B-Large

"Some fear that consumers will be overwhelmed and give up" But I am sure they will find the time and energy for American Idol and 2 Broke Girls... lol.... its only healthcare, you know, next to taxes maybe your largest expense in life...

you don't even need some bogus prescription for MJ in Colorado now... is doesn't mean CU Boulder keep the campus open for the annual smokeout... boo..... I don't do drugs, well at least the illegal ones or one you have to smoke.. but I do smoke cigars,,, thank !@#$ing god its friday, Im mush...

Make it "painful" so to speak to be on Welfare.... make it like disbaility insurance, the incentive being to get back to work... once we get into work programs, training, drug testing, etc... we are looking at another expansion of the program, which means more workers, more overhead, more taxes to keep it running. Keep welfare a prpgram that meets a temporary need, does not incent people to have more kids, and promote people to get back to earning money...

I hope you don't mind, but you description was not quite done

Its sounds he meant that the ACA ruins the Healthcare system for Americans... I'll give him that... but really, is going backwards to what we had better? My theory is that when 2014 hits, people will not see a Healthcare Apocolpyse like we are being led to believe there will be, and once people learn the benefits, it might even become like Medicare and SS, popular and favorable... I think that is the urgency for defunding, repeal and challenging it... Now will it cost less... we'll refer to another thread that is ongoing for that debate...

Sage Advice. Never did I say in that Reponse that People are always Free of Stupid.... lol

do tell?

Does it make it right, probably not... in the theorectical case of a small, efficient government that provided for domestic defense and had means tested safety net program to protect the least of our citizens, then perhaps the people who posses the wealth paying the a disproptionate taxes is fair- but that would not be them paying 50%+ of their income to taxes, but perhaps 30%, 20% or less. The Tax Code is so wacked because a small amount of the people in the US actually has Wealth, meaning they can pay taxes at a very high rate and still have mountains left over to provide, invest, retire, etc. The bulk of the population is paycheck to paycheck, or worse than that, payday loan to paycheck or cover their spread with credit.. its hard to increase taxes on those people without sapping aggreagte spending on good and services.. to me, I have always maintained that the biggest downfall for this country is lackluster growth of earned income and asset accumulation... after education, buying a vehicle, purchasing a home and having a family, there isn't a ton left to fund retirment, college for your kids, the new roof, a vacation once in a blue moon, etc. Other than wealth redistribution through taxes, there has to be growth in income and wealth dowward or the country will eventually be in big trouble- the masses can only string along on stagnant paychecks so long, that is why we see elevated debt levels year after year to cover the shortfall. So it is right? no- but given the cicumstances of a stagnant middle class and bloated government, probably. Until we reduce the scope of government at the federal level and find a way for the masses to flourish, the Wealthy is where it is... thats a pretty sweeping generalization. I have friends who work their buts off trying to get ahead, financed College, tyring to get ahead at 35, going to grad school, paying for kids schooling, trying to put away money for college (that's only 18 short years away), paying their mortgage, scraping to put money aside for retirement..... they literally have scraps at the end... ALOT of people work really hard, long hours, and the returns are often not commensurate with the effort.. that is becoming a core problem in America, people are starting to think twice about the "dream"... they often question whether it is worth it... ask around, I think you will find that sentiment not that uncommon...

but that makes sense, that is where the money is. I'd be shocked if the top 10% paid only 20-30% of the Federal taxes... its kind of an obvious point, isn't it?

Lol, that's a good one...

Mag, I used to think the exact same thing, until on of my Doc's opinioned that its long life that is the real cost driver, not just obesity, sedentary lifestyle or smoking...I thought that can't be truw... I was pretty shocked to see that corroborated.... I will search out some domestic studies, poke around and see if any of the researchers here can shed any knowledge. You might want to sharpen your pencil and get that list of people who are "country over people" ready... lol are you saying no to Cigs, Sodas and KFC, SOB? lol

I wonder if that statement is really factually valid. Most heathcare dollars are spent as people get older, so if you live a long time, you will have longer duration of chronic ailments and readmissions into a hospital... a Fatty will theoretially die earlier from heart attack or stroke, so you would think people dieing earlier in their lifespan, even though they have had chronic physcial ailment in their younger years might be less expensive overall.. So being an initiative guy, I googled it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=0 There is no evidence that obesity programs will translate to dollar savings. Irony, really. Blooomberg's effort to help people become healthier in turn likely makes Healthcare Services more out of reach for those people at the same time... that's irony, right? My wife usually tells me what is and is not irony, she a writer and twice as smart. The Solution? Cigarettes, 1 Gallon Sodas and a Bucket of Fried Chicken wiht a layer of Bacon for everybody..... LOL

