The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

[BassAle]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

-Do you believe that the theory of evolution is true? 57% its true

-Do you believe that they sky is blue? 57% it's true

We are doomed if our population is really this stupid (or so weak minded that they are convinced some fairy tale explains the world around them).

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Only 42%! I would have thought higher. Doing a lot of the sick call lately. Amazing what people think is a reason to pay a co-payment. I would love to be a documentary reporter and ask them what motivated them to come when they have been sick for less than a day or why they keep following up to say they did nothing they were advised to do.

Secondary finding of the study: approximately 42% of doctors are honest.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

-Do you believe that they sky is blue? 57% it's true

We are doomed if our population is really this stupid (or so weak minded that they are convinced some fairy tail explains the world around them).

I like the mental image of a "fairy tail."

Here's the thing. That 57% who believes that evolution is either consistent with or takes precedence over a literal interpretation of scripture might be the highest percentage ever. One of the things that's happened over time is we have pulled the hindmost into our data collection. This is why, for instance, general knowledge has seemed to decrease over time. It hasn't -- it's just that we used to miss the really ignorant portions of the population because they weren't even surveyed. Now we're getting all the data, and admittedly it looks terrible, but it used to be even worse -- it was just hidden.

As long as we can keep free public education universal, we'll keep pulling people up in the aggregate, and, what may be more important, we'll keep finding the gems in every strata. Those are really the two jobs of free public education: raise everybody to the level they're capable of, however modest, and rescue any future stars who lose the birth lottery.

 

[duper]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I like the mental image of a "fairy tail."

Here's the thing. That 57% who believes that evolution is either consistent with or takes precedence over a literal interpretation of scripture might be the highest percentage ever. One of the things that's happened over time is we have pulled the hindmost into our data collection. This is why, for instance, general knowledge has seemed to decrease over time. It hasn't -- it's just that we used to miss the really ignorant portions of the population because they weren't even surveyed. Now we're getting all the data, and admittedly it looks terrible, but it used to be even worse -- it was just hidden.

As long as we can keep free public education universal, we'll keep pulling people up in the aggregate, and, what may be more important, we'll keep finding the gems in every strata. Those are really the two jobs of free public education: raise everybody to the level they're capable of, however modest, and rescue any future stars who lose the birth lottery.

Horace Mann would be proud.

 

[pirate]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I like the mental image of a "fairy tail."

Here's the thing. That 57% who believes that evolution is either consistent with or takes precedence over a literal interpretation of scripture might be the highest percentage ever. One of the things that's happened over time is we have pulled the hindmost into our data collection. This is why, for instance, general knowledge has seemed to decrease over time. It hasn't -- it's just that we used to miss the really ignorant portions of the population because they weren't even surveyed. Now we're getting all the data, and admittedly it looks terrible, but it used to be even worse -- it was just hidden.

As long as we can keep free public education universal, we'll keep pulling people up in the aggregate, and, what may be more important, we'll keep finding the gems in every strata. Those are really the two jobs of free public education: raise everybody to the level they're capable of, however modest, and rescue any future stars who lose the birth lottery.

I would suspect you aren't just shooting from the hip here...is there info out there that supports this concept that all of our perception of academic capability is based on differences in sampling methodology?

What time horizon are you using? I would be surprised to learn that we weren't sampling or surveying properly in the last 20-40 years. Before that it would make more sense I guess although I don't recall disclaimers to that effect.

And while some might point to the the infusion of immigrants as 'hurting' test scores, do the surveys mentioned account for the influx of people from India, China etc. that may improve average scores?

Lastly, I thought dropout rates were still high and the bottom rung were not appreciably more intelligent than they were in the past...if anything I thought the bottom rung were declining, even with the impact of more dropouts (assuming not a lot of honors students are dropping out). However, that is more perception than analysis of data.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I would suspect you aren't just shooting from the hip here...is there info out there that supports this concept that all of our perception of academic capability is based on differences in sampling methodology?

I'm actually shooting from studies I had to pour through during my grad student days that were indeed cautionary tales about sampling methodology. They would go something like this: 80% of high school sophomores in NYC in 1935 could identify all 48 (?) states. 80% of high school sophomores in NYC in 1975 couldn't find their own ass with two hands and a map. So the public school system has failed, right? Wrong, because in 1935 only 2% of the population of 16 year olds ever made it to sophomore year, while in 1975 the city school systems were packed with... students from families not noted for their devotion to academic excellence.

