AJ Oliver

Liz Warren is in !!

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, J28 said:

FIFY

Sorry, dude, but you're clearly too young to know what FDR's platform was ... and Eisenhower's as well.  If you had any grasp of history at all, you'd call FDR a commie, and Ike a socialist (his platform would be quite to the left of H. Clinton's).

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, grankin said:

Sorry, dude, but you're clearly too young to know what FDR's platform was ... and Eisenhower's as well.  If you had any grasp of history at all, you'd call FDR a commie, and Ike a socialist (his platform would be quite to the left of H. Clinton's).

Foxy News doesn’t do nuance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one is too young to know what those platforms were.

Just too ignorant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

“By the time we get to 2020, Donald Trump may not be president. In fact, he may not even be a free person.”

- Elizabeth Warren

Sure hope not;  it could not happen to a worser bully. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Since you seem to care so much why don't you tell the class?

Do you not care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Do the wittle reichista snowflakes have a sad? 

Should we call you a WAAAAAAMbulance? 

Folks, we have learned that the Right here does not like the term "Reich" applied to them. 

You know what to do . .  

Thanks for making my point. You've no interest in meaningful discussions. You're here to incite and foment. You and the little "challenger" from Oz should team up. 

As far as the use of the term, you're using it like others use "nigger!" And with the same intent.

Fuck off troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

As far as the use of the term, you're using it like others use "nigger!" And with the same intent.

Fuck off troll.

Oh, so now the local racist Reich tries to play the racism card - now THAT is pathetic. 

Dude, if you don't want to be lumped in with the fascists, don't line up with them. 

I'll stick with the Central Park Five, and the other real victims of Reichista racism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m with AJ

How do right wing types think they have moral standing any more?

They voted repeatedly to strip their fellow citizens of healthcare, put in power rich incompetents with a history of racism and bankruptcy, been responsible for unnecessary wars, never paid for those wars, they’ve torn down meager protections keeping finance giants from stealing and ensnaring the poor in PayDay loans and fraudulent universities, they support ignoring science and loosening EPA protections in fact putting lobbyists in charge of the Dept of the Interior. 

Supporting the shitstain in office, with his constant low level racism means when this issue comes up, you have no authority to claim piety. Just shut up and observe quietly. Calling attention to yourself at this point can only hurt your cause.

Watch how a responsible organization gains understanding of a problem, evaluates it, and renders punishment. Your political party is incapable of all three steps so you’ve a great deal to learn.

Or, continue to open your mouth and prove yourself a hypocrite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

I’m with AJ

How do right wing types think they have moral standing any more?

They voted repeatedly to strip their fellow citizens of healthcare, put in power rich incompetents with a history of racism and bankruptcy, been responsible for unnecessary wars, never paid for those wars, they’ve torn down meager protections keeping finance giants from stealing and ensnaring the poor in PayDay loans and fraudulent universities, they support ignoring science and loosening EPA protections in fact putting lobbyists in charge of the Dept of the Interior. 

Supporting the shitstain in office, with his constant low level racism means when this issue comes up, you have no authority to claim piety. Just shut up and observe quietly. Calling attention to yourself at this point can only hurt your cause.

Watch how a responsible organization gains understanding of a problem, evaluates it, and renders punishment. Your political party is incapable of all three steps so you’ve a great deal to learn.

Or, continue to open your mouth and prove yourself a hypocrite.

And the bastards oppose giving money to people who are unwilling to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

And the bastards oppose giving money to people who are unwilling to work.

Id be interested to learn about the “unwilling to work” cohort. Got any non-partisan sites for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s just his version of a “policy debate.”

Rather than learn about proposals, understand objectives, figure out where & when to compromise, @Dog can only stand memes and sound bites.

Its not effective governance, but he’s a Republican... they don’t vote for that sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

It’s just his version of a “policy debate.”

Rather than learn about proposals, understand objectives, figure out where & when to compromise, @Dog can only stand memes and sound bites.

Its not effective governance, but he’s a Republican... they don’t vote for that sort of thing.

Please,  you're so full of shit....You just got through saying of Republicans "They voted repeatedly to strip their fellow citizens of healthcare". But you don't characterize that as a "policy debate". Republicans have a different opinion on healthcare delivery but they have not voted to strip citizens of healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Please,  you're so full of shit....You just got through saying of Republicans "They voted repeatedly to strip their fellow citizens of healthcare". But you don't characterize that as a "policy debate". Republicans have a different opinion on healthcare delivery but they have not voted to strip citizens of healthcare.

