the government have the authority to decide that medical care should not be undertaken where the government decides that the marginal value of the medical care exceeds its monetary cost. The idea that a person should be denied care because the care is expensive and the benefit of the care not seen as “enough”.
This is dressed up by its defenders as only applying to cases where the medical treatment is wholly ineffective. But that’s a brazen lie. The only way to obtain the cost savings demanded is to decide that certain people’s ( usually elderly ) lives are less valuable.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:50 pmTomO is a socialist?
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:51 pmSPQR, what is the age limits for kidney transplants in Canada and the UK? Or is that a rumor?
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:54 pmWe won’t know, Patterico, until the toxicology tests come back from the lab. You did get a swab?
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:56 pmEric Blair, I think that where I saw age limits for transplants was the NHS in UK. I don’t have a link currently.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:56 pmDRJ
Yes, special means fair to one party
No matter what the direct effect was at least 2 major projects worth billions in property tax revenue to the state alone were cancelled PERMANENTLY
The pipeline is also on hold
2,000 to 10,000 jobs 60 to 150K each were also lost
This is why they are drilling in deep water is less risky than doing business in a state where they are not wanted
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/14/2010 @ 5:59 pmTomO seems to believe the only reason there might be to oppose the ObamaCare cuts to Medicare is the desire to maintain the status quo. In reality, it was the position of more than a few that: (a) even if we would like to wind down Medicare, it ain’t happening anytime soon; (b) Medicare thus remains a huge problem for our budget; (c) passing ObamaCare takes $500 billion out of the pool for the reforms Medicare badly needs. Indeed, much of the impact of ObamaCare is felt on Medicare Advantage plans, which were one of the few reformist elements introduced into the program over the past couple of decades (and that was likely not an accident on the part of the Dems).
Karl (83846d) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:00 pm“I would like Medicare to go away completely.”
It’s the ‘kill em all, let god sort them out’ death panel!
imdw (ce700c) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:02 pmSPQR – Obamacare doesn’t give the government the power to decide that medical care should not be undertaken period. It tries to give the government some greater power to refuse to pay for medical care where the value of the care exceeds its cost. It does not say you can’t pay out of pocket or that you can’t have purchased supplementary insurance to pay for it. Just that the government wont.
TomO (72d137) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:02 pmConcede we will have to make cuts to treatments that are not wholly ineffective. But the second sentence is utter nonsense. The point is to cut treatments that don’t produce much extra life (either because they don’t work in most cases or because they only get a small result). That doesn’t value elderly less, but the same. Your alternative is too value them 5, 10, infinity times more. I am simply saying we don’t have the money for that so while we will spend a lot – we can’t spend everything.
“It was just a name Palin extorted 1.5 bees from the rest of us so she could do what….”
EricPW – DRJ posted a different link than you from Cato at 74. It had some of the background on the tax increase which you seem determined to avoid discussing. Why is that?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:03 pmHey, Patterico, does imdw—remember, the guy who has repeatedly denied he posted your address—win the award for most egregious mischaracterization of your position?
Is he not a Troll Deluxe?
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:04 pmPatterico – I guess I am a socialist in that I support Medicare of some sort existing. You are still playing the cheap game where you don’t confront what you do with people over 65 who are poorer than average or fit a higher medical cost insurance profile than average. They aren’t going to be able to afford the standard of care Medicare currently would provide (even with death panels)– what do you do with them?
TomO (72d137) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:05 pmWhy, TomO! Patterico would just let them die! This imdw seems to know what Patterico thinks.
Unless it isn’t really imdw, but some sooperdooper hacker who posts using that name.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:07 pmShe did, in fact, cut taxes. She ran for mayor on a major tax cut proposal, and then kept the promise. She cut taxes as Governor too, but she was governor of the lowest tax state in the nation (and still cut taxes).
EPWJ calls this ‘a taxer’. Well, sure. But apparently nothing is good enough for EPWJ, since Palin was, in fact, the governor with the lowest tax rate in the country.
He aims to deceive. He cherry picks and even lies.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:07 pmPatterico,
Some of these commentors remind me of a school age child whose sole purpose in life is to be annoying. Say something and they find a way to mock, try to respond and they shift their taunt. When one is trying (and succeeding) at being annoying, one is not bound by logic or rationality. DRJ gave a reasonable paraphrase of a counter example, but as is often the case, more kind and gracious than he deserves. How about: “NYT supports letting people die as a way to save money, JS says anybody who doesn’t agree is an idiot socialist”. There.
He said there are a lot of under 35 doctors that value the quality of life and shorter work hours more than they do the private practice route with more money. As a result many don’t mind going under the major HMO’s and do their 40 hours a week and go home Comment by VOR2
The issue is not all about money and lifestyle, it is also about a mindset. People who punch a clock have one mindset, people who get a salary to get the job done and leave when it is often have another. Not always true as I’m sure there are hourly wage earners who take great pride in what they do personally and do not see themselves as a nameless cog, and there are people who should care more about the welfare of their company who are salaried but who don’t. I doubt a corporation will ever put a reasonable value on the time a doctor takes to talk to a worried family member, etc., etc.. If the doctor’s boss doesn’t see it as valuable, they will not allocate resources for it (largely time). The doctor can only drain so much of their own blood.