But to address your statement, even though I am a very strong believer in public education I also think "all" is going too far -- I'm sure there has been some erosion of quality in public education in the same way that there's been a general erosion in all intellectual standards, public or private. We are most certainly a dopier nation, but I think that has much more to do with consumption smothering all competing virtues. Other gods demand effort and self-improvement; the Market only asks you to stand slack-jawed before the feeder bar.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Congratulations Republicans. The Destruction of the Middle Class is almost complete.

After modest increases last year, the cost of job-based health insurance for families and individuals has jumped sharply this year, even though insurers are paying less in benefits as cash-strapped American workers opt for less medical care.

What is clear, however, is that family coverage premiums have climbed 113 percent since 2001, compared with a 34 percent rise in workers' wages and a 27 percent increase in inflation over the period.

Indeed, profits continue to pour in for insurers, who are spending less for services as covered workers postpone doctor visits and other elective medical procedures during the economic downturn.

Other insurers may have set rates higher this year thinking that the health law would increase their costs. But analysis by Kaiser and the federal government found that provisions in the new law enacted last year probably accounted for only 1 to 2 percentage points of this year's premium increases.

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/wellness/130680228.html

Burn Rome Burn.

 

[pirate]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Congratulations Republicans. The Destruction of the Middle Class is almost complete.






http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/wellness/130680228.html

Burn Rome Burn.

Scooby

This may not account for any of the data you mention but I recently was exposed to the difference in cost between the family doctor and the local urgent care facility, which have multiplied like horny rabbits in the last 10 years.

Now, not knowing the cost my insurance would pay, I have gone to the urgent care facility for an injury to my son requiring immediate care, strep throat that could have been addressed during doctor's hours and a mild alergic reaction that also could have been handled at the doctor.

Once I was made aware of how much it cost to go to urgent care and how little it would have cost to go to the doctor, I swore we'd only go in really urgent situations. The numbers escape me but we're talking several multiples of cost to do one treatment vs. the other.

When I have gone to urgent care it is always crowded and it sure isn't filled with people paying their own way...the sliding window talk is all about insurance cards, what insurance covers etc.

It couldn't account for much of the changes but i would suspect the national association of urgent care facilities (?) produces some info on the growth of such facilities. I actually know someone that left a GOOD job to open one that is actually part of a national chain of urgent care facilities. Never been there but I suspect they are always crowded.

Some companies are moving to more pronounced spending accounts that provide an allocation of insurance money to their employees and let them spend it like cash vs. unseen invoices and tiny co-pays. The point is that all of the people have a family doctor and they will be more inclined to visit them vs. urgent care once they figure out the difference in cost. They also can carry the account over year-to-year which incents them to be responsible with the money.

The cynic would say this hurts the person but if health care costs go down it will hopefully benefit all members of the system over time.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

This is most certainly true- except for having the family Doc part. In our area there are only 2 docs taking new patients. Waits for a first visit vary and may be up to a 3 month wait. The urgent care part also penalizes the primary Doc. We lose money if the patient goes to urgent care because the insurance keeps a withhold that is predicated on certain incentives. One of the many is utilization of urgent care when the office is open. So the only people who win are those clinics.

People also get really burnt if they require a referral to the clinic and we don't give it because they never called us. Of course if we actually had national health care this financial dancing around would be moot and we the utilization/dollar thing would not be a thorn in the side. Think of the saved cash- all those people who sit in some office acting like police for the insurances would be out of a job.....oh, wait, that would kill jobs....never mind.

 

[joecct]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Those of you in the medical field --- what do you think of concierge doctors?

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Those of you in the medical field --- what do you think of concierge doctors?

If you have the cash and the doc is good worth every penny. If the Doc is bad it is a scam. They have a bunch of those popping up around here for primaries.

The main reason is you have to see obscene numbers of patients to get by the withholds to make money- I don't mean big money, I mean enough to keep afloat money. Primary care is the least reimbursed and they are requiring more and more without recompense. We lose withhold (basically they fine you by keeping back a portion of money and only giving it to you if your patients meet certain standards) for things that we have absolutely no control over even if we have a signed document stating the patient acknowledges the risk and declines. If they don't have a bill for a service it didn't happen.