Yep and it consists of repealing the ACA and replacing it with something much better. That much better thing is still a closely guarded secret however.  But it's going to be YUGE!  Oh, in the midst Trump said "who knew health care would be so hard". 

The comedy keeps on coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sean said:

Id be interested to learn about the “unwilling to work” cohort. Got any non-partisan sites for that?

This is a government propaganda site. Is that OK?

On 2/9/2019 at 5:40 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

Green FAQs

Society must provide:

Quote

 Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dog said:

Please,  you're so full of shit....You just got through saying of Republicans "They voted repeatedly to strip their fellow citizens of healthcare". But you don't characterize that as a "policy debate". Republicans have a different opinion on healthcare delivery but they have not voted to strip citizens of healthcare.

Sorry, “healthcare insurance”

Fixerated.

And the level of policy debate never did extend to trying to help the citizens they hurt through GOP intransigence. There was a concerted effort to push those needing Obamacare protections out of state, by refusing Medicaid expansion, but that wasn’t part of any “debate”. That was the subtext of all these votes trying to make Blue states seem like grifters and debt-ridden. 

The “tax vs fine” argument was contrived, and since it was part of a rabidly “anti-all things Democrat” Congressional mandate, shouldn’t be confused with responsible governance. Since the poor, the minorities and the disenfranchised were the majority of those affected, the GOP didn’t give two shits. They’d get the racists and the abortion haters votes anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Contumacious Tom said:

This is a government propaganda site. Is that OK?

 

 

1 hour ago, Contumacious Tom said:

This is a government propaganda site. Is that OK?

 

Thanks Tom. I'm not up to speed on the "green new deal" thing, but that one line at least is a bit too "progressive" for my taste. Can't see it becoming the law of the land.

Seems to me that a substantial chunk of the D party is taking a flier on the left side of the course.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

 Republicans have a different opinion on healthcare delivery 

Where? What opinions do Republicans have on healthcare? You've had 10 years to come up with a replacement - where the fuck is it?
 

Here's the thing Dog - Republicans lost the 2018 midterms in part because it was hammered home that Team R is bullshitting on healthcare. You don't have opinions other than Obamacare sucks. Well, a bunch of the shitweasels that voted for repeals tried to say they liked Ocare in the fall - because that's the kind of craven shitweasels you support - but I digress. You have no solutions on there than "fuck you, your poor, die"*. Amazingly, that doesn't play well. You'll keep bullshitting, your party of fuckwads will keep piling on the fail. Because it's what you do.

* until you reach Meidcare age, then you are fine. Because Republicans need the senior vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Where? What opinions do Republicans have on healthcare? You've had 10 years to come up with a replacement - where the fuck is it?
 

Here's the thing Dog - Republicans lost the 2018 midterms in part because it was hammered home that Team R is bullshitting on healthcare. You don't have opinions other than Obamacare sucks. Well, a bunch of the shitweasels that voted for repeals tried to say they liked Ocare in the fall - because that's the kind of craven shitweasels you support - but I digress. You have no solutions on there than "fuck you, your poor, die"*. Amazingly, that doesn't play well. You'll keep bullshitting, your party of fuckwads will keep piling on the fail. Because it's what you do.

* until you reach Meidcare age, then you are fine. Because Republicans need the senior vote.

You're not wrong. If Republicans had a spine and done something prior to 2009 we probably wouldn't have had Obamacare foisted on us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

You're not wrong. If Republicans had a spine and done something prior to 2009 we probably wouldn't have had Obamacare foisted on us.

If they had cooperated rather than obstruct we might of had a real solution rather than the insurance enriching program we wound up with.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Yep and it consists of repealing the ACA and replacing it with something much better. That much better thing is still a closely guarded secret however.  But it's going to be YUGE!  Oh, in the midst Trump said "who knew health care would be so hard". 

The comedy keeps on coming.