If controlling costs of production is seen as virtually the only goal, you get cheaply made products from China that fail safety and quality standards. If the item of “production” is medical care, the equivalent is what you get.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:07 pmKarl: No. I am much more sympathetic to people’s opposition to Obamacare writ large. I disagree in the end, but its a dog’s breakfast hodgepodge of a program.
TomO (72d137) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:08 pmAttacking “death panels” though is specifically attacking the IPAB style cuts in and of themselves – not using the savings to pay for Obamacare rather than pay down the deficit or reduce taxes.
I am really saddened when fiscal conservatives oppose what I see as pretty reasonable medicare cuts.
“She did, in fact, cut taxes. She ran for mayor on a major tax cut proposal, and then kept the promise.”
She also built that sports complex!
imdw (35ef44) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:10 pmMD, have you seen the “Dr. Drew” link above? I’m curious what you think, as a genuine medical professional.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:11 pmI’m sorry, MD—it was in another thread. Here it is, again:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dr-drew-predicts-massive-flight-of-physicians-hospital-closures-because-of-obamacare/
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:12 pmTomO:
But those “pretty reasonable Medicare cuts” seem to lead to results like this from Britain:
At least with insurance/private care you can seek out another provider if yours doesn’t think you deserve treatment. Government-run health care doesn’t leave us many options.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:16 pmLOL
To be sure, I do like her record as Mayor but I grant it’s no more proof of her presidential abilities than being an ACORN lawyer (community organizer) shaking down some banks.
I think it’s silly to reduce her to mayor, as a lot of people decided to do for some reason. She has a record as Governor. It’s not perfect, and I don’t think she’s ready for the role of President though she’s better than a lot of other hopefuls.
EPWJ mocked Palin asking if she had ever specified a specific tax cut as mayor… probably in a different thread. He was trying to be deceptive, or he’s just too ignorant on the topic of Palin to be taken seriously. She’s someone who seems to cut taxes every chance she gets. She doesn’t cut them to zero, and sometimes she raises one tax while eliminating another, but calling her a ‘taxer’ is silly.
I like Palin in her present role, but wouldn’t mind her ascending in politics. I think people like her make excellent Senators, actually. I wish Palin had run against Murkowski herself.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:21 pmJohn Stanford, my comment #7 was sarcasm. If you misunderstood it and that led you to overreact, then I apologize.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:25 pmYes we have four such complexes in my neck of the woods, including the new one that cost 40 million in tax payer funds, with the attendant 14% property
narciso (82637e) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:26 pmtax increase, which has sparked a regular mutinydown here, as well as our ‘tunnel to nowhere’ actually Miami Beach.
DRJ:
TomO (72d137) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:29 pm1. What results? That people said something stupid in a poll? Its not like the NHS implemented those cuts.
2. NHS and Canada really are bad in that they prohibit people from paying for extra care on their own dime. But Obamacare and France/Germany who its modeled after doesn’t do that. So you can go get another provider if the Government doesn’t think you deserve treatment.
3. You can’t seek out another provider if you can’t afford it. There are real trade offs that you are just ignoring.
I would limit out people who the gov’t denies treatment to and aren’t rich enough to pay for extra treatment/insurance after the taxes spent on medicare (if they could even find another provider which would be unlikely as our gov’t has traditionally been less cost restrictive than private insurance). You would limit out people who can’t afford the treatment/insurance that would cover it in the first place. Death panels either way — you don’t address yours.
TomO, given that so much is reserved for government regulation by the Obamacare legislation and the scope of regulation by national fiat of all medical insurance, I do not believe you have a basis for saying that the panels that review cost effectiveness of medical treatments could not eliminate medical care effectively entirely.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:31 pmSPQR: Yes, I do. All those regs give Obamacare broad authority as to setting a floor. They don’t do anything as to setting a ceiling. Please point me to anything in the bill that says I can’t pay cash for any surgery I want? Please point me to anything in the bill that says after I have bought my mandated basic plan I can’t go out and spend as much as I want to buy a triple platinum plated plan.
TomO (72d137) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:37 pmAlso, your the one making the assertion – its your burden.
TomO,
According to a MedScape report of a presentation at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2006 meeting, the NHS has a policy denying hip replacement surgery to anyone with a BMI over 30. The policy is designed to save money and exists even though doctors acknowledge the patients would be helped by the surgery, albeit they may have more complications.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:39 pmTomO,
You can only pay cash if there are providers willing to provide services, and I submit the availability of specialty care will vary depending on where you live.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:42 pmThe idea is not to allow you a choice, and Sibelius and whoever will be the health commissioner, will be
narciso (82637e) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:45 pmthe final determinent, the rules as currently structured are scary enough; for instance If a single employee choses to sign up with the exchange,
the employer pays a 2,000 fine, that is the incentive in the program, to join
I’m sorry but I think my Medscape link (above) requires a log-in. Here’s a Guardian report that smokers and obese are denied non-emergency operations by the NHS based on policies at 16 of the 152 primary care trusts (PCTs) in England:
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:49 pmDRJ: Concede your point in 125, but that is a substantially more modest claim than SPQR was making – and one that is true regardless of these medicare cuts.