Imagine a Flat Tax that everybody pays 10% of income, or a Fair Tax that only taxes purchases. No more bitching about differential tax rates, no money wasted to have a CPA decipher the the 72K page tax code, no more stories about compaines stashing money..... one can only dream

I think comparing PIzza's and Retail Consumables is not apples to apples to Healthcare for a variety of reasons, but I agree alot can be done to offer many types of care more efficiently, and less costly. My shot at the Healthcare CEO was in jest, I report to our System CEO, while compensated nicely, it is a B word of a job, endless hours and mind numbing issues across the board... I would never want that job, not for a ship full of cash. I am glad to hear your mom has not lost her sense of smell... lol.... Yeah, I appreciate the latitude, as you know from my posts the passage of ACA was bittersweet.

First, what reason does anybody have going to the DMV anymore? I haven't been to a DMV is 15 years, all that **** can be done on-line... Second, The Afforbale Care Act doesn't have government running hospitals.... its a coverage Bill, not a Healthcare Bill. Hospital are run by greedy CEOS at Academic Medical Centers working 90 hours a week, spening Monday- Friday evenings at Fundraisers, and generally walkig a fine like to keep Quality Measure and Patient Satisfaction numbers up... the article painted a vivid picture of these bastards of healthcare. Third, do you kiss your mother with that filthy, whorish mouth of yours???

I don't disagree. But the point is that we can make changes to programs that are on unsteady ground, we can axe program that don;t work or that are duplicative... it is possible, the "wait till later" strategy is forge in failure...

Krugman would hold more weight if in the good times government make structural changes to Safety Net programs and found way to reduce spending overall. The problem is in bad times the Government spends, in good times the Government Spends.. there is never scaling back, nearly never. I mean it took sequestration to pare of a fraction of discretionary spending. Just because Medicare/ Medicaid is fuunded for 10 more years doesn't mean we should not find solutuion to eneitable problems...

Real Estate is a great investment if you know what you're doing, it is sad good deals come at the expense of stupid Americans.... But that is nothing new...

I think there is a big difference between the point you are trying to make, and the reality of Mr Chavez and his rule over his country. By nationalizing at will, exerting control over all industries, centralizing power and controlling media, you ensure all citizens see a lack of oppotunity and less prosperity, while at the same time perpetual your personal power- people don't starve, they have a roof over their head, but in a resource rich country, should skimping by be enough? In Venezuela, I assume the very few enjoy the true spoils, those who are friends of the Dictator- not too mention said dictator was besties with Iran- !@#$ing Iran..... I believe your point it that helping the poor is a good thing, and that left policies can achieve that goal... I agree to a point, but you have to cite places like the UK and Canada to make a reasonble arguement. While they have much more socialist polices than the US, they also promote opportunity and bettering of one's position in life. I have friends in both places, one in Canada that could care less ho wmuch he pays in taxes, he loves the benefits, he loves his life. My other buddy lives in Manchester, is an unabashed Welfare State supporter and can't imagine it being any other way... both, whether they choose to or not have opportunities to better themselves, and that is the difference. The difference in opportunity. Dictators squash it, we promote it... that why people flock here, in lieu of our faults...

Its like Big Ern McCracken said, "that paternity suit is not a case, that girl's is a stone faced liar, he pulled out of her really early on that one... "

So wait, you're not buying a retirement home is Caracus now?

Cancer spreading son of a B word

Well, the US caused his Cancer, so you know there will be no love there...

I am intrigued by the plan, it is basically the Affordable Care Act (the core aspect of premium support, not he reglautory details) for Seniors... if it is good enough for the Nation under 65, why not over 65? My only contention with the premium support model is confusion is might add for Senior's who already suffer from memory and congnitive issues... many Seniors had problems with Medicare Part D when it was rolled out- My preference would be to protect out Seniors from an undue mental stress, but if the program was simple to understand and fit the billl and cost less, why not? The issue would be by privatizing Medicare, would it actually cost less, being you now add another layer of expense with a third prrty insurer that tends to be more administratvely expensive than Medicare... and to add, I still think Deductible Plans are the best way to curb spending on healthcare. If I have to pay my first 10K, you bet I am askign more questions about test and service neccesity than is a $30 copay covers it all... its the "its not my money" mentility, but coincidentially in the long run it is your money...

according to the article, Medicare reibursement rates are more in line with the actual cost of the related service (I am not sure that is 100% correct assumption)... so if we are trying to reduce costs, this will force providers/ facilities to streamline and provide less expensive care, at least in theory, reducing overall expenditires while making the system more agile. I still don't think it solves the cost issues as patient/ providers are still unaware what the actual cost of care is (at least if you're not runing an private practice)... so they are not incented to do less rather than more... not that patients or MD run up costs on purpose....