You know I'm all for repealing the ACA, and replacing w/a simple Medicaid expansion w/graduated premium schedules.  Much better solution that accomplishes *everything* the ACA did w/out the establishment of a duplicative, ineffective bureaucracy that did fuck all to achieve the main selling point of the ACA - reduced healthcare costs, while also NOT requiring, under penalty of law, the purchase of a product from a for-profit industry.  

While that happens - I'd like to see rules changes codified such that any legislation that impacts as large a segment of society as Health Care requires a modicum of support from the minority party.  If 20% of the minority can't support the legislation, then perhaps forcing its implementation on a party line vote ain't such a good idea.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You know I'm all for repealing the ACA, and replacing w/a simple Medicaid expansion w/graduated premium schedules.  Much better solution that accomplishes *everything* the ACA did w/out the establishment of a duplicative, ineffective bureaucracy that did fuck all to achieve the main selling point of the ACA - reduced healthcare costs, while also NOT requiring, under penalty of law, the purchase of a product from a for-profit industry.  

While that happens - I'd like to see rules changes codified such that any legislation that impacts as large a segment of society as Health Care requires a modicum of support from the minority party.  If 20% of the minority can't support the legislation, then perhaps forcing its implementation on a party line vote ain't such a good idea.  

 

Sigh..... you keep repeating this feel-good rightie lie.

It's bullshit. And I've posted graphs to show it's bullshit many times over.

This has been a public service announcement, return to your tasks. Thank you.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sigh..... you keep repeating this feel-good rightie lie.

It's bullshit. And I've posted graphs to show it's bullshit many times over.

This has been a public service announcement, return to your tasks. Thank you.

-DSK

The graphs and charts you've shared don't depict a single instance of the cost of health care delivery being reduced.  The ACA didn't do anything to address costs  - and MOST people who were paying their own premiums before have seen their premiums expand exponentially.  

Here's an excerpt from a study that you can accept, or dismiss as more conservative hooey: 
https://ldi.upenn.edu/brief/effects-aca-health-care-cost-containment
SUMMARY: This brief reviews the evidence on how key ACA provisions have affected the growth of health care costs. Coverage expansions produced a predictable jump in health care spending, amidst a slowdown that began a decade ago.  Although we have not returned to the double-digit increases of the past, the authors find little evidence that ACA cost containment provisions produced changes necessary to “bend the cost curve.” Cost control will likely play a prominent role in the next round of health reform and will be critical to sustaining coverage gains in the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The graphs and charts you've shared don't depict a single instance of the cost of health care delivery being reduced.  The ACA didn't do anything to address costs  - and MOST people who were paying their own premiums before have seen their premiums expand exponentially.  

Here's an excerpt from a study that you can accept, or dismiss as more conservative hooey: 
https://ldi.upenn.edu/brief/effects-aca-health-care-cost-containment
SUMMARY: This brief reviews the evidence on how key ACA provisions have affected the growth of health care costs. Coverage expansions produced a predictable jump in health care spending, amidst a slowdown that began a decade ago.  Although we have not returned to the double-digit increases of the past, the authors find little evidence that ACA cost containment provisions produced changes necessary to “bend the cost curve.” Cost control will likely play a prominent role in the next round of health reform and will be critical to sustaining coverage gains in the long term.

 

Only if you didn't bother to look.

Interesting to see the inclusions of expanded coverage into the equation, which is certainly a good point. I'm not sure what the authors looked at with regard to "bending the cost curve" but you'd hard pressed to find a health-care expenditure chart that DOESN'T show what I've shown, the flattened cost from about 2011 thru about 2015..... in fact the graph IN THIS ARTICLE shows that:

LDI%20Research%20Briefs%20ACA%20Impact%20Series_%2321-4_Fig1.png

Is that good? Yeah but not good enough. I am definitely interested in improvements, I am not trying to defend ObamaCare as the best possible solution.

A better solution is not going to be found thru bullshit and wishful thinking.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Only if you didn't bother to look.

Interesting to see the inclusions of expanded coverage into the equation, which is certainly a good point. I'm not sure what the authors looked at with regard to "bending the cost curve" but you'd hard pressed to find a health-care expenditure chart that DOESN'T show what I've shown, the flattened cost from about 2011 thru about 2015..... in fact the graph IN THIS ARTICLE shows that:

LDI%20Research%20Briefs%20ACA%20Impact%20Series_%2321-4_Fig1.png

Is that good? Yeah but not good enough. I am definitely interested in improvements, I am not trying to defend ObamaCare as the best possible solution.