TomO (72d137) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:50 pmAs for your point in 124 – I can’t access the MedScape report, but that does sound like the type of trade off I would accept – although the NHS is notoriously stingy so I doubt we are going anywhere near as far as they are.
But yes. I cut off some people from hip replacement because they will benefit less (at least do to the complications, but can’t afford to pay for it themselves after taxes. You cut off people with BMIs under 30 as well as those over who can’t afford it without gov’t assistance.
Sometimes I’m not sure if we are in disagreement or you are expanding on a comment. What my cousin said is just an observation. If that desire for less hours is becoming the norm then the available care is going to suffer unless more people become doctors.
VOR2 (c1f4a2) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:51 pmRe #82 DRJ and #83 Patterico:
DRJ said:
The point is that individuals do have the authority to decide their own healthcare. If you think the government Medicare/Death Panels program isn’t providing you with adequate healthcare, you can purchase private healthcare like so many people already do. Yes, the government does steal your money to fund Medicare, but so to do they steal your money to fund lots of other things that most people don’t use. So just purchase private healthcare, and you can have whatever procedures you want covered.
Next, Patterico said:
No, getting the government out of the Medicare business will not increase the amount of care provided to seniors, it will actually cause even more senior to not be able to afford care.
Here’s why: Medicare offers seniors cheap medical care. But seniors also have the ability to purchase insurance on their own without Medicare.
If you get rid of Medicare, you just get rid of one option without creating another. There will be some seniors currently on the Medicare rolls who aren’t able to purchase the same quality of care without government welfare.
As it is, seniors can either decide on private care or government care, and the government isn’t denying any of them care, because they always have the option to purchase private care.
John Stanford (a76889) — 11/14/2010 @ 6:56 pmJohn Stanford,
You assume there will be a generous helping of private health care providers and vibrant market of private health care insurance. On what do you base that assumption?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 7:08 pmVOR2,
I know several young people in med school and I think it is the “new normal,” plus more and more are women. If the past is any indication, most of them will want careers and families so they will opt for more 9-to-5-type jobs.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 7:12 pm“You assume there will be a generous helping of private health care providers and vibrant market of private health care insurance. On what do you base that assumption?”
You mean there won’t be a vibrant market in providing health care to people on retirement income and who are in the age when they start developing more health problems? Why not?
imdw (418908) — 11/14/2010 @ 7:35 pmwhat do you think the odds are Sarah Palin has a medscape login?
I’d just as soon play lotto I think
happyfeet (42fd61) — 11/14/2010 @ 7:38 pmYou dropped “private” from the meaning of my comment, imdw.
Based on my experience in two different Texas towns, it’s already hard to compete with government health care because providers are dropping private pay patients, even if they pay more. Some providers — not doctors but home health care and related services — prefer to focus on the higher volume of Medicare and Medicaid patients. I fear this will only get worse as more patients move to government care.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/14/2010 @ 7:39 pmDRJ, I said that seniors currently have a choice between Medicare and private coverage. You said that the Obamacare bill will hurt private insurers and cause people to lose coverage. I don’t disagree, and that is a threat in the future. I suppose by the same token, you could say that Medicare in its current state also influences the market somewhat to cause less healthcare but to a much lesser degree. We do know there is a reasonable amount of competition now.
Anyway, all I’m saying is that we should go forward with death panel rationing, and right now there is competition. Plus, the more rationing we do, then the less attractive Medicare is, and then more people will opt for private coverage.
Medicare is a gift, not an entitlement. (You realize what I mean by this: Government welfare is only viewed as “entitlements” by the people who use them, but in reality people haven’t done anything to entitle themselves to it.)
John Stanford (a76889) — 11/14/2010 @ 8:36 pmAs it is, seniors can either decide on private care or government care, and the government isn’t denying any of them care, because they always have the option to purchase private care.
Not quite. Most Medicare supplement policies only pay for procedure and drugs that Medicare has approved, and at the rate that Medicare considers appropriate. And very often, policies aimed at non-Medicare customers restrict procedures to only those approve of by Medicare. So if Medicare hasn’t approved the latest technology or your doctor does take Medicare because of reimbursement rates or the like, you really won’t get anything more with a private insurer.
kishnevi (07cf78) — 11/14/2010 @ 8:37 pmkishnevi – You can still private pay and not be subject to any of that rigamarole.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/14/2010 @ 8:51 pm“But seniors also have the ability to purchase insurance on their own without Medicare.”
