The US fiscal cliff - would it really be a bad thing?

[Gerald McGrew]

Not at all true. I've said once or twice that I'd like to vote Republican someday... if only the Republicans started acting like Republicans again. The party has become a mutated wretch from what it once was. But in my lifetime I think they will be able to fix that again, and then they might even get a vote or two from me.

Hope so. I used to vote a split ticket every year, but this year was the first one I didn't vote for a single Republican. They're just too batshit crazy right now.

[Gerald McGrew]

[Gerald McGrew]

Second try...

[laklak]

Shit, and all this time I thought laklak was the reasonable one.

But I am the reasonable one! Really, I AM!

OK, I'll admit to a tad of hyperbole in the last post, but I honestly do think we need to dive over the cliff headfirst. We need to understand, as a society, that TANSTAAFL. Somebody has to pay for all those "free" things the great, unwashed 'Murikan public seems to want. Free cell phones, free birth control, free health care, free university tuition - none of those things are "free" in any rational sense of the word. And if the government controls them and doles them out as they see fit then the costs will go through the ceiling as they add layer upon layer of bureaucracy to "manage" the programs. Same thing goes for all the agricultural and industrial subsidies. If Americans see their tax rates soar to what would be necessary to actually PAY for all that stuff you'd see 80% of the population flying "Don't Tread On Me" flags and wearing tri-corner hats.

[amused]

It's commonly asserted that the administrative costs of Medicare are about 2% when private sector insurance is 20-25%. I went looking for that source and instead found this paper that challenges those numbers:

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resou ... cation.pdf

This study, based in part on a technical paper by Mark Litow of Milliman, Inc., finds that Medicare’s actual administrative costs are 5.2 percent, when the hidden costs are included.
In addition, the technical paper shows that average private sector administrative costs, about 8.9 percent – and 16.7 percent when commission, premium tax, and profit are included – are significantly lower than the numbers frequently cited. But even though the private sector’s administrative costs are higher than Medicare’s, that isn’t “wasted money” that could go to insuring the uninsured. In fact, consumers receive significant value for those additional dollars.

So Medicare is at least competently managed and there is no evidence that their costs are excessive.

[Seth]

It's commonly asserted that the administrative costs of Medicare are about 2% when private sector insurance is 20-25%. I went looking for that source and instead found this paper that challenges those numbers:

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resou ... cation.pdf

This study, based in part on a technical paper by Mark Litow of Milliman, Inc., finds that Medicare’s actual administrative costs are 5.2 percent, when the hidden costs are included.
In addition, the technical paper shows that average private sector administrative costs, about 8.9 percent – and 16.7 percent when commission, premium tax, and profit are included – are significantly lower than the numbers frequently cited. But even though the private sector’s administrative costs are higher than Medicare’s, that isn’t “wasted money” that could go to insuring the uninsured. In fact, consumers receive significant value for those additional dollars.

So Medicare is at least competently managed and there is no evidence that their costs are excessive.

So, if it ain't broken, why did the Obamanation "fix" it?

(Answer: because the Obamanation doesn't care about health care, it cares about government control of one-sixth of the US economy as a method of making voters dependent on government so that they will vote for Marxist Progressives out of a sense of self-preservation.)

[Ian]

[Coito ergo sum]

McConnell suggested that the Senate vote on the President's proposal. Reid shot that down as a "gimmick" by the Republicans.

Weird -- suggesting that the Senate Democrats vote on the Democratic President's proposal to avoid the fiscal cliff is something the Democrats don't want? Gimmick or not -- it illustrates that the President's proposal is not serious.

[Ian]

Methinks there might be more to it than this.

[Coito ergo sum]

Methinks there might be more to it than this.

Like?

[amused]

It's commonly asserted that the administrative costs of Medicare are about 2% when private sector insurance is 20-25%. I went looking for that source and instead found this paper that challenges those numbers:

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resou ... cation.pdf

This study, based in part on a technical paper by Mark Litow of Milliman, Inc., finds that Medicare’s actual administrative costs are 5.2 percent, when the hidden costs are included.
In addition, the technical paper shows that average private sector administrative costs, about 8.9 percent – and 16.7 percent when commission, premium tax, and profit are included – are significantly lower than the numbers frequently cited. But even though the private sector’s administrative costs are higher than Medicare’s, that isn’t “wasted money” that could go to insuring the uninsured. In fact, consumers receive significant value for those additional dollars.

So Medicare is at least competently managed and there is no evidence that their costs are excessive.

So, if it ain't broken, why did the Obamanation "fix" it?

(Answer: because the Obamanation doesn't care about health care, it cares about government control of one-sixth of the US economy as a method of making voters dependent on government so that they will vote for Marxist Progressives out of a sense of self-preservation.)

More hate and fear, at least you're consistent!

[Coito ergo sum]

I would prefer, I guess, a single payer basic healthcare system, and then a private health insurance system on the side, so that those of us who want to get private health insurance (or pay cash for services rendered) can do so. Kind of like how the public school system works with public schools paid out of property taxes and state income/sales taxes and if people want to send their kids to private school, they can.

This Obamacare thing is doomed to failure, almost by design, I think.

[Gerald McGrew]

Actually, McConnell is now filibustering his own proposal.

Earlier he called for a vote on a proposal he floated back in 2011, to allow the POTUS to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional approval (which makes sense*). He argued:

“Look: the only way we ever cut spending around here is by using the debate over the debt limit to do it. Now the President wants to remove that spur to cut altogether. It gets in the way of his spending plans,” McConnell said on the floor of the Senate. “I assure you: it’s not going to happen. The American people want Washington to get spending under control. And the debt limit is the best tool we have to make the President take that demand seriously.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... iling-now/

As the article points out, McConnell was hoping to put Democrats on the spot as being in favor of allowing the POTUS to just spend away, without Congressional oversight. But then, Harry Reid actually brought the proposal to the Senate floor for a majority vote, and...

McConnell objected, requesting the vote clear the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

Reid said McConnell’s objection was a “case of Republicans refusing to take yes for an answer.”

“This morning the Republican leader asked consent to have a vote on this proposal. Now I told everyone that we are willing to have that vote, up-or-down vote,” Reid said. “Now the Republican leader objects to his own idea. So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congre ... 51273.html

Gotta love Senate drama!!


*It's patently ridiculous for Congress to approve a level of deficit spending, yet deny the executive branch the authority to sell gov't bonds to finance that spending. Nice system, eh?

[Seth]

It's commonly asserted that the administrative costs of Medicare are about 2% when private sector insurance is 20-25%. I went looking for that source and instead found this paper that challenges those numbers:

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resou ... cation.pdf

This study, based in part on a technical paper by Mark Litow of Milliman, Inc., finds that Medicare’s actual administrative costs are 5.2 percent, when the hidden costs are included.
In addition, the technical paper shows that average private sector administrative costs, about 8.9 percent – and 16.7 percent when commission, premium tax, and profit are included – are significantly lower than the numbers frequently cited. But even though the private sector’s administrative costs are higher than Medicare’s, that isn’t “wasted money” that could go to insuring the uninsured. In fact, consumers receive significant value for those additional dollars.

So Medicare is at least competently managed and there is no evidence that their costs are excessive.

So, if it ain't broken, why did the Obamanation "fix" it?

(Answer: because the Obamanation doesn't care about health care, it cares about government control of one-sixth of the US economy as a method of making voters dependent on government so that they will vote for Marxist Progressives out of a sense of self-preservation.)

More hate and fear, at least you're consistent!

More Marxist denial and obfuscation, at least you're consistent.

[Tero]

...

(Answer: because the Obamanation doesn't care about health care, it cares about government control of one-sixth of the US economy as a method of making voters dependent on government so that they will vote for Marxist Progressives out of a sense of self-preservation.)

Why would any Gubment "care" about some individual? It's a business deal. People give the gubment tax and the gubment provides reasonable care. No need to keep brain dead grandma or Terry Shiavo on a ventilator for months or years. Extending a dying patient's life for two more weeks: pay out of your pocket.

But, religin is gonna save grandmas and fetuses. I'll be happy to pay tax to cover abortions.