U.S. Politics part X

[Shryke]

Prop 13 is a terrible law, both in idea and execution. It fucks the California Housing Market so bad.

[sToNED_CAT]

Except those people getting your supposed "care" at $1000/person are receiving substantially inferior care.

Well some people say the same about UHC systems ;) .

And yes ER is hardly something great, but my point was that many UHC supporters claim, the reason HC in US costs so much per capita is because people, who use emergency service often don't pay for it (others do it instead ). The typical proposed solution is to insure all, because prevention is supposed to be cheaper in long run (to treat the cancer in earlier stage is cheaper than to do it later). It sounds very logical, but it's simply not supported by numbers. Emergency HC is obviously not such huge financial burden as many think.

[TrackerNeil]

Well some people say the same about UHC systems ;) .

And yes ER is hardly something great, but my point was that many UHC supporters claim, the reason HC in US costs so much per capita is because people, who use emergency service often don't pay for it (others do it instead ). The typical proposed solution is to insure all, because prevention is supposed to be cheaper in long run (to treat the cancer in earlier stage is cheaper than to do it later). It sounds very logical, but it's simply not supported by numbers. Emergency HC is obviously not such huge financial burden as many think.

Can you support this assertion with some numbers from a credible source? I have heard both an EMT and a doctor say that ER care is expensive, and certainly in my own experience the bills from my doctor are far, far surpassed in amount by the occasional ER bill I have received.

[sToNED_CAT]

Can you support this assertion with some numbers from a credible source? I have heard both an EMT and a doctor say that ER care is expensive, and certainly in my own experience the bills from my doctor are far, far surpassed in amount by the occasional ER bill I have received.

I meant ER as whole, a financial burden on US healthcare system not on individual. Of course it sucks for person in question/ to pay it all(if he doesn't declare bankrupcy). The quote above states it's just 45 billion/yr total. This article states it was 75 billion in 2006. Either way it's very small amount (out of over 2500 billion) to cause significant significant financial problems for US system.

[TrackerNeil]

I meant ER as whole, a financial burden on US healthcare system not on individual. Of course it sucks for person in question/ to pay it all(if he doesn't declare bankrupcy). The quote above states it's just 45 billion/yr total. This article states it was 75 billion in 2006. Either way it's very small amount (out of over 2500 billion) to cause significant significant financial problems for US system.

That link, it should be pointed out, is an op-ed piece, but I read it nonetheless and discovered that you have to register to read the McKinsey report itself. So I'll back off this issue until I can find a reliable source that I can access without giving somebody the ability to spam me.

[VigoTheCarpathian]

Myth : emergency healthcare is expensive.

I was often wondering about this, because most people claim it's EH costs that bring US system down. Your quote shows that's not true. If there are 40 millions uninsured Americans and emergency healthcare costs 45 billion $, it means EH costs just little over 1000$ per person. (and that's not counting underinsured who use EH too) If you consider EH as defacto "insurance" for poor people (like many do) you must admit it's fantastically effective insurance, probably 3-4 times more effective than Canadian system and 6-8 times more effective than typical american insurance. It's funny , but it looks like all health insurance in US should be abolished and replaced with ER only, if you want to reduce costs.

Ahem, wrong. The median cost of an ER visit is about twice as much as a hospital outpatient visit, and about five times as much as an office-based visit for the same treatment. Link (figure 5). If you have an actual medical issue, going to the ER just adds additional cost to the treatment you would receive as a direct admission, because you're using that resource to immediately see and triage you.

Another hole in what you're saying is that you're assuming that each of the 40 million uninsured visited the ER once, instead of assuming that 4 million of them would visit 10 times, each time for something that could have been taken care of with preventative care, instead visiting the next 9 times.

ETA: I don't think the ER is the whole reason that healthcare is expensive, just another small reason that adds to it, and one that would hopefully improve if some sort of UHC was instituted.

[Security Squish]

That link, it should be pointed out, is an op-ed piece, but I read it nonetheless and discovered that you have to register to read the McKinsey report itself. So I'll back off this issue until I can find a reliable source that I can access without giving somebody the ability to spam me.

If you can find data showing the average cost of an ER visit I would be thrilled. My ER broke the 140,000 patient mark last year(2008) and this May was our heaviest patient load ever so we will break that mark in all likelyhood. I am curious as to what kind of money pit my workplace is.

[Inigima]

That link, it should be pointed out, is an op-ed piece, but I read it nonetheless and discovered that you have to register to read the McKinsey report itself. So I'll back off this issue until I can find a reliable source that I can access without giving somebody the ability to spam me.

Don't know if they have that site, but http://www.bugmenot.com is pretty great

[DanteGabriel]

Virginia Gubenatorial Primary is today. I think Deeds is the more electable, given that he's more of a Virginia moderate type Democrat. I prefer Moran by far in terms of policies, but I'm not sure I'm going to vote for him.

McAuliffe I will never forgive for threatening the country a year ago. He went out on stage and said not only is Hilary not stepping down, but she is going to become President (somehow?) and everyone cheered. It looked like the Dems were going to do their damndest to fumble the election at that point, and he seemed quite pleased about it.

I hope he never runs for election again.

We'll see who pulls it out.

So Terry McAuliffe not only lost, but got crushed.

