Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Consumer advocates fear that the health care law could worsen some of the very problems it was meant to solve — by reducing competition, driving up costs and creating incentives for doctors and hospitals to stint on care, in order to retain their cost-saving bonuses.

You weren't at all troubled by the tension between the first and second halves of that sentence?

Also, I know it really unpopular to say, but we need incentives for doctors and hospitals to "stint" on care.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You weren't at all troubled by the tension between the first and second halves of that sentence?

Also, I know it really unpopular to say, but we need incentives for doctors and hospitals to "stint" on care.

If stinting's what you want, giving subsidized health care insurance to 30 million people is an odd way to achieve it. Wouldn't the better approach have been leaving things as is?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If stinting's what you want, giving subsidized health care insurance to 30 million people is an odd way to achieve it. Wouldn't the better approach have been leaving things as is?

How many times do I have to explain that cost savings weren't the only goal?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Consumer advocates fear that the health care law could worsen some of the very problems it was meant to solve — by reducing competition, driving up costs and creating incentives for doctors and hospitals to stint on care, in order to retain their cost-saving bonuses.

Wow, with such a well though out, well crafted piece of legislation who'd have thunk this could happen. At least we can feel confident that all of the CBO estimates on costs savings will be accurate......right?

It's too bad that the conditions on the Hill made it difficult to get well crafted health-care reform policy enacted into law. If a simple majority could pass legislation in the Senate and we had two parties willing to put aside their immediate political interests to draft a bill that would be good for the country, imagine what they might have come up with.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Consumer advocates fear that the health care law could worsen some of the very problems it was meant to solve — by reducing competition, driving up costs and creating incentives for doctors and hospitals to stint on care, in order to retain their cost-saving bonuses.

Wow, with such a well though out, well crafted piece of legislation who'd have thunk this could happen. At least we can feel confident that all of the CBO estimates on costs savings will be accurate......right?

And what was the analysis of the alternative proposals?

The biggest problem I see in the HC bill right now is that many of the programs are phased in over too long a time period; the move to outcome based incentives is one of the best things about the bill, but cost-based incentives are coming first for a number of reasons. Perhaps one of the changes the Rs might want to propose with their newfound power is to allign the two incentive systems?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't flatter myself to think that gay men are checking me out all the time, but I think I might feel differently if I thought I was be checked out all the time, and I think women are much more in that position than men.

Changed the hypo.

And, in questioning your reaction, I'm assuming that, were all the male TSA officers gay, that the ratio of them who were pervy pervs who cannot act professionally in the course of their job would be substantially the same as among (1) TSA officers in general, and (2) gay men in general. Thus, even if every TSA officer were gay, and you were (a) attractive enough to warrant constant ogling from every gay man you encountered and (b) easily bothered by it, the likelihood of encountering an issue with being uncomfortably ogled by a TSA officer would be slim, while certainly possible.

Thus, I have a hard time meshing your hypothetical concern with the hypothetical situation with the rest of your viewpoints expressed here.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Changed the hypo.

And, in questioning your reaction, I'm assuming that, were all the male TSA officers gay, that the ratio of them who were pervy pervs who cannot act professionally in the course of their job would be substantially the same as among (1) TSA officers in general, and (2) gay men in general. Thus, even if every TSA officer were gay, and you were (a) attractive enough to warrant constant ogling from every gay man you encountered and (b) easily bothered by it, the likelihood of encountering an issue with being uncomfortably ogled by a TSA officer would be slim, while certainly possible.

Thus, I have a hard time meshing your hypothetical concern with the hypothetical situation with the rest of your viewpoints expressed here.

I'm not sure what annoys me most about the current storm over TSA screening, but I've narrowed it down to the following:

1. A small group of people who will bitch loudly about anything have decided to bitch about this.

2. People are actually proposing to disrupt security lines with an "opt-out" day on Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving. Great plan, people.

3. Participating in the discussion apparently requires thinking about Ty's junk.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

You weren't at all troubled by the tension between the first and second halves of that sentence?

Also, I know it really unpopular to say, but we need incentives for doctors and hospitals to "stint" on care.

It's irrelevant as to whether or not I'm troubled by it, I'm troubled that the legislation is looking like it will fail at one of its big goals, which I expect to be the start of a pattern.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's too bad that the conditions on the Hill made it difficult to get well crafted health-care reform policy enacted into law. If a simple majority could pass legislation in the Senate and we had two parties willing to put aside their immediate political interests to draft a bill that would be good for the country, imagine what they might have come up with.

Three words. Cop Out. In the private sector my solution would be to fire the mediocrities and incompetents...maybe that's what the election was about a few weeks ago.....

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

And what was the analysis of the alternative proposals?

The biggest problem I see in the HC bill right now is that many of the programs are phased in over too long a time period; the move to outcome based incentives is one of the best things about the bill, but cost-based incentives are coming first for a number of reasons. Perhaps one of the changes the Rs might want to propose with their newfound power is to allign the two incentive systems?

I agree that the phase ins are too long. As for the Rs fixing it, we know that won't happen, but that's not an excuse for poor legislation that wasn't strategically thought out, beyond the political gamesmanship.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

It's irrelevant as to whether or not I'm troubled by it, I'm troubled that the legislation is looking like it will fail at one of its big goals, which I expect to be the start of a pattern.

You conclude this from an article that includes a single sentence in which the author predicts both (1) the bill will lead to higher costs, and (2) the bill will lead providers will cut back on services to meet cost containment goals. Interesting.

I'm not sure how we know anymore today about how successful the bill will be than we did at the time of the vote.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'm not sure what annoys me most about the current storm over TSA screening, but I've narrowed it down to the following:

1. A small group of people who will bitch loudly about anything have decided to bitch about this.

2. People are actually proposing to disrupt security lines with an "opt-out" day on Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving. Great plan, people.

3. Participating in the discussion apparently requires thinking about Ty's junk.

Are you not troubled by kids being strip searched? There is a video of this on youtube. Looks like a 6 year old boy with his shirt off and the TSA agent feeling around his waistband. The kid's father (I assume) was right there with him and I'm not suggesting anything untoward happened, but in viewing it, you can't help but have a reaction that it's just wrong.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'm not sure what annoys me most about the current storm over TSA screening, but I've narrowed it down to the following:

1. A small group of people who will bitch loudly about anything have decided to bitch about this.

2. People are actually proposing to disrupt security lines with an "opt-out" day on Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving. Great plan, people.

3. Participating in the discussion apparently requires thinking about Ty's junk.

If I flew commercial, my bitch and moan would be the same as it was when I flew commercial...

1. what they are doing is likely not effecting any real safety improvement;

2. airlines' concepts of customer service are nil.

3. based on 1 and 2, I hope we, the people, let the industry fail the next time they need a tax payer bailout.

That said, I wouldn't opt out. that's whack. And lame. I'd be more impressed if there was a call for a Second Amendment style protest.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Are you not troubled by kids being strip searched? There is a video of this on youtube. Looks like a 6 year old boy with his shirt off and the TSA agent feeling around his waistband. The kid's father (I assume) was right there with him and I'm not suggesting anything untoward happened, but in viewing it, you can't help but have a reaction that it's just wrong.

Sidd's kids take communion at mass. He can handle this.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

You conclude this from an article that includes a single sentence in which the author predicts both (1) the bill will lead to higher costs, and (2) the bill will lead providers will cut back on services to meet cost containment goals. Interesting.

I'm not sure how we know anymore today about how successful the bill will be than we did at the time of the vote.

No, i am not just relying on the sentence. I'm relying on my industry expertise and what I hear in almost daily conversations within the industry, but given my limited experience/expertise that's probably all anecdotal.