A better solution is not going to be found thru bullshit and wishful thinking.

-DSK

You must not have read the article - the chart was explained right below, and it doesn't support your premise. 
"The ACA’s coverage expansion in 2014 spurred a spike in spending, as would be expected. These provisions allowed millions of people to get health insurance through the exchanges and through Medicaid expansion. Health care costs increased by 5.3 percent in 2014, from a low of 2.9 percent in 2013. The Office of the CMS Actuary estimated that increased use of health care services accounted for nearly 40 percent of the increase in per-capita health spending. Health costs grew by 5.8 percent in 2015, and preliminary estimates by the Altarum Institute indicate a steady growth rate of 5.4 percent over 2015."  (my bolding for emphasis) 

I don't want to continue to pollute this thread w/a tangent.   Start a new one - and I'll dive in with ya.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

This is a government propaganda site. Is that OK?

 

 

Shit happens -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/ocasio-cortez-retracts-erroneous-information-about-green-new-deal-backed-by-democratic-candidates/

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is pushing for a debate on the substance of her “Green New Deal” resolution after her staff distributed an erroneous fact sheet regarding the proposal, leading to confusion over a plan supported by many of the Democratic Party’s leading candidates for president.

Ocasio-Cortez’s staff posted online and sent to reporters a list of “frequently asked questions” about the Green New Deal. Those pages included language and policies not included in the resolution itself such as providing economics security to those “unwilling to work” and ruling out nuclear power as part of the solution to the climate crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medicare for all, and non-thieving pharma would save us around . . 

$ 1.2 trillion per year. 

Just ask Sen. Warren 

(OK, now cue the Reich, as they explain how and why doing what other countries 

are doing is not possible.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You know I'm all for repealing the ACA, and replacing w/a simple Medicaid expansion w/graduated premium schedules.  Much better solution that accomplishes *everything* the ACA did w/out the establishment of a duplicative, ineffective bureaucracy that did fuck all to achieve the main selling point of the ACA - reduced healthcare costs, while also NOT requiring, under penalty of law, the purchase of a product from a for-profit industry.  

While that happens - I'd like to see rules changes codified such that any legislation that impacts as large a segment of society as Health Care requires a modicum of support from the minority party.  If 20% of the minority can't support the legislation, then perhaps forcing its implementation on a party line vote ain't such a good idea. 

With respect to the first part... fine. Medicaid reimbursements for my specialty are abysmal, but that would sort itself out after a few years of transition. It’s not like surgery can happen without anesthesia. 

Any plan that garnered bipartisan support and enthusiastic implementation across the states would present a unified front to insurance companies, Big pharma and hospital networks... currently their rent seeking behavior negates big thinking and cost cutting measures with teeth.

As it was, the GOP stated its no holds barred opposition to any proposal by the Democrats, so no legislation could have been possible given your “20% of the minority party” rewriting of congressional rules. Basically, according to your proposal, the GOP should be able to block any legislation at any time. Therefore, only the GOP should have authority, because the Democrats are resigned to use small-d democratic means to govern the country which means compromise and dialogue.

Nope, not gonna trust the GOP with that  kind of power. When they’ve had it, things were not better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sean said:

Id be interested to learn about the “unwilling to work” cohort.

It's just the ubiquitous "Them" that ignoramuses hang all their resentments on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

It's just the ubiquitous "Them" that ignoramuses hang all their resentments on.

I think “them” are related to “they” and “some people say.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sean said:
8 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

This is a government propaganda site. Is that OK?

 

 

Shit happens -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/ocasio-cortez-retracts-erroneous-information-about-green-new-deal-backed-by-democratic-candidates/

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is pushing for a debate on the substance of her “Green New Deal” resolution after her staff distributed an erroneous fact sheet regarding the proposal, leading to confusion over a plan supported by many of the Democratic Party’s leading candidates for president.

Ocasio-Cortez’s staff posted online and sent to reporters a list of “frequently asked questions” about the Green New Deal. Those pages included language and policies not included in the resolution itself such as providing economics security to those “unwilling to work” and ruling out nuclear power as part of the solution to the climate crisis.

And politicians blame staffers, so it's good to see she's picking up on the ways of the new job.

