tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4012972.post4489191554997341384..comments2023-10-26T04:55:15.538-07:00Comments on LEFT is RIGHT: Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09397271600807105747noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4012972.post-52431655505956217402009-07-31T09:05:30.573-07:002009-07-31T09:05:30.573-07:00I don't care if you get angry at me. But it d...I don't care if you get angry at me. But it doesn't make sense to get angry at the truth. That's just what tends to happen with government estimates. I don't know why the government is horrible at estimating costs. Maybe it's difficult to forecast or anticipate human behavior.muckdoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09964364454247504787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4012972.post-63499166656841988592009-07-31T07:30:15.187-07:002009-07-31T07:30:15.187-07:00How can you project the results of a program in a ...How can you project the results of a program in a state containing 2% of the country's population to the country as a whole? That's horrible statistical analysis. Plus, the programs already aren't even the same in structure, and the national program is still being designed in Congress. You state "facts" that don't even exist. Come back when you have something constructive to say.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397271600807105747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4012972.post-59930787331575555262009-07-30T21:32:45.448-07:002009-07-30T21:32:45.448-07:00I didn't say 45 million people are a burden to...I didn't say 45 million people are a burden to society. I said adding that many to our infrastructure would be an oustanding demonstration of Econ 1A's supply-demand. Costs would go up, waiting times would lengthen.<br /><br />I don't need to pull any numbers out of my ass. Just <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2009/07/mass_treasurer_rips_mandated_h.html" rel="nofollow">look at Massachusetts</a>:<br /><br /><em>-- The program has so far cost 30 percent more than anticipated.<br /><br />-- It already has a $9 billion shortfall projected over the next two years.<br /><br />-- Costs have risen 41 percent since the program's inception, well outpacing the rise in healthcare costs nationwide, which stands at 18 percent.<br /><br />-- We thought this program would mean fewer people would go to hospitals, which is the highest cost any insurance plan has to pay. In fact, fewer people are not going to hospitals.<br /><br />-- A Harvard study shows 60 percent of state residents are unhappy with the plan. The most unhappy? Those whom it should be helping the most -- those making $25,000 to $50,000 per year.<br /><br />-- To cut costs, the program is now having to kick out legal immigrants.</em><br /><br />And what about <a href="http://www.merritthawkins.com/pdf/mha2009waittimesurvey.pdf" rel="nofollow">wait times</a>?<br /><br /><em>There is, as would be expected, a noticeable variance by city. Boston is the noticeable outlier, with an average wait time of 49.6 days versus the 20.5 day average overall. Why would the wait be so long in Boston?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Merritt Hawkins has a theory: "Long wait times in Boston may be driven in part by the healthcare reform initiative that was put in place in Massachusetts in 2006. The initiative succeeded in covering many of the state’s uninsured patients. However, it has been reported that many patients in Massachusetts are encountering difficulty in accessing physicians. Survey results support these reports. Long appointment wait times in Boston also may signal what could happen nationally in the event that access to healthcare is expanded through healthcare reform. Increased demand resulting from improved access to care for approximately 47 million uninsured people can be expected to extend doctor appointment wait times in many markets."</em>muckdoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09964364454247504787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4012972.post-69300178509561156402009-07-30T07:58:53.030-07:002009-07-30T07:58:53.030-07:00Muckdog:
So your ass, from which you extracted yo...Muckdog:<br /><br />So your ass, from which you extracted your "5 Trillion" figure, is a better resource than the government's financial analysts? Wow, I'd really like to see it.<br /><br />You imply that 45 million uninsured Americans is a burden on society. That's the Conservative mantra: people who cannot help themselves must be ignored or encouraged to go buy some bootstraps. It's not a burden, it's a travesty of monumental proportions, an embarrassment to all of us (who care) and a disgrace to humanity.<br /><br />Once you Conservatives start showing an inkling of compassion for suffering Americans, the rest of us will start taking you seriously. In the meantime, we'll continue listening to you just to reassure ourselves that we're not shadowboxing.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397271600807105747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4012972.post-7792447158098913092009-07-29T19:18:38.853-07:002009-07-29T19:18:38.853-07:00Do they earnestly believe that there's absolut...<i>Do they earnestly believe that there's absolutely nothing that needs to be done about health care in this country?</i><br /><br />As a fiscal conservative, I identify with the "blue dog" democrats and the fiscal conservative republicans on this one. Obviously, I don't really care too much about what the Progressives or social conservative republicans have to say about anything.<br /><br />Two concerns: Cost and quality.<br /><br />As the CBO has said, the current plan will increase the deficit and not save anything. We'll spend far more than we are spending now. I'm one to think that when the government says "It will cost $1 Trillion," that the actual cost will be closer to $5 Trillion. Government estimates usually understate costs. Or just don't anticipate costs or growth.<br /><br />The second concern is quality. CNN had some doctors and patients from England on recently. They ration care. So does Canada. So does France. So does Massachusetts! It's impossible to add 45 million patients to the existing supply of doctors, nurses, and facilities and not expect ramifications to the nation's ability to provide health care. The result will be longer waits and increase costs. It's just economics.<br /><br />Does something need to be done? Sure. But Obama's #1 job right now should be the economy. He should be focusing like a laser beam on getting unemployment back to 5%. Gee, that'd give a lot of folks the means to buy health care right there.<br /><br />Just a take from a fiscal conservative.muckdoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09964364454247504787noreply@blogger.com