The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

[Almington]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Link to information
Have you been to LA, or north eastern NJ? How about cleveland? Ever see the crap some of the munitions pour into the water? I am honestly not sure if it makes much of a difference.

It also doesn't help I am biased aginst the EPA since they won't allow my beloved Subaru Legacy Diesel to come stateside 50 highway MPG is pretty sick. However, particulate emissions don't pass standards especially in NY and CA.

Have you heard my outcry against QE1, QE2, Bailouts, DOD spending? the EPA is one of many. I also rail out against corn ethanol which consumes roughly 7 billion annually. I fail to see how concerning my self with EPA spending whilst mentioning health care costs are in any way mutually exclusive and hense, penny wise and dollar dumb. Both need to have costs cut, end of story.

It does matter, the measured reductions in nearly all type of pollutants is significant and becomes even more remarkable when you look at how energy use has increased in the last 40 years.

That is a major reduction and as bad as some places are today, they would be even worse without regulation. Regulation is far from perfect, it is a balancing act between the costs of the regulation with the benefits of regulation.

The primary goal of all environmental regulation is to protect human health and in doing so reduces doctor visits, hospitalizations, and premature deaths. How can reducing those not reduce health care costs? According to common saying: and ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Right, on one hand you have sulfer emissions from Diesel engines, but they are higher efficiency since its not a spark ignotion like our regular autos. Thus they get more highway MPG, but have a myriad of other problems. I just want my 50 mpg , 750 mile range all wheel drive suby =)

Europe uses them much more frequently, but since gas is more expensive, overall people drive less. Their landmass is also smaller which helps,

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

It does matter, the measured reductions in nearly all type of pollutants is significant and becomes even more remarkable when you look at how energy use has increased in the last 40 years.

That is a major reduction and as bad as some places are today, they would be even worse without regulation. Regulation is far from perfect, it is a balancing act between the costs of the regulation with the benefits of regulation.

The primary goal of all environmental regulation is to protect human health and in doing so reduces doctor visits, hospitalizations, and premature deaths. How can reducing those not reduce health care costs? According to common saying: and ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

What this tells me is that cars have gotten more efficient, we burn less 'dirty' fossil fuels for energy, and that a list of pollutants (whichever they deem) have gone down. Can't disagree with most of that. Engineers have done a great job getting cars to be more efficient, and america in general has actually led the way in terms of being energy efficient. ( more on that if anyone cares, it would be a bit of a diversion)

What about a graph showing healthcare costs, obesity and the like. Can anyone say the US has gotten thinner or healthier in the past 30 years?

 

[Priceless]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Yes, some of the cuts are going to be painful. Very few people envy the idea of paying more in taxes. That's why I gave the example of British morale in WWII. When is the last time we as a nation were asked to sacrifice ANYTHING? When the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan came about, we were told to go shopping. After 9/11 taxes were cut and checks were sent. We didn't really sacrifice during the oil shock of the 70's, that was imposed on us. We did the Mercury and Apollo programs, but did Americans really sacrifice anything to get to space? It was a free ride. The last time Americans had to really sacrifice was the Great Depression and WWII. I think the politicians are vastly underrating Americans' ability to adapt to (and accept) change. Compromise is how we've so often moved forward, it's how we can again. Neither side is going to be to run roughshod over the other.

So it seems I asked the wrong question in the beginning. There are several ways to balance the budget and pay down the debt. The question is how do we convince politicians on both sides that compromise is NOT a dirty word and the people are looking to them for LEADERSHIP?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Yes, some of the cuts are going to be painful. Very few people envy the idea of paying more in taxes. That's why I gave the example of British morale in WWII. When is the last time we as a nation were asked to sacrifice ANYTHING? When the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan came about, we were told to go shopping. After 9/11 taxes were cut and checks were sent. We didn't really sacrifice during the oil shock of the 70's, that was imposed on us. We did the Mercury and Apollo programs, but did Americans really sacrifice anything to get to space? It was a free ride. The last time Americans had to really sacrifice was the Great Depression and WWII. I think the politicians are vastly underrating Americans' ability to adapt to (and accept) change. Compromise is how we've so often moved forward, it's how we can again. Neither side is going to be to run roughshod over the other.

So it seems I asked the wrong question in the beginning. There are several ways to balance the budget and pay down the debt. The question is how do we convince politicians on both sides that compromise is NOT a dirty word and the people are looking to them for LEADERSHIP?

Priceless and I are agreeing a lot. What's up with that?

Bottom line is, sacrifice isn't in the lexicon of the average American. You're right. We really haven't had to sacrifice in a meaningful way within most of our lifetimes. On convincing politicians, I think that's a chicken and egg question. You need to have both politicians and voters convinced that this has to be done. And I'm not sure the average politician or voter is convinced at this point.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Yes, some of the cuts are going to be painful.

It's interesting that Ryan's plan is to destroy Medicare when the simple fix is just to raise the age of eligibility and means test it. I mean seriously, what's the problem here really? If they woul just use some logic instead of pandering we would be so much further along.

 

[Almington]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Priceless and I are agreeing a lot. What's up with that?