But staffers reflect their bosses and that line didn't write itself. It's part of a "nothing could go too far" attitude that we see surrounding certain issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, phillysailor said:

With respect to the first part... fine. Medicaid reimbursements for my specialty are abysmal, but that would sort itself out after a few years of transition. It’s not like surgery can happen without anesthesia. 

Any plan that garnered bipartisan support and enthusiastic implementation across the states would present a unified front to insurance companies, Big pharma and hospital networks... currently their rent seeking behavior negates big thinking and cost cutting measures with teeth.

As it was, the GOP stated its no holds barred opposition to any proposal by the Democrats, so no legislation could have been possible given your “20% of the minority party” rewriting of congressional rules. Basically, according to your proposal, the GOP should be able to block any legislation at any time. Therefore, only the GOP should have authority, because the Democrats are resigned to use small-d democratic means to govern the country which means compromise and dialogue.

Nope, not gonna trust the GOP with that  kind of power. When they’ve had it, things were not better.

Edited to add: You complain that Medicaid reimbursements are abysmal?  yet, you want to see everyone on a government funded, government run single-payer system. What do you think THAT will look like?   here's a hint - MEDICAID and MEDICARE.  

Not the GOP - the MINORITY - whomever they happen to be.  If a piece of legislation impacts such a significant portion of our economy, and it can't be supported by at least SOME in the minority?  Then it shouldn't be pushed thru like the ACA was.  Ya know, that pesky founding premise of the minority still having a voice? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

a significant portion of our economy

So when and how are we going to cut this in half?  Do you think that would help industrial companies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasher said:

So when and how are we going to cut this in half?  Do you think that would help industrial companies?

Sorry man - I don't understand what you're asking, try again, and let's see if I can get my thick head working this AM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sean said:

 

Shit happens -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/ocasio-cortez-retracts-erroneous-information-about-green-new-deal-backed-by-democratic-candidates/

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is pushing for a debate on the substance of her “Green New Deal” resolution after her staff distributed an erroneous fact sheet regarding the proposal, leading to confusion over a plan supported by many of the Democratic Party’s leading candidates for president.

Ocasio-Cortez’s staff posted online and sent to reporters a list of “frequently asked questions” about the Green New Deal. Those pages included language and policies not included in the resolution itself such as providing economics security to those “unwilling to work” and ruling out nuclear power as part of the solution to the climate crisis.

In politics the clearer something is the more likely it is that it will be clarified...Charles Krauthammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Edited to add: You complain that Medicaid reimbursements are abysmal?  yet, you want to see everyone on a government funded, government run single-payer system. What do you think THAT will look like?   here's a hint - MEDICAID and MEDICARE.  

Not the GOP - the MINORITY - whomever they happen to be.  If a piece of legislation impacts such a significant portion of our economy, and it can't be supported by at least SOME in the minority?  Then it shouldn't be pushed thru like the ACA was.  Ya know, that pesky founding premise of the minority still having a voice? 

Yes, Medicaid reimbursements can be an utter joke... NJ Medicaid sometimes pay 7-11 cents of every dollar we bill, but more often simply do not respond. Calls go unanswered and certified letters ignored.

But market forces would probably result in changes within a few years if they represented a larger portion of our business. Either we would go out of business & be replaced by hospital employees relying on their ability to drive better reimbursement schedules, we would make a deal with our hospitals and be made somewhat whole, or else public pressure could force Medicaid to negotiate a solution.

It’s how these things play out. Contract negotiations really put in perspective what is important, and although $ is often the major sticking point, hospital systems have other reasons to stay with a group like ours. 

Surgeons might like the group they know, a group coming in might negotiate in ways that frustrate the hospital and private docs typically are more invested & involved in hospital administrative duties than employees. It turns out, taking over the department may not be in the best interests of the hospital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Not the GOP - the MINORITY - whomever they happen to be.  If a piece of legislation impacts such a significant portion of our economy, and it can't be supported by at least SOME in the minority?  Then it shouldn't be pushed thru like the ACA was.  Ya know, that pesky founding premise of the minority still having a voice? 

Jeez Chesie, you don't really believe that, do you? 

You must know that Drumph and the GOPPERS both promised health care and presc. drug reform - where is it? What do they even propose? They had two years to move it forward and did totally nada. 

