U.S. Politics 17

[Lord O' Bones]

Lol, change Chicago to Nevada here.

C'mon Coco and Lob, this is the sort of inane conspiracy bullshit I would expect from kingdread or thinkerx, not you two.

There was a followup 'cause I knew you'd ask.

[The Progressive]

Yeah, just saw it Lob. Good point about the commissioner of gaming. Probably lots of undisturbed dirt there.

Look at what I found, lol:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1561650/posts

[The Progressive]

Yup. And like I said, the fact that any significant percentage of doctors refuse to take new Medicare patients because of reimbursement rates proves the point about cost-controls. Even the NYT has written about this extensively. Sometimes, a fix induces a few docs to jump back in, but all that does is adjust the percentage of doctors who are being priced out. It doesn't address the reality of that a great many are not accepting new patients because of price controls.

As already pointed out, this is incorrect.

Furthermore, how do you account for the fact that among privately insured patients, trends in physician access are similar to those for Medicare patients?

[Shryke]

Shit just got real!

Someone already made an allegation, so I guess I'm off the hook, yeah?

Hey, maybe you should find some evidence for the accusation before you make it next time?

I mean, as I said, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find he'd done questionable shit, but it's just lazy to throw the accusation out there without anything to back it up and only go searching for that backup when you get called on making spurious allegations.

[Cuellar]

Yup. And like I said, the fact that any significant percentage of doctors refuse to take new Medicare patients because of reimbursement rates proves the point about cost-controls. Even the NYT has written about this extensively. Sometimes, a fix induces a few docs to jump back in, but all that does is adjust the percentage of doctors who are being priced out. It doesn't address the reality of that a great many are not accepting new patients because of price controls.

Come on, as a capitalist you honestly think the price is appropriate if 100% of suppliers accept that price for an inelastic good? In fact it is worse, because it's an inelastic good where the demand side price is ZERO and the supply side price has 100% production and there is no real shortage. I'd argue the current level of acceptance is too high, and that prices are already too high. If no one, even rich ass doctors driving ferris living in south beach don't say no to a new patient, I think we're overpaying them!

Like I said earlier though, the not-accepting patients probably stems from regional inequality in the cost of providing healtcare in rural areas. Rural doctors already have too many patients, and raising prices is the easiest way to reach supply and demand equilibrium in a normal system... but with medicare where people aren't paying a penny, it simply doesn't work. If there was a regional adjustment to reimbursements, and medicare recipients had an appropriate cost, you'd see real equilibrium.

Anyway, I'd rather do away with medicare's welfare and only provide basic reimbursements for emergencies and basic care. Can't afford $500 in drugs a day grandma? Tough shit, that's what would happen if you were under 65 anyway. I'm not sure why age related welfare is okay, especially since there is not even a sliver of hope that they will contribute it back to society.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Come on, as a capitalist you honestly think the price is appropriate if 100% of suppliers accept that price for an inelastic good? In fact it is worse, because it's an inelastic good where the demand side price is ZERO and the supply side price has 100% production and there is no real shortage. I'd argue the current level of acceptance is too high, and that prices are already too high. If no one, even rich ass doctors driving ferris living in south beach don't say no to a new patient, I think we're overpaying them!

So I assume you agree that limiting reimbursement rates limits the supply of doctors. Thanks -- some people apparently are reluctant to make that concession at all. As for whether it is a problem in the Medicare context, here's a decent article on the subject:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA602.html

Like I said earlier though, the not-accepting patients probably stems from regional inequality in the cost of providing healtcare in rural areas. Rural doctors already have too many patients, and raising prices is the easiest way to reach supply and demand equilibrium in a normal system... but with medicare where people aren't paying a penny, it simply doesn't work. If there was a regional adjustment to reimbursements, and medicare recipients had an appropriate cost, you'd see real equilibrium.

The article points to significant problems in urban areas, including New York City, which is hardly a monopolistic market.

But I do want to point out a huge point of agreement we seem to have, and that's in terms of the inelasticity of demand, which I think is due largely to the externalization of costs, either via insurance companies or the government. Companies invest outrageous amounts of money in state of the art MRI's because they know they'll get paid for it, even if the marginal benefit to the patient isn't worth the marginal cost.

Anyway, I'd rather do away with medicare's welfare and only provide basic reimbursements for emergencies and basic care. Can't afford $500 in drugs a day grandma? Tough shit, that's what would happen if you were under 65 anyway. I'm not sure why age related welfare is okay, especially since there is not even a sliver of hope that they will contribute it back to society.

Hmm. Well, that's why I lean towards Paul Ryan's solution. Not promise anything, but offer what amounts to a voucher so that Medicare-eligible people can select whatever plan or option most benefits them.

[The Progressive]

"Despite fluctuations in both Medicare physician payment and access during the past 10 years, Medicare beneficiaries' access to physicians remains high and is on par with physician access for privately insured patients, even though Medicare payment rates average about 20 percent less than private insurance rates .......... Based on HSC's nationally representative Community Tracking Study Physician Survey, the study's findings are detailed in a new HSC Tracking Report—Physician Acceptance of New Medicare Patients Stabilizes in 2004-05"

http://hschange.org/CONTENT/812/?topic=topic01

People can say the darnest thing, but the pesky data unfortunately won't conform, lol.

[BloodRider]

I don't really know where else to put this, but this is a fascinating column about how much stock we put into people who have made big predictions and why we shouldn't. It's one of these things that as you read it, you realize you should have realized it all along, but maybe you didn't.

Bottom line: Next time an economist touts a bold prediction of theirs your reaction should be that they are wrong quite often and are just touting the outlier on which they were right.

One of life delicious ironies is the person who is most often right is the person who knows most of the time they get it wrong. Those who speak with authority are statistically more likely to be incorrect, yet those are the people we tend to listen to.

[Shryke]

The Tea Party: Fighting the Good Fight!

Tea party groups have succeeded in reversing nationally praised school integration policies in Raleigh, North Carolina, decrying the longstanding system as one of social engineering.

The Washington Post reports that tea party pressure has motivated Wake County School District's largely Republican school board to abolish policies the newspaper describes as "one of the nation's most celebrated integration efforts."

"Say no to the social engineers!" was one of their slogans.

The Post hails the existing system as a "rarity," noting that some of the county's "best, most diverse schools are in the poorest sections of this capital city. And its suburban schools, rather than being exclusive enclaves, include children whose parents cannot afford a house in the neighborhood."

The school board is instead considering a system in which poor children are relegated to low-income neighborhood schools, moving away from its current policies where most schools have students from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds.

Critics have sharply denounced the new plans as a form of segregation, noting that poorer children are often minorities and arguing that the new tea party-backed ideas will lead to a new cycle of poverty for the less fortunate.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/tea-party-fights-abolish-school-integration/

[TerraPrime]

The Tea Party: Fighting the Good Fight!

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/tea-party-fights-abolish-school-integration/

:lol:

"Tell it to someone who cares," I think will be the response.

Poor people are poor because of actions they took in their lives. I am not responsible for rescuing them from bad financial and life choices, especially if it means that my tax dollars are spent on educating children from poor families.

I mean, if you can't get national traction to repeal the Civil Rights Acts (I wonder why?), you might as well exert tyranny at the local level to undo the effects of Civil Rights Acts. It amounts to the same, you see?

[Annelise]

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) is ready to take on annoying politicians.

Foxx introduced a bill this month directing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to apply its Do Not Call Registry to the despised phenomenon that candidates of all stripes have come to rely on: the political robocall.

"We keep telemarketers from bothering us. Why shouldn’t we keep politicians from bothering us?" said Foxx spokesman Aaron Groen.

The FTC’s registry blocks telemarketers from calling people who add themselves to the list. The same rule does not apply to calls from political candidates, however, automated or otherwise.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/137543-republican-add-political-robocalls-to-do-not-call-list

:love:

[Annelise]

I heard most of Obama's speach tonight, and it was predictably strong. I also want to give Boehner credit. I liked his tone today.

Far as I know, Washington has done pretty well on this one.

[Jaxtile]

Caught some of it before mum switched to Modern Family.

"we've decided you are a hero."

[The Progressive]

Far as I know, Washington has done pretty well on this one.