I think that many of us who normally disagree are able to find common ground on this topic because we recognize that this problem is larger then any one idealogy or set of beliefs. Regardless of what you believe about the proper role of government, this is a problem of our own making that must be solved in both the short and long term before we can seriously address the other issues that we need to face. No point in painting the house if the foundation is crumbling.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

It's interesting that Ryan's plan is to destroy Medicare when the simple fix is just to raise the age of eligibility and means test it. I mean seriously, what's the problem here really? If they woul just use some logic instead of pandering we would be so much further along.

I don't know about this, but I wonder if the massive growth in Medicare is fully addressed by raising the age of eligibility and means testing? I think what Ryan is trying to do by setting specific amounts for vouchers is to get the feds away from getting clobbered by the massive growth of health care costs from year to year, which I suspect could swamp even the savings from raising the age of eligibility and means testing it. It seems like even if you raise the age of eligibility and means test, the costs of serving those still eligible would still go up significantly from year to year, causing further budget problems down the road.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I think that many of us who normally disagree are able to find common ground on this topic because we recognize that this problem is larger then any one idealogy or set of beliefs. Regardless of what you believe about the proper role of government, this is a problem of our own making that must be solved in both the short and long term before we can seriously address the other issues that we need to face. No point in painting the house if the foundation is crumbling.

So, who gets to the head the ticket, you or I?

 

[Almington]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

So, who gets the head the ticket, you or I?

It would have to be you, as I am ineligible to run I have not yet reached the constitutionally mandated age for presidential consideration.

Medicare costs can't keep increasing at 2% over the rate of inflation in any sustainable scenario. That is what Ryan's plan tries to do by shifting over to a government funded insurance voucher system that is based on the one that federal employees currently use. If you allow everyone over 65/68 to sign up for basic insurance at the governments cost, but allow them to purchase additional coverage as they choose, I don't really see anything wrong with that. The key is that you let the market keep the costs of basic coverage down, provided that the government regulates what is covered by the basic policy and that it is a generally sufficient level of coverage.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I wrote to Senator Snowe and suggested that as a somewhat moderate voice in the Senate, she could propose a deal. Perhaps a personal appeal will go over better than a form letter. It may not get any results, but I tried. I encourage others to do likewise. Find your member of Congress.

Dear Senator Snowe,

You are perhaps the most moderate member of the Senate remaining. The Bill Cohens and David Borens are gone. You have also spoken intelligently about the budget mess in which we now find ourselves. I am a liberal. I make no bones about it. I've served as town chair of the local Democratic Party (and once told a newspaper that we'd love to have you as a member! An invitation that still stands) and have campaigned for liberal causes in several states. The plan put forth by Congressman Ryan is the next to last thing I want to see happen. But the last thing I want is for the American dollar to become a worthless piece of paper and what was once a great nation fade into history. That is why I'm asking you to put aside party labels and be the leader the people (and frankly, both parties) desperately need.

We can point fingers and blame the other guy for the problems we face or we can commit to solving them together. It's going to be painful for most Americans, but if we spread the pain out over the entire population it won't be nearly as bad. There are a lot of federal programs I love that are going to face cuts. Rare is the person who enjoys paying taxes and wants to pay more. If the budget crisis is solved from both ends then the cuts needn't be so extreme and taxes needn't be raised that much. The budget can easily be balanced if the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare are raised slightly and the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are allowed to expire as they should have.

The problem is that when We the People are asked to choose it's either/or. Elections are won by demonizing the other side, so polls always ask if the retirement age should be raised to 75 or the top rate should be 50, 60% or higher. There is an obvious middle ground where both sides can share the success, the blame, the pain and the reward. No one side is ever going to be able to ram home the resolution they want - the answer lies in something that has become a dirty word in Washington: Compromise.

When I was in school I learned that compromise led to resolutions; that those who sought compromise were great leaders with integrity and a sense of fairness. I don't believe compromise is a dirty word or shows weakness or a character flaw. It shows strength and leadership.

I also think the American people have a greater capacity to sacrifice and band together than anyone in DC thinks. We just haven't been asked. It hasn't been sold to us as an idea. Politicians are so busy trying to divide us so they can win elections they have neglected to remind us of all the things we have in common and the great things we can achieve. No one has really asked us to sacrifice anything since World War II. I think we can. I think if we are talked to by our leaders as adults our possibilities are boundless.

The first step is going to be difficult. Whoever steps forward and announces a plan that doesn't favor one side or the other is going to be attacked on talk shows, in newspapers and probably even by other members of Congress. You are a veteran politician who has served in both chambers; this is nothing new for you. But the person who announces that plan will also earn a legacy beyond compare. That person could be you. I'm hoping that person will be you.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

that was actually really well written. Sort of embodies what we all need to do. If it came down to doing with less than I have as a person and as a nation, i'd step up and make it happen if it mean a better long term prospect for all involved. I don't think my generation knows what sacrifice and comprimise means. Sure, we learned about it in school but we are surrounded by politicians who are too childish to try and come to key comprimises. Its disheartening to be honest. A nation full of overgrown babies who will not budge until they get what they want. Fortunatly, we still have folks like the poster above me who still have their heads on straight.

Nicely done again.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I don't think my generation knows what sacrifice and comprimise means.

I completely disagree. I think our genera...OOOOH - PANDA BEAR POOPING ON YOUTUBE!!! GET MY iPHONE!!!

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I completely disagree. I think our genera...OOOOH - PANDA BEAR POOPING ON YOUTUBE!!! GET MY iPHONE!!!

how many ADD kids does it take to screw in a light bulb?

...

want to go ride bikes???

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I don't know about this, but I wonder if the massive growth in Medicare is fully addressed by raising the age of eligibility and means testing? I think what Ryan is trying to do by setting specific amounts for vouchers is to get the feds away from getting clobbered by the massive growth of health care costs from year to year, which I suspect could swamp even the savings from raising the age of eligibility and means testing it. It seems like even if you raise the age of eligibility and means test, the costs of serving those still eligible would still go up significantly from year to year, causing further budget problems down the road.

Again. I balanced the budget using the NY Times Simulator. The Times simulator does not means test for Medicare at all. For SS it does. So, my plan saves even more than the one I balanced out to 2030 using the tool. They do have means testing for SS and I did apply that.

Ryan's plan destroys the program. There's no debate about that. And I and the NY Times have proven you don't have to to balance the budget.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Again. I balanced the budget using the NY Times Simulator. The Times simulator does not means test for Medicare at all. For SS it does. So, my plan saves even more than the one I balanced out to 2030 using the tool. They do have means testing for SS and I did apply that.

Ryan's plan destroys the program. There's no debate about that. And I and the NY Times have proven you don't have to to balance the budget.

Now don't get a bee in your bonnet. I'm just wondering what kind of assumptions a simulator like the NY Times one uses. Obviously it has to make a variety of assumptions in creating its choices, and making assumptions on health care costs is probably one of the least precise.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Now don't get a bee in your bonnet. I'm just wondering what kind of assumptions a simulator like the NY Times one uses. Obviously it has to make a variety of assumptions in creating its choices, and making assumptions on health care costs is probably one of the least precise.

Behind the scenes

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Ryan's plan destroys the program.

It's not like his plan gets rid of it and leaves nothing behind. It simply replaces the concept of getting services and then having the government reimburse the doctors with handing people $X per year to get whatever coverage they want / whatever services they want up to that amount (at least this is my initial understanding of it based on a cursory reading of the news coverage of his proposal). My guess is the healthcare providers would prefer his approach, since the government's attempt to contain costs pretty much screws them over and forces them to limit the number of Medicare patients they're willing to take (if you're only getting $0.60 on the dollar for your services, that's not exactly a profitable way to run a practice).

 

[Tundra]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

What about a graph showing healthcare costs, obesity and the like. Can anyone say the US has gotten thinner or healthier in the past 30 years?

I really think it's food environment (HFCS, corn syrup, corn sugar or other processed food and prevalence of soda). I would love to see a study done comparing the calorie intake of countries with low % vs high % obesity rate and the type of food (processed, soda, HFCS etc...). Like does Japan have low usage of soda (HFCS) or food additives etc...

4x (400%) increase for Asians living in US seems to suggest it's the food environment. (amount of intake?, type of food?, chemical additives? ).

From the rate of obesity increase and autism in the last 30 years... it's clear there is damage to our body. Princeton research seems to suggest HFCS is metabolized faster, haven't seen any study disputing it from the food company scientist.

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2007/wang_adult_obesity.html

# 66% of U.S. adults were overweight or obese in 2003-2004.

# Asians have a lower obesity prevalence when compared to other ethnic groups. However, Asians born in the United States are four times more likely to be obese than their foreign-born counterparts.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

Rank Countries Amount
# 1 United States: 30.6%
# 2 Mexico: 24.2%
# 3 United Kingdom: 23%
# 4 Slovakia: 22.4%
# 5 Greece: 21.9%
# 6 Australia: 21.7%
# 7 New Zealand: 20.9%
# 8 Hungary: 18.8%
# 9 Luxembourg: 18.4%
# 10 Czech Republic: 14.8%
# 11 Canada: 14.3%
# 12 Spain: 13.1%
# 13 Ireland: 13%
# 14 Germany: 12.9%
= 15 Portugal: 12.8%
= 15 Finland: 12.8%
# 17 Iceland: 12.4%
# 18 Turkey: 12%
# 19 Belgium: 11.7%
# 20 Netherlands: 10%
# 21 Sweden: 9.7%
# 22 Denmark: 9.5%
# 23 France: 9.4%
# 24 Austria: 9.1%
# 25 Italy: 8.5%
# 26 Norway: 8.3%
# 27 Switzerland: 7.7%
= 28 Japan: 3.2%
= 28 Korea, South: 3.2%

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Yah, all that HFCS and other fillers that are used in so much food is a real concern. I know when my wife and I buy groceries, we go out of our way to buy stuff that doesn't have HFCS and other such primarily corn fillers, as well as food that is hopefully less processed. You start looking at labels though and you realize HFCS and such things is used all over the place.