John Stanford – What kind of market currently exists for private health insurance policies for seniors that doesn’t contain a ton of carve outs, caps and exclusions?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/14/2010 @ 8:58 pm#116 Eric-
– I listened to it. In the last 20 years (at least) the trend has been for hospitals to shut their doors, and those remaining are often run at very high occupancy rates- people admitted to the hospital and waiting in the ER for 24-48 hours for a room assignment. So I expect the trend to continue until people are in stretchers on the sidewalk.
– In my experience it is the tendency for a company to promise the world and delivery a bit less in the beginning to attract patients, as time goes by they become more problematic. When medicaid in PA went HMO in the late 80’s and early 90’s they were very happy to work with docs. To get special approval for a non-formulary drug basically all you had to do was send a fax or have the nurse call and they gave it to you no questions asked, I gues they assumed that if the doc went to the trouble to say, “Yes, I mean drug ‘X'”, they would defer to the doc’s opinion. By 2005 they were giving a hard time even to subspecialists who requested specifc things with documented reasons. It got to the point where I would often look up and copy an article or two to fax along with my request so it would get past the HS grad and to a PharmD or MD. By 2006 I had insurance companies lie to me about whether they did or did not authorize tests.
– For several years now if someone asks me about a career in medicine I ask what they want to do. I basically say if they want to see patients but not do procedures or research that require an MD to look into nurse practitioner or Physician assistant programs, less years of school, less debt, avoiding the inhumane treatment of residency (far worse than Gitmo), and they can see patients instead of cosigning everything and fighting with insurance companies.
Comment by VOR2 — 11/14/2010 @ 6:51 pm
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/14/2010 @ 8:58 pmI agree with your sentiment on how our perspectives interact. I think I am often commenting on a different angle about a topic, not necessarily in opposition or agreement, just adding. In this instance, you are emphasizing the impact of med students saying they “want a life” and work fewer hours on the availability of medical care. Well, I think most people, including doctors, “want a life” and have for some time. A doc on his/her own terms will work until the patients are taken care of for the day, or until they can’t push themselves anymore, and bill for the care they give in that day. A doc working a set number of hours by the administrator and expected to see a quota of patients and oversee NP’s and appeal to insurance co,’s is only going to get paid a certain amount whether they are up to 1 am or not, and he is not working to protect his/her reputation or “practice”, because he works for something bigger than what he can determine.
In one way I am not sure how anyone can say whether or not they are for “Medicare reform” or Obamacare and mean anything by it. What I know is the following:
1. A massive regulatory bill was pushed through that we were told we would find out what was in it after it was passed. How many lawyers want to tell your clients they’ll find out about what is in the contract after they sign it?
2. We were told people could keep their doctor and their current coverage if they wanted to. At best this was promising something that cannot be guaranteed, at worst purposeful deceitful manipulation knowing it would not be so for very long.
3. We were told substantial money would be cut from medicare, enroll more patients, and the care would not change. “No”
In other words, I find so little trustworthy in the govt.s approach that I wouldn’t support anything coming out of this (current) Congress or this administration.
Discussion about healthcare reform needs to take into account some “big picture” issues which I think get ignored for the many details:
1. The open market works well for the majority of things. I have a wide-range of choices for clothes, from a thrift store to tailor made shirts costing who knows how much. No one owes me a $75 shirt, and I don’t have to spend $75 to get a shirt if I don’t want to. etc., etc. Medicine is different. I don’t think medical care is a “right” that someone can demand that I provide. But it is also true that there is a moral imperative to care for others’ medical needs that is not there concerning how well a person is dressed. To the degree that the cost of medical care is shared through insurance there is some moral imperative to not construct a system that catagorically denies people “adequate” care.
2. Either the quality of care is the priority, or cost containment is. “Quality of care” does not mean doing “whatever could be done” but whatever needs to be done. The primary objective is either see that people can get what they need, or that costs are contained. You cannot have more than one primary goal.
3. Unintended consequences need to be thought of. What is the “cost” to the system of a doc spending 10 minutes multiple times a day fighting with an insurance company? Money is going into a bureaucracy to save money. Doctor’s time is getting used for things other than caring for patients. Malpractice claims and insurance rates go up when less time is spent per patient visit. Too many policy decisions are made on assumptions and inadequate data and studied on too much of a micro scale.
FWIW, Medscape is free, not sure if you need to be someone special to get a log in. They ask for some info about what kind of doc you are, but as I remember no license numbers or anything that would verify you were a pjysician
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/14/2010 @ 9:01 pmDaley–I can’t afford to self-insure. The medicine alone would cost as much as what I pay for housing and food.
Or by private pay do you mean getting an individual policy? If so, that’s even worse, if companies can exclude for pre-existing conditions (and from a business POV, they ought to): besides the Crohn’s, which is my chief reason for needing insurance, I have arthritis and osteoporosis (they’re linked in various ways to the Crohn’s). And a long history of bronchitis and pneumonia that dates back to childhood. IOW, none of my chief medical needs would be met by a private policy.
kishnevi (07cf78) — 11/14/2010 @ 9:05 pm“Daley–I can’t afford to self-insure.”
kishnevi – I was not talking specifically about you, but you were leaving private pay out in your comment as an option if a treatment was not covered by Medicare or private insurance. Insurance is not the only way to pay for medical care and in fact it is merely a financing vehicle in itself.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/14/2010 @ 9:11 pmwith the attendant 14% property
tax increase, which has sparked a regular mutiny down here,
I thought that tax increase was to pay for the salaries of the county commission and mayor’s staffs, and the stadium is “paid for” by hotel bed taxes.
kishnevi (07cf78) — 11/14/2010 @ 9:13 pmDaley–okay, in general private pay assumes people can afford to pay on their own. And lots of people are in my boat–they can’t.
kishnevi (07cf78) — 11/14/2010 @ 9:14 pmkishnevi @145 – Agreed, but you understand what I was saying? My comments were about options in general, not specific people, please take them that way.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/14/2010 @ 9:21 pmGuys,
In 2007 Palin did not Veto 10% of the budget – it simply asnt funded and the article DRJ linked to was just as negative
So Palin did slash 200 to 350 million in one year
Yeah! But in Her Short Tenure he asked for 500 million in earmarks and
Raised taxes 3 billion dollars
in 18 months
EricPWJohnson (8a4ca7) — 11/14/2010 @ 10:31 pmTO put this 3 billio in perspective the to year alaska spending was just 16.5 billion – 3 billion is a huge increase
So if You’re Palin raising taxes is okay because its the dirty oil companies (see all of us in the other 49th since e all buy gas)
And all others who raise taxes are dirty socialists and Rinos
Oh did you notice she as for the bridge to nowhere? Until the feds weren’t paying for it?
EricPWJohnson (8a4ca7) — 11/14/2010 @ 10:41 pmTo be honest, EPWJ, that does suck.
Palin is much more moderate and much more realistic about her ideas for reform than I think a lot of her more ardent supporters realize.
She does stand for a cleaner system, and she did preside over low taxes and many substantial reforms and accomplishments. But purist she is not.
She probably endorsed John Mccain because they are not nearly as contrary as many would like. Certainly, it’s no surprise CATO (my favorite organization) is not red hot for her.
Sometimes it seems like you’re unfair about it. I am not clear what exactly you want from Palin. Is she too moderate for a Scozzafava supporter (no disrespect intended)?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/14/2010 @ 10:46 pm“Oh did you notice she as for the bridge to nowhere? Until the feds weren’t paying for it?”
EricPW – I noticed she was for it until the costs almost doubled. Your research sucks as usual.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/14/2010 @ 10:51 pmEPWJ
We all know that sarah palin is absolutely the worst excuse ever for a governor, mayor, school board member, basketball player, cheerleader (wait, she was a basketball player and cheerleader at the same time? maybe she had some talent after all), moose hunter, salmon catcher and so what if she is a distance runner and looks attractive in running shorts? We all know the people of Alaska are crazy because they liked her (80% in fact).
She is a tax and spend liberal and too conservative at the same time, and just because that is hard to do is no reason she should be president.
There is ONE MAIN REASON (yes, I’m screaming) she should be president:
you would have something to do by complaining about her for the next 4 years.
And you know what else, I don’t think that was Tina Fey doing the voice of Roxanne in Megamind, Palin had cronies in the Alaska state patrol kidnap her and Palin faked being Fey. What is now needed is someone who can get away looking like either Fey or Palin and keep everybody confused. Maybe palin will pretend to be Fey on vacation in Alaska in one of the episodes of her show.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/14/2010 @ 10:52 pm“Raised taxes 3 billion dollars”
EricPW – Keep f*cking that chicken.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/14/2010 @ 10:53 pmDustin- palin is a tax and spend too conservative neoconeral. That means that whatever you don’t like, she’s for it, or whatever she’s against is what you want. She’s just too…whatever!
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/14/2010 @ 10:55 pmShe cannot get a fair break from such a large portion of folks out there.
Me, I like that she’s ethical. I’ve never seen someone put through the scrutiny she’s survived, and I probably never will again.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/14/2010 @ 11:01 pmDaley
You can characterize her raising an enormous tax increase anyway you want, but, with all due respect,it wasnt the chickens that got screwed
And the bridge to nowhere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge
Was cancelled by Gov Plain only when congress withdrew matching funds – there as no dicovery of escalating costs – Alaska as going to have to pay for it itself.
Geez Daley – there isnt any distortion out there left for you?
EricPWJohnson (719277) — 11/15/2010 @ 12:54 amcome on, man! You were making better points just a few comments above. Alaska had the lowest tax level in the country.
Do you think this was too high? If so, then you think every tax rate in existence is too high. If not, then what’s your point?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/15/2010 @ 1:28 amhttp://fin.admin.state.ak.us/dof/financial_reports/resource/08cafr.pdf
http://fin.admin.state.ak.us/dof/financial_reports/resource/06cafr.pdf
2006 6,215,000
2007 6,777,000
2008 7,836,000
2009 9,546,000
During FY 09, Governor Palin signed the certification required to receive federal funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Between FY 09 and FY 11, Alaska is expected to receive and expend nearly $1.2 billion in formula and competitive funding available under the Act.
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/15/2010 @ 2:05 amExplain this:
http://fin.admin.state.ak.us/dof/financial_reports/resource/09cafr.pdf
(page iv) or 12 on Adobe
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/15/2010 @ 2:09 amIn Comment 157 the bolded figures are the actual Alaska government spending.
Palin took office Jan 2, 2007 and her first directed budget was for the period of July 1 2007 to June 30 2008 or refered to as the 2008 FY
Palin Before she left office in July 2008 signed another budget for the 2009 FY
Not the 13% increase per year for a total of 26% increase in spending under Gov Palin
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/15/2010 @ 2:19 amSorry Palin Took Office in December 2006 not Jan 2, 2007
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/15/2010 @ 2:20 amSo in two years Palins fiscal management in Alaska amounted to about the same as Obama if not slightly worse.
40% breathtaking increase in spending at a 20% annual clip
Now who wants to vote for her?
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/15/2010 @ 2:26 amI think I didn’t explain what my point about the younger doctors wanting more of a life and my description of tricare. In the case of Tricare we have had that for 15 years now. It was handed to the active duty and vets once Hillary care failed. Not enough doctors and PCM fun have made it a tough plan for vets with ongoing medical conditions. Premiums have not changed since the beginning which is unrealistic – some increases are in order.
VOR2 (8e6b90) — 11/15/2010 @ 4:34 amThe changes in what younger doctors want will have two impacts. The first is that PCMs and cost-benefit analysis for treatment will increase for regular civilian care because the doctors will be employees and the second is just supply and demand with less available care. I don’t blame anyone for wanting a life outside of work. 80-100 hours a week for 2 or 3 decades is not my idea of fun. Add the exorbitant cost of malpractice insurance and it is a wonder anyone would continue to maintain a private practice.
Bottom line is that in my opinion I think what we have experienced in Tricare to date is likely to be very similar for non-retirees in the Obamacare world.
No, she endorsed McCain, because despite some policy differences, she has a lot of admiration for his service, which was why she gave a better accounting of his record, at the Convention speech, then he ever could. The dirty little truth, is the Alaskan GOP delegation, pretty much proves every generalization of self interested greedy chieftain,s think NY’s Stalwarts in the era of TR’s political stalwarts, She had challenged the President to veto the stimulus and start over, that was the real reason for the ‘ethics complaint’ overthe jacket she wore. She held out against the stimulus juggernaut, than swapped out state funds for those stimulus funds, details our Cajun detective seems to miss, yet again, Then again, in Lousiana, the Leg actually
said they ‘accidentally’ voted for the stimulus funds.
As to the wider point, this is not about wellbeing or convenience of medical professionals, this is about a one size fits all, denial of choice framework, a cross between the Post Office and the TSA for general incompetence, but more lethal consequences
narciso (82637e) — 11/15/2010 @ 4:53 amKrugman should lead the way and volunteer to be the first citizen to be refused life saving health care.
Marie (02b253) — 11/15/2010 @ 5:58 amWould someone call the lakehouse pharmacy and see if they do housecalls so epwj can get the meeds it obviously is lacking.
JD (379d24) — 11/15/2010 @ 6:05 amJD, I think you sum it up nicely.
Palin = Obama?
hahahahahaha
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/15/2010 @ 6:47 am“Palin = Obama?”
Maybe Obama will now introduce the McCain/Palin cap and trade bill?
imdw (a544ba) — 11/15/2010 @ 6:50 amJD
So her budgets went down?
Its a simple question – is increasing govt spending 20% a year conservative?
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/15/2010 @ 7:21 amPalin sign Alaska up for 1.2 billion in the Stimulus as well…
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/15/2010 @ 7:41 amPatterico – it is safe to add epwj will remain a bloviating mendoucheous twatwaffle to the list of sure things.
JÐ (0d2ffc) — 11/15/2010 @ 7:45 amOrdinarily I take a little pleasure in the thought of Palin being nominated or elected simply because of all the people who hate her having to stomach this development. Yes, I know… that’s stupid.
EPWJ’s the first time I’ve considered someone’s obsession to be so bad that I don’t really feel that same childish sentiment.
I can’t imagine how terribly someone that obsessed would suffer, and I can’t bring myself to wish it on epwj. It’s not like Happyfeet would suffer like EPWJ would. He’d just eat his pancakes and sigh a few times (and I would laugh). So epwj’s crossed a magical threshold. He’s a pioneer.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/15/2010 @ 7:54 amIt is no pioneer. It is a deranged idiot.
JÐ (306f5d) — 11/15/2010 @ 7:56 am2006 6,215,000
2007 6,777,000
2008 7,836,000
2009 9,546,000
JD,
2008 and 2009 were gov Palins actual spending programs…. you do the math…
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:00 amEPWJ, … I think a lot of the flack you’re getting is because you’re flooding the thread on death panels with the same 2 points that you already communicated in a few other threads.
Well, to be honest, the other reason you’re getting flack is that you support very moderate Republicans and it’s clear you don’t really mind even your version of what Palin did (which as I’ve shown a few times, is a distortion… but I realize I can’t just repeat that every time you bring it up because then I’d be flooding the threads too).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:03 amI think that EPWJ’s efforts to convince JD of his view are about as successful as my beloved Cleveland Browns pulling off a Superbowl threepeat…
VOR2 (c9795e) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:10 amDana, absolutely right. By any standard of fairhanded direct comparison in actual experience and accomplishment, she has a better record than Obama, and a better record than many other contenders; compared to Bush and Clinton she clearly has less years as gov, but I think she compares favorably for accomplishment while in office.
VOR2- agreed.
One thing was pointed out elsewhere this morning that I neglected to say. Elected government officials (other than president) and government union employees should be subject to the same rules as anybody else if they are going to do a mandatory overhaul of the US medical system. Let Pelosi and company demonstrate how wonderful their plan is. I think an amendment like this was tried but did not go through. It would be great to see the house Repubs pass such legislation and then let the Senate dems or a veto kill it. Actions speak louder than words, and that would speak loud. (though it is hard to overcome lies when screamed at full volume.
EPWJ- once someone has been shown to not be honest and fair minded in discussion, I no longer care what they say. There are too many things more important for me to do. Lies, damned lies, and statistics, I don’t need to spend my time categorizing them.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:17 amI think they accidentally voided their own plans,
narciso (82637e) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:26 amuntil the exchanges kick in, well they had to pass
it. . .
MD in Philly
So, you think a Fiscal Year Report, Audited, showing these 4 simple numbers is all a ruse?
Dustin
I’ve narrowed it down to this is 9.5 billion a greater number than 6.8 Billion (Franks last Budget rounded up)
Yes or No.
Its just that simple
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:33 amMD in Philly
From the Alaska Government website
2006 6,215,000
2007 6,777,000
2008 7,836,000
2009 9,546,000
Last two numbers are Palins expenditures 2008 and 2009
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:35 amYes, EPWJ.
There!
Do we have permission to talk about Obamacare, now?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:36 amBTW, you do have to dig for a while to find why epwj’s being unfair, but I don’t concede much to him.
I already noted Palin’s more moderate than her most ardent supporters may realize. It’s true that she spent money and while presiding over extremely low taxes, raised taxes on oil companies. I honestly don’t understand epwj’s point.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:38 amYes, you do, Dustin. Yes, you do.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:49 am“Geez Daley – there isnt any distortion out there left for you?”
EricPW – The text below is from the same Wikipedia link you provided.
“On November 16, 2005, Congress stripped the specific earmark allocation of federal funds for the two bridges in the final edition of the omnibus spending bill, without changing the amount of money allocated for use by Alaska.”
The federal money for the bridge was allocated to Alaska not as an earmark, which freed Palin to spend it elsewhere. This is old news. As I said elsewhere, your research sucks.
You should really familiarize yourself with a topic before bloviating on it. You’ve already condemned Palin’s tax hike on the oil companies with no idea of the background behind it. I’ll leave it to you to find the ballooning cost estimates for the bridge to nowhere. I saw $315 million from Don Young from February 2005. Want to bet there’s more?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:49 amDustin,
Here’s my point, people are starting to attach fictional achievements to the Woman, not by herself per se, but others. The story is growing bigger and bigger, hen in fact she had a horrible record as governor, and her spending increases were breathtaking.
This budget snafu also raised the expectations of Alaskans that even more monies were going to be distributed to them, and naturally all things come back to equillibrium and they are beeing dissapointed. Creating a windfall, then watching it evaporate – actually in the end – hurts Alaskans.
When you have an industry that employes 70% of the highet wage earners in the state, its not a smart move to in essence kick them out – which is what is happening.
Pleas compare contrast this with making decisions on a national scale.
Just a thought from a under medicasted lakehouse commited looney tune a-hole with a side a narcissism
Also, the quilt,t-shirt, chicken wings comment as just to be funny, Palin supporters are FAR more trashy than that
– last comment was more humor too
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:49 amDaley
The cost was always going to be 400 million which she was for, unless she had to spend it all herself – oh well…
2006 6,215,000
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:53 am2007 6,777,000
2008 7,836,000
2009 9,546,000
remember the good ole days when a budget grew under 10 pts a year – ended with Sarah now didnt it
EricPW – What about the rape kits in Wasilla?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:54 amGosh. I guess we don’t really get to talk about anything but EPWJ’s cherry picked analysis.
Tell me, EPWJ: who do you prefer to Sarah Palin? Let me guess: you can’t answer that.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:55 am“unless she had to spend it all herself – oh well…”
EricPW – That’s your opinion. The fed money was allocated so if she wanted to spend it she could have. Just admit you were wrong. You didn’t read your own link.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:56 amYou wouldn’t know humor if it bit you on your pee pee. What does strike me as funny in all of this is that epwj is attributing my support of someone based on exactly nothing. It is yet another figment of his fevered imagination.
JÐ (0d2ffc) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:56 amEPWJ – the Incompetence Tour
SPQR (94a0ec) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:57 amDustin – it would prefer DeDe Scozzafava.
JÐ (6e25b4) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:58 amWell he was already for the Murkowski boomlet,
narciso (82637e) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:00 amEricPW – Last time I pinned you down on questions about the Alaska state budgets during Palin’s tenure you fled the thread because the answers did not fit your narrative. I’m not inclined to make the effort to do it again. You were not intellectually honest or correct then and you are not now.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:01 amDustin
Fred, Brownback, Perry, Sanford (if he can get his mojo back 🙁
Hell, put JD and SPQR in, anyone but anyone ho also has a gig on Foxynews
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:21 amdaley,
sorry, I’m a cowardly poster of govt facts and figures
However, this is reccomended including soft lighting and a blanket
http://yhst-13210512562222.stores.yahoo.net/binkies.html
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:24 amThe EPWJ Method, in opera form.
If at first you don’t succeed… proceed to fail 100 times in a row.
If you’re at work, remember that operas are audible.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:30 amI was wondering if you’d mention Rick Perry, who after all, proposed a $145 billion highway program and had higher taxes than Palin.
I do not think this is the entire picture regarding Perry. Texas has run well for years, after all. Our taxes aren’t as low as Palin’s Alaska, but they are low and businesses are coming here.
But if I resorted to your cheery picked analysis, it appears you do not actually have a problem with the issues you attribute to Palin.
I think your problem is that she raised taxes on oil companies.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:34 amBTW, some of those men will be endorsing Palin if she runs.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:34 amEric,
Revenues and distributions increased during Palin’s governorship, including the record 2008 dividend and rebate payments to Alaskans. As I understand Alaska law, its citizens are statutorily entitled to a portion of each year’s oil revenues. Wiki lists those payments from inception of the Permanent Fund to the current date. Note how distributions increased during her term, plus she supported an additional rebate beyond the statutory dividend.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:37 amI think it’s actually more expensive that $145 billion, EPWJ. Why are you bashing Palin for so much less spending, but supporting Perry’s? (it’s a pdf file)
I should add, this huge expense would have greatly profited investors and corporate contributors to Perry, but it wasn’t going to do much for Texans. It was largely for products that pass through, from Mexico to other places. That’s a lot of money and Texans decided it’s better for us not to spend that money if it’s not actually doing much more for us than just clearing traffic off I-35. It’s a good example of Murkowski style leadership, which is very helpful when you need a lot of campaign ads, but not so great for the taxpayer.
And this is just one single project. Texas is a wonderful state and Perry’s a better governor than most states have any hope of getting. But look at what EPWJ’s test does in my hands. I could come up with an argument like this for practically any leader of note, today. But then, EPWJ proved that better than I did by using it on tiny tax Palin.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:42 am“sorry, I’m a cowardly poster of govt facts and figures”
EricPW – Especially when you complain about Palin increasing petroleum taxes before she became governor without noting that the state depends on petroleum for more than half it’s budget and that those taxes Palin increased declined by 50% in fiscal 2009 from fiscal 2008 due to the decline in thew price of oil. Without those increases Palin engineered, Alaska would have been in really deep doo doo, right?
Why not spell out for the good commenters how much of those budget increase you are pointing to came from Porkulus and other federal programs, higher unemployment benefits, and increased Alaska permanent fund dividends that DRJ mentions above. Knowing you, as a publisher of facts and figures, you probably did not look that deeply, but we would not want people to think you were sloppy.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/15/2010 @ 10:14 amEPWJ-
You are either not understanding my point, or purposefully ignoring it.
An example. I read yesterday that Brett Favre threw 3 interceptions (again) in a Minnesota loss to the Bears. If you told me, “Favre threw 3 interceptions”, you would be correct. If you told me, “Favre threw 3 interceptions, he just can’t throw the ball anymore” you would be deceiving me with a half-truth. This is because 2 of the 3 interceptions came when the receiver slipped/fell after he released the ball, and the third interception was on a tipped ball. So on at least 2 of the 3, and maybe all 3, the interceptions said nothing about whether Favre “can still throw the ball or not”. For the moment I will assume your figures are correct. That information, isolated, gives me about as much information as saying Favre threw 3 interceptions- in other words, by itself it says little about Palin’s fiscal policy. If I thought you were trying to have a fair-minded discussion, and I had the interest and the time, I might look further into the matter; but I don’t think you are, and I am not interested because I already know that Palin is a neoconeral who agravates somebody all of the time, and I don’t (have the time).
I hope Favre’s receivers don’t slip next week.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/15/2010 @ 12:45 pm