Example: patient is a diabetic. They are required to get an eye exam every yr to meet the measure. You tell them and document you did so. They don't go for what ever reason. You lose cash. If they have seperate eye plan they aren't billed thru the insurance so insurance says they didn't do it. You need to waste staff valuable time chasing that Doc for documentation, proving it was done. They have measures for certain meds. The patient uses a independent pharm plan- they don't even take proof for that. You just lose cash (this is stooopid- they aren't shelling out cash, the pt is). If I tell you to get a colonoscopy and you don't- I lose cash because my patient is not meeting measures for health prevention. All this generates enough paperwork with checking, crosschecking and chasing patients that some larger practices literally hire a person who just works on collecting info to optimize their withhold.

Many insurances now require the primary to meet the patient's needs for things that were taboo before. If a specialist drops the ball the primary is supposed to monitor the progress and order stuff the specialist should have to meet the measures Don't pick up the pieces then the withhold gets penalized. If the patient needs a specialist not in network, the PHO refuses the referral the primary is the one that has to jump thru hoops even if the patient has a relationship with the specialist for yrs. They are also tiering providers. If you have a pt load with a lot of complexity you have to order a lot more stuff. Patient's aren't stratified. If you order a lot then you are tiered with higher copay even if the testing is appropriate. I will stop now but you get the idea.

Concierge med allows the Doc to avoid a lot of that. They take patients that they chose- they can leave out the super complex ones that eat up the withhold or they can charge enough money so they can decrease the pts they see and actually practice medicine the way it should be done rather than scrambling to keep up. If you get an honest Doc who is a hard worker this is great. If you get a not so good one they make lots of cash but the 'service' the pt get is awful.

Did I mention that I would retire in a minute if I was independently wealthy even tho I love medicine. The crap that goes with it is getting overwhelming.

 

[BassAle]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I like the mental image of a "fairy tail."

oops

 

[joecct]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

So Les,

Lets say I pay $4,000/yr for health insurance. If I pay my concierge doc most of that and buy a major medical hospitalization policy with the rest, am I better or worse off??

Of course I just lost the dental, vision, and other goodies that my provider now sells me.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

So Les,

Lets say I pay $4,000/yr for health insurance. If I pay my concierge doc most of that and buy a major medical hospitalization policy with the rest, am I better or worse off??

Of course I just lost the dental, vision, and other goodies that my provider now sells me.

I really don't know. That would depend on a whole bunch of stuff like what medical needs you have. 4K for seeing a Doc if you don't need them much is a lot. If you do need them alot then just having the major med could be expensive if you don't need to be hosp but medically go down the tubes. There are so many things to think about I wouldn't know where to start.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...e-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters

Just how big a deal is this?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...e-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters

Just how big a deal is this?

Potentially it's huge, but I would think there would be an agreement to back away from the precipice. The GOP has been seriously abusing Senate procedural rules for years, but this is as close as you can get to opening a can of whupass on the Hill.

Here's a very good play by play of what happened:

Senate Republicans, aware that some Democrats facing reelection are unwilling to vote for a jobs package that includes tax hikes on the wealthy, wanted to stage a vote to demonstrate the lack of party unity. But the chamber had already voted to move forward on a bill aimed at curtailing Chinese currency manipulation, which depresses the price of Chinese imports and hurts American manufacturers. That meant the chamber was in what's known as a post-cloture period.

McConnell moved to suspend the rules and shift debate over to the American Jobs Act. Reid argued that doing so amounted to another filibuster, because it required 60 votes to move back to the original bill, and so therefore was out of order. Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who happened to be the presiding officer at the time, asked the Senate parliamentarian what he thought. The parliamentarian advised Begich that McConnell's motion was in order.

Reid then appealed the ruling, following a script that advocates of ending the filibuster wrote long ago. What some senators call the "constitutional option," and what others call the "nuclear option," involves as a first step appealing a ruling that a filibuster is in order. The second step is to defeat a motion to table that appeal, which is exactly what happened next, with all but one Democrat sticking with Reid. (Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) voted against Reid; Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) didn't vote.)

With the chair overruled, McConnell's motion was declared out of order, setting a narrow precedent that motions to suspend the rules are out of order during a post-cloture period.