And in fact all they did during Obama's terms was to block EVERYTHING, even infrastructure. 

Sherrod Brown is right to argue that the modern GOP does not know how to govern, and has no interest in doing so. 

Here are the eight plans floating around. Which do you like, and why? If the answer is "none", what is your alternative? I betting that, like the GOP in general, you don't have one. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/medicare-for-all-single-payer-democrats-sanders-jayapal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

Yes, Medicaid reimbursements can be an utter joke... NJ Medicaid sometimes pay 7-11 cents of every dollar we bill, but more often simply do not respond. Calls go unanswered and certified letters ignored.

But market forces would probably result in changes within a few years if they represented a larger portion of our business. Either we would go out of business & be replaced by hospital employees relying on their ability to drive better reimbursement schedules, we would make a deal with our hospitals and be made somewhat whole, or else public pressure could force Medicaid to negotiate a solution.

It’s how these things play out. Contract negotiations really put in perspective what is important, and although $ is often the major sticking point, hospital systems have other reasons to stay with a group like ours. 

Surgeons might like the group they know, a group coming in might negotiate in ways that frustrate the hospital and private docs typically are more invested & involved in hospital administrative duties than employees. It turns out, taking over the department may not be in the best interests of the hospital.

No argument that many of the medicaid disbursements are paltry in comparison.   I'm honestly surprised that you get unpaid invoices for approved claims - I didn't write anything for NJ Medicaid - but, in every other state?  The MMIS had strict deadlines for provider disbursement of approved claims.  To the rest of your post? Yeah - I think that you're quite right, that something like that would happen.  The biggest advantages I see in the approach I espouse are that Medicaid has successfully negotiated major price concessions for pharmaceuticals, that standardization and automation greatly reduce administrative overhead, the prospective utilization review algorithms help prevent unnecessary tests/procedures that might otherwise be prudent for the prevention of liability, it's an established entity that is constantly focused on efficiency,  and it didn't force the purchase of a for-profit product from private entities under penalty of law.   

I'd like to see an actuarial analysis of the current premium costs /vs/ the tax increase OR graduated premium schedule that would be required to support this approach, and then let the #s make the case as to the cost effectiveness/efficiency of changing or staying w/the current model.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'd like to see . . . 

I'd like to see the Drumph/GOP health care reform plan that they promised years ago. 

But we won't, will we . .  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Romney plan?  Never mind that, maybe the doctor plan, the hospital plan, the insurance plan or maybe just the pharmaceutical plan.  Maybe these posers have no plan.  But I believe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know, that pesky founding premise of the minority still having a voice? 

Do you mean like McConnell and the burying of the Merritt Garland nomination?  That kind of voice?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here Sen Warren gets a standing ovation from native american leaders . . 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-native-american-conference_us_5c62ed73e4b00ba63e4ae657

And it irks me no end how the MSM hammers on the native american ID issue and ignores her policy views. (Like Joy Reid last Sunday) 

I'm tellin' ya, Liz is the one who really scares the oligarchy (Bernie too). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No argument that many of the medicaid disbursements are paltry in comparison.   I'm honestly surprised that you get unpaid invoices for approved claims - I didn't write anything for NJ Medicaid - but, in every other state?  The MMIS had strict deadlines for provider disbursement of approved claims.  To the rest of your post? Yeah - I think that you're quite right, that something like that would happen.  The biggest advantages I see in the approach I espouse are that Medicaid has successfully negotiated major price concessions for pharmaceuticals, that standardization and automation greatly reduce administrative overhead, the prospective utilization review algorithms help prevent unnecessary tests/procedures that might otherwise be prudent for the prevention of liability, it's an established entity that is constantly focused on efficiency,  and it didn't force the purchase of a for-profit product from private entities under penalty of law.   

I'd like to see an actuarial analysis of the current premium costs /vs/ the tax increase OR graduated premium schedule that would be required to support this approach, and then let the #s make the case as to the cost effectiveness/efficiency of changing or staying w/the current model.  

There are several scenarios of single party payor that leave my profession in the lurch. I wouldn’t support it for personal gain, to be sure. 

I’m just sick of hearing from friends & family, coworkers and patients that the insurance we all pay for is geared to leave us with frustration and unpaid bills, yet costs more every year.

We had one year with numerous complicated pregnancies, cancer diagnoses & other health crises and it really affected our overall profitability. If a competently run professional medical practice could be so affected by random illness, I became convinced that individuals hardly stand a chance surviving the financial pain of treating poor health.

The only moral approach is to seek a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Left Shift said:

Ya know, that pesky founding premise of the minority still having a voice? 

Yes. Do you?

Is it OK if they expre$$ them$elve$ as a group and not individually?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Yes. Do you?

Is it OK if they expre$$ them$elve$ as a group and not individually?

Tom  -  Do you really  have to weigh in on every thread?  

Whom do you expect to read all your  . . . . stuff, lets call it.

I assure you, it won't be me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Tom  -  Do you really  have to weigh in on every thread?  

Whom do you expect to read all your  . . . . stuff, lets call it.

I assure you, it won't be me. 

I think Tom will be fine with that.  As far as your posts go, a lot of us Reichistas have concluded that you have nothing of substance to offer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, J28 said:

 . . . , a lot of us Reichistas have concluded that you have nothing of substance to offer.  

Wow, for you that is downright polite !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:
13 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Yes. Do you?

Is it OK if they expre$$ them$elve$ as a group and not individually?

Tom  -  Do you really  have to weigh in on every thread?  

Whom do you expect to read all your  . . . . stuff, lets call it.

I assure you, it won't be me. 

"My" stuff in this case was written by the Supreme Court of the United States and I wasn't even around at the time. How can you ignore someone with such mental powers and ability to influence events?

For other non-readers, what I caused the Supreme Court to say was this:

Quote

petitioner claims that the chapter infringes the right of the NAACP and its members and lawyers to associate for the purpose of assisting persons who seek legal redress for infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed and other rights. We think petitioner may assert this right on its own behalf, because, though a corporation, it is directly engaged in those activities, claimed to be constitutionally protected, which the statute would curtail.

The bolded part is where I caused them to recognize NAACP Inc's corporate first amendment rights.

It's bad because I caused it, of course, but are there any other reasons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, you're being almost civil here, so I will be too. 

I do not get why you support corporate rights over human rights. 

The US founders made a lot of mistakes, but they were pretty united in their 

hatred of corporations.

And note that the word "corporation" appears NOWHERE in the US constitution. 

Back to thread topic - Sen Warren's suspicions about corporate mal and misfeasance are very well founded, and a main 

reason why people support her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2019 at 8:52 PM, phillysailor said:

And the truth is, every rightie here tries to lambaste & sow division with each & every slip up by a Democrat...

Speaking of Irony......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

The bolded part is where I caused them to recognize NAACP Inc's corporate first amendment rights.

It's bad because I caused it, of course, but are there any other reasons?

 

5 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Tom, you're being almost civil here, so I will be too. 

I do not get why you support corporate rights over human rights. 

Is that what I did in posting the Supreme Court's 1963 holding that NAACP Inc has corporate first amendment rights?

I don't see how that places human first amendment rights above or below those of corporations. I think both are important and your guess that I support one more than the other is wrong.

Ya know, it's that pesky modern premise of the minority still having a voice, even if it's a corporate one. And people who want to cen$or corporations like the NAACP and Citizens United want to squelch that voice. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Back to thread topic - Sen Warren's suspicions about corporate mal and misfeasance are very well founded, and a main 

reason why people support her. 

On that topic, she's been a yuge supporter of the Bank of Boeing. That's where taxpayers take the risk when Boeing sells airliners to dodgy governments who are not prone to paying. She should be a bit more suspicious.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously too incompetent with money to be allowed anywhere near the reins of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 3:14 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

 

Is that what I did in posting the Supreme Court's 1963 holding that NAACP Inc has corporate first amendment rights?

I don't see how that places human first amendment rights above or below those of corporations. I think both are important and your guess that I support one more than the other is wrong.

Ya know, it's that pesky modern premise of the minority still having a voice, even if it's a corporate one. And people who want to cen$or corporations like the NAACP and Citizens United want to squelch that voice. 

That’s an important and tricky point you are making. To delve into it further is to try to decide if some groups are more worthy of protection than others. As much as libs would like to think it’s easy, usually when the government tries to get it right they end up doing it wrong.