Good. I'm happy to see a well-heeled, well-connected carpetbagger who just assumed that a position was his for the taking get smacked down. Especially a dipshit like McAuliffe. I'll never forget his surreal act in the 08 primaries, wearing a tropical shirt and waggling a bottle of rum at the camera to celebrate Hillary Clinton's victory in the Puerto Rico primary.

[DanteGabriel]

The next time I hear a right winger blathering about how Obama's responsible for the biggest deficits ever, I'll deploy this handy chart:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06...dt-graphic.html

Bottom line: the money that Obama's thrown at our problems in the last five months is chump change compared to the damage Bush wreaked, damage which continues to this day, with policies that incurred little to no protest from the same people now excoriating Obama for his profligacy.

[Xray the Enforcer]

That graphic is awesome.

[awesome possum]

The next time I hear a right winger blathering about how Obama's responsible for the biggest deficits ever, I'll deploy this handy chart:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06...dt-graphic.html

Bottom line: the money that Obama's thrown at our problems in the last five months is chump change compared to the damage Bush wreaked, damage which continues to this day, with policies that incurred little to no protest from the same people now excoriating Obama for his profligacy.

Come on, you know that the hardcore conservatives won't see a graphical representation of the deficits explained. They'll only see the New York Times, which Obama secretly created by traveling back in time in order to make it his own personal P.R. machine while he was president.

[TrackerNeil]

Another infuriating thing about the right is their unbelievably dishonest characterizations of Reagan. They are trying to literally turn him into some kind of mythology. They want to create this myth that a perfect conservative president existed not too long ago. Of course, it is bullshit. Reagan was a solid president with some good and some bad. He did some conservative things but also did many things that today's conservatives would hang someone for (raised taxes, said torture was always wrong).

How did this cult of the current GOP come to be? If things were simply about economic policy and it was just that simple I could even see myself as a conservative. But to be a Republican now is to side with one of the worst collections of asshats I've ever seen in bed together. Policies aside, they are the worst people ever.

I'm currently reading a book by Will Bunch, Tear Down This Myth, which is a look at the amazing and ofttimes deliberate inflation of the legends surrounding Ronald Reagan. I'm finding that as one strips away the myths about tax-cutting (he signed big tax increases) and standing tall against America's enemies (he "cut and run" from Lebanon, there's actually stuff to admire about the stuff Reagan really did in terms of working with the Soviets to control and reduce the number of nukes. Interesting.

As to the current GOP, I think this can be traced to Goldwater's campaign and the movement conservatives, who were ideologues very different from the Eisenhowers and Rockefellers of the Republican Party.

[DanteGabriel]

I loathe Reagan, for personal reasons, with the fiery passion of a thousand burning suns. But even I can realize that he did enough moderate things that the Rump Remnants that passes as today's GOP would deride him, too, as a RINO.

Which I suspect is part of why they're so eager to built up their own revisionist history about him.

[TrackerNeil]

I loathe Reagan, for personal reasons, with the fiery passion of a thousand burning suns. But even I can realize that he did enough moderate things that the Rump Remnants that passes as today's GOP would deride him, too, as a RINO.

Which I suspect is part of why they're so eager to built up their own revisionist history about him.

Make no mistake; I am not making the case for Reagan's presidency as a success. My opinion is that he was perhaps a moderate president. However, GWB has set a new low in terms of poor presidencies, so I can't help but view Reagan more positively. Huh...in the area of presidential performance, looks like it's a lowering tide that lifts all boats.

[DanteGabriel]

Make no mistake; I am not making the case for Reagan's presidency as a success. My opinion is that he was perhaps a moderate president. However, GWB has set a new low in terms of poor presidencies, so I can't help but view Reagan more positively. Huh...in the area of presidential performance, looks like it's a lowering tide that lifts all boats.

I certainly never loved Clinton as much as I did when I saw what his replacement was like.

[Maithanet]

I certainly never loved Clinton as much as I did when I saw what his replacement was like.

Aint that the truth. Honestly, I think that's contributing to Obama's early impression as well. He's done quite a few things I'm not happy with, definitely more than I expected.

But compared to Bush, there is still absolutely no comparison. Obama at least presents his positions in such a way as to defend his choices as correct. Bush seemed to simply assume that they were.

[K26dp]

...there's actually stuff to admire about the stuff Reagan really did in terms of working with the Soviets to control and reduce the number of nukes. Interesting.

The Gingriches of the world blasted Reagan for talking to the Soviets, just as they blast Obama for talking to the Iranians.

[Watcher]

The next time I hear a right winger blathering about how Obama's responsible for the biggest deficits ever, I'll deploy this handy chart:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06...dt-graphic.html

Bottom line: the money that Obama's thrown at our problems in the last five months is chump change compared to the damage Bush wreaked, damage which continues to this day, with policies that incurred little to no protest from the same people now excoriating Obama for his profligacy.

Sorry that graph won't fool me, before Obama deficits < 1 Trillion, after Obama was elected deficit > 1 Trillion therefore it's ALL Obama's fault Q.E.D.

[lokisnow]

Before Bush Jr. budget surpluses after Bush Jr. 8 years of deficits. result, doubling the national debt.

clearly deficits are therefore all Obama's fault because they were not Bush's fault.