But it also set a more important precedent. The advice of the parliamentarian is considered sacrosanct in the Senate. Reid's decision to overrule him opens a gate to similar efforts that could also be done by majority vote. Republicans were quickly threatening to use the new power once they return to the majority. (Reid was a proponent of filibuster reform in 2010, but didn't pursue an effort earlier this year to reduce the number of votes needed in the Senate to move legislation forward.)

"McConnell likes to think of himself as a parliamentary wizard, but he had his lunch eaten twice today by Harry Reid," said a Senate Democratic aide.

A spokesman for McConnell argued that Democrats only took the dramatic step to avoid embarrassment, and were trying to spin the developments as principled. McConnell, he said, always intended to try to have the extra votes.

The collision was set up after McConnell confidently predicted Wednesday night that the China currency measure would fail.

But sources familiar with negotiations over the vote said McConnell failed to account for how determined some of his own members were to pass the currency measure, including Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) -- both who have industries in their states harmed by China's trade edge.

"Graham and Sessions went and whipped behind McConnell's back, and they got people to switch," a staffer said.

McConnell then apparently settled on a consolation prize of forcing the Democrats to take tough post-cloture votes, including on the president's jobs bill and on a measure to bar the EPA from regulating farm dust.

McConnell initially wanted 10 votes, and Democrats were willing to give him five. They ultimately settled on seven, a Democratic source said, and they told McConnell which ones they would accept.

That left the Democratic leaders in a sour mood to begin with, but then McConnell tried to insist on the farm dust measure offered by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.).

"We accepted the embarrassing vote on the president's jobs bill," a Democratic leadership source said. "Then he tried to jam the farm dust bill up our ***."

The problem for Democrats with the dust measure is that many don't want to undercut the EPA, and they also don't want to be made to look ridiculous by seeming to regulate natural dust at the expense of jobs. The EPA, however, has insisted the entire issue of regulating farm dust is a "myth." The agency has proposed toughening the standards to regulate particulate matter in the air.

Reid's move Thursday, in that context, is less abusive of Senate precedent than it first appears. The current rules create a situation in which two 60-vote thresholds must be met before a bill can pass, the first to end debate and the second to move to final passage. McConnell's move to suspend the rules could have created additional 60-vote hurdles, clearly in violation of the spirit of the post-cloture period, which is intended to be a short stretch until moving to final passage.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Potentially it's huge.

Agreed. I really dislike the nuclear option. A lot.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Agreed. I really dislike the nuclear option. A lot.

The true nuclear option would be getting rid of the 3/5ths cloture rule. This does not do that, but it does set a precedent by which you could. Of course, "precedent" isn't really a good word for it because these rules are all about tradition and courtesy (and Senatorial prestige), not statute nor Constitutional interpretation.

The symbolism of it is by far the biggest deal. I would much prefer rules reform where majorities of the sane in both parties tell the true crazies like Coburn and DeMint to stick it where the sun don't shine. This seems more like an out-and-out dick measuring contest between McConnell and Reid, to the discredit of both. And it makes bipartisan rules reform less likely (IMO) because of what will happen starting tomorrow with the nutbars on both sides. The public discourse on this is going to set a new low.

Here's an interesting article from almost 2 years ago about Robert Byrd doing the same thing in 1977.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

The true nuclear option would be getting rid of the 3/5ths cloture rule. This does not do that, but it does set a precedent by which you could. Of course, "precedent" isn't really a good word for it because these rules are all about tradition and courtesy (and Senatorial prestige), not statute nor Constitutional interpretation.

The symbolism of it is by far the biggest deal. I would much prefer rules reform where majorities of the sane in both parties tell the true crazies like Coburn and DeMint to stick it where the sun don't shine. This seems more like an out-and-out dick measuring contest between McConnell and Reid, to the discredit of both. And it makes bipartisan rules reform less likely (IMO) because of what will happen starting tomorrow with the nutbars on both sides. The public discourse on this is going to set a new low.

Here's an interesting article from almost 2 years ago about Robert Byrd doing the same thing in 1977.

Interesting.

While not surprising, I find it extremely sad it's come to this. I miss the government pre-December 19th, 2008.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Interesting.

While not surprising, I find it extremely sad it's come to this. I miss the government pre-December 19th, 2008.

1998?