I wonder if there would be a different political landscape in DC if this assassination happened before the election.

I think it would, given how much the majority of independent voters think that incendiary rhetorics were partially responsible.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

:lol:

"Tell it to someone who cares," I think will be the response.

Poor people are poor because of actions they took in their lives. I am not responsible for rescuing them from bad financial and life choices, especially if it means that my tax dollars are spent on educating children from poor families.

I mean, if you can't get national traction to repeal the Civil Rights Acts (I wonder why?), you might as well exert tyranny at the local level to undo the effects of Civil Rights Acts. It amounts to the same, you see?

Well, wait a minute here. All they're saying is that they're going to stop busing students to schools further away from their homes solely to create a desired socio-economic balance, and return to the concept of neighborhood schools. The article also points out that practices is quite rare. Right? That has absolutely nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act or Brown, which involve de jure racial segregation.

The linked Washington Post article provides a bit more perspective on this.

But as the county has boomed in recent years - adding as many as 6,000 students a year - poverty levels at some schools have exceeded 70 percent. And many suburban parents have complained that their children are being reassigned from one school to the next. Officials blame this on the unprecedented growth, but parents blame the diversity goal.

"Basically, all the problems have roots in the diversity policy," said Kathleen Brennan, who formed a parent group to challenge the system. "There was just this constant shuffling every year." She added: "These people are patting themselves on the back and only 54 percent of [poor] kids are graduating. And I'm being painted a racist. But isn't it racist to have low expectations?"

As she and others have delved deeper, they've found that qualified minority students are underenrolled in advanced math classes, for instance, a problem that school officials said they've known about for years, but that strikes many parents as revelatory. Some have even come to see the diversity policy as a kind of profiling that assumes poor kids are more likely to struggle.

"I don't want us to go back to racially isolated schools," said Shila Nordone, who is biracial and has two children in county schools. "But right now, it's as if the best we can do is dilute these kids out so they don't cause problems. It sickens me."

What isn't really being stated openly here is that the learning of individual students, and the school environment itself, is greatly affected not just by financing (which doesn't seem to be the issue here), but by the effect of the students themselves upon other students and the overall learning environment. And this district has made that determination based not on race, but on socio-economic classes. So it does boil down to a "dilution" situation, or perhaps a values-based decision that it is better to have the all schools do okay, then some schools do really well and some shitty.

But if you're a parent of a kid who would be attending a "really good" neighborhood school, why is it so morally offensive of you to prefer that the the quality of your child's education not be adversely affected by an influx of kids who would worsen that environment?

[Shryke]

Such an animal does not exist in the Republican party or it's supporters.

[Swordfish]

Has anyone pointed out that Boehner couldn't or wouldn't name one program that he plans to cut when he spoke to Brian Williams recently? How do small government Conservatives feel about this?

unabashedly bemused/unsurprisingly unsurprised.

[Annelise]

I wonder if there would be a different political landscape in DC if this assassination happened before the election.

I think it would, given how much the majority of independent voters think that incendiary rhetorics were partially responsible.

In a similar vein..

Top-ranking Democrats from both chambers of Congress are endorsing the idea of ending the tradition of divided seating for this year's State of the Union address.

In statements released by their offices, Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking Democrat who also chairs the Democratic Policy Committee, and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said they support a proposal by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) to end the tradition of partisan seating at the State of the Union address...

... The proposal has also garnered bipartisan support, including that of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/137883-bipartisan-seating-at-state-of-the-union-gains-support

[Annelise]

Has anyone pointed out that Boehner couldn't or wouldn't name one program that he plans to cut when he spoke to Brian Williams recently? How do small government Conservatives feel about this?

I wondered about this one, as Rand Paul is Tea Party and not Washington establishment.

Rand Paul has made a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points of his campaign. He has supported Sen. Jim DeMint’s vocal support for an earmark ban and he supports news that House Democrats are even coming around on the idea of a partial ban.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/03/earmark-ban-coming/

In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704353504575596591626268782.html

I don't think Kentucky conservatives will care.

[Shryke]

Eh, that's the way it always is. Small government and cut services are supposed to happen to people who aren't ME. I get tax cuts.