I still think there are ways of getting $ out of politics while leaving political speech protected.  I don’t equate them as consanguineous, no matter what CU says. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

consanguineous

Nice - I like it when I have to look the damned thing up. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citizens United was badly reasoned, and corruptly carried out (no one had even asked the court to rule on the issue). 

It is what one expects from a Reichist SCOTUS, and makes a joke of "rule of law" prattle. 

President Warren will take care of that oligarchic $ control of our politics, and if she has to pack the court to do it - I say good on her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

President Warren will take care of that oligarchic $ control of our politics

Do you actually believe that? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mickey Rat said:

Do you actually believe that? :D

I can tell you that she will work to get money out of politics, but she will face implacable corporate, oligarchic and GOPPER opposition. 

She does have a record of fulfilling a difficult promise to create the CFPB, which has saved average people billions. What GOPPER has done that? 

Nearly all Dems are on board with $ reform - the current oligarchic wonderland is totally broken, even allowing foreign money to pour in. 

Of course, the modern GOP is just fine with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Elizabeth Warren Claims Two Men In Colonial Outfits Assaulted Her With Smallpox-Infested Blankets

 

article-3741-1.jpg

https://babylonbee.com/news/elizabeth-warren-claims-two-men-in-colonial-outfits-assaulted-her-with-smallpox-infested-blankets/

 

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a statement to D.C. police given Tuesday, senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren claimed that two men in colonial outfits accosted her on the street and assaulted her with smallpox-infected blankets.

Warren claimed she was simply on her evening walk with her favorite peyote blend when the two men leaped out of the bushes, fired a round, spent several minutes reloading their muzzle-loading rifles, fired again, and then hollered "battle cries" as they hurled smallpox-infested blankets at her.

"The men fired muskets at me, threw several blankets infested with smallpox in my general direction, and told me this was colonial country," she said, holding back tears. "They told me to go back to my reservation and that I wasn't welcome here."

According to Warren, the men stuck a feather in her hair and then called her "macaroni" before dancing around her in a mock Native American rain dance.

"It is just despicable to me that in 2019 a woman can still be targeted for lynching because of her .0001% Indian heritage," she said in a press conference. "This is Trump's America, people."

Police quickly poked holes in Warren's story, such as the fact that she never dropped her peace pipe throughout the ordeal and that she left the smallpox blankets and mock Indian headdress on herself as she walked to the police department to make her statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, the US Reich sells nukes to Saudi Islamists . .

and your daughters to whomsoever 

both for cash 

How does this post differ from the previous ?  

Answer: It is true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Meanwhile, the US Reich

To all the rest of the PA denizens here, I just would like to warn you that AJ seems to me to be the person most likely to snap in the next few years here and actually cause some real harm ITRW.  His continued and almost fanatical use of the term "US Reich" and the rest of his single issue rantings sounds to me like someone who might go blow up a gov't building or gun down a group of Congress critters playing softball.  I'm not saying he will do it or is an imminent threat - just that he seems like the person most likely to cross that line someday.  I hope I'm wrong.  But I just wanted to put that out there before I put him on ignore.  

Just saying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

To all the rest of the PA denizens here, I just would like to warn you that AJ seems to me to be the person most likely to snap in the next few years here and actually cause some real harm ITRW.  His continued and almost fanatical use of the term "US Reich" and the rest of his single issue rantings sounds to me like someone who might go blow up a gov't building or gun down a group of Congress critters playing softball.  I'm not saying he will do it or is an imminent threat - just that he seems like the person most likely to cross that line someday.  I hope I'm wrong.  But I just wanted to put that out there before I put him on ignore.  

Just saying.  

Good call Jeff. I raised this issue a couple weeks ago. AJ claims to be a "Political Scientist," whatever that is. Christian Science is more scientific.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers on the right but most of us still  have the middle view. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Political Science is one of the more bullshit, slider degrees that one can obtain at university.

There used to be (maybe still is) a program called AnthroPoliSoc that stood for Anthropology, Political Science and Sociology.

It was what was taken by all the students who couldn't make it in a real program like engineering or science.

I knew a woman who was in it here in the 70's - they studied such things as "The dynamics of a telephone conversation".

"Hello"?

"Now, what is meant by this"? :lol::rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Term Limits! said:

Yepper. PhDs are available online.

 

PhDs are available in most things online

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now