Comments Posted By C3
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 73 Comments
YOUNG, STUPID THINK PROGRESS RESEARCHER LOSES SANITY IN PUBLIC
If were going to argue over the utility of a capitalist system "managing" health care then lets just "cut to the chase" and eliminate all profit. Let's pay doctors a "living wage" say $80,000 and pay hospitals at the rate we pay say rural hospitals, eliminate any profit in medication production or sales ....
If were not going to go that route can we stop with the arguments about what's "good profit" (i.e. a heart surgeon earning $300,000) and what's "bad profit" (anything by a health insurance company...)
Comment Posted By c3 On 28.09.2009 @ 16:08
GET READY FOR 'HOUSING MELTDOWN: THE SEQUEL'
My wife is a realtor in Phx and the market has picked up. Very many short sales by owners. The banks are slowly digesting the short sales and the foreclosures. Investors are very much back in the game buying these low cost homes , upgrading them and then selling, particularly for the low end housing. Many first time buyers coming into the market because of the low prices and the government programs for first time buyers. The problems that remain: 1) will you own the home long-term and if no will the house appreciate at all. (Though for many the prices as so low that the monthly mortgage payments are about the same as a rental) 2) As jobs sputter how many folks who didn't have subprime mortgages but who are underwater will default? 3)high end market not so good 4) Everyone keeps waiting for the commercial real estate collapse but hasn't happened yet? 5) many bank closures.
But I must say, to counteract Mr. Moore, the market is working, not without pain but it is working
PS This may be one case where the generational shift in dollars worked for the millenials. I believe a lot of the foreclosures and short sales were with young families up to empty-nesters. The twenty-something's were renting and now they're taking advantage of the the low cost homes on the market. Maybe that will help ease some of the pain as these twenty somethings become thirty-something's and begin to pay for all that this administration has "bought"
Comment Posted By c3 On 24.09.2009 @ 18:01
THE LEFT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT JOE WILSON
Once again the Dems are distracted. Will this episode gain more votes in the Senate for a health care bill? Will it endear the American public to the Congress? Why can't the Dems express their horror and shock and then move on. Even the President has the sense to move on from this distraction.
Comment Posted By c3 On 11.09.2009 @ 17:29
WOULD SOMEONE ON THE LEFT PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME?
I would suggest that the core reason why you hear such vociferous protests from the left about the right on this issuesis that they're more pissed off at the President but don't feel at liberty to openly and loudly express that.
Comment Posted By c3 On 8.09.2009 @ 17:55
THE FORMERLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG KNOWN AS REDSTATE
went over and read the comments. Yup, you got "roasted". Is it really surprising given all of the "shouting" on the blogs that that happened. IMHO, regular readers of too many blogs just look for an opportunity to vent their spleen either in vehement disagreement of the post or in vehement agreement with "piling on" the other side.
There IS something compelling about reading the blogs but they clearly bring out the worst in folks. Its the internet version of road rage. Are we surprised of all of the shouting at the town halls? It was just blogging in person. (and provided more fuel for the blogs.) We're losing the ability (on both sides) to quietly but clearly disagree.
Oh an finally, Rick, mentioning Conor Freidersdorf at RedState is not a good thing.
Comment Posted By c3 On 1.09.2009 @ 16:32
RedState is a primarily a cheerleading site. Higher "anger" level of commenters than RWNH but the "max heat" level is about the same. I haven't seen consistent left of center commentary on RedState as I've seen here. Frankly, both sites rely too much on ridicule. (Having said that I'd prefer to read RWNH than RedState.)
Comment Posted By c3 On 1.09.2009 @ 16:14
Rick;
I agree that Palin was over the top. Having said that I still wasn't clear why the specific inclusion of a payment for advanced care directives was in the bill since physicians already had the ability to bill for "counselling" (including advanced care counselling) in the Medicare Regs. If specifically including it in a bill would increase advance care planning then I'm all for it.Lovona;
I am not against advance directives but against people being paid to encourage them.
Advanced directives are simply a mechanism to tell care providers what you absolutely don't want if you can't express yourself (i.e. in a coma). You can just as easily state in your advanced directions that your "want everything" as you can state "you don't want continued ventilation if you're unlikely to recover". The process of advanced directives doesnt' suggest more or less treatment it just makes explicit one's wishes.
Frankly, I've seen it protect a patient who wants ventilation but who's family wouldn't want it for the "loved one". In the absence of advanced directives doctors and hospitals tend to do "everything".
Comment Posted By c3 On 14.08.2009 @ 12:46
Mark;
If you feel that your options in Massachusetts are too expensive then we are in very deep trouble. I say that because as "generous" or "ungenerous" you found the coverage options in Massachusetts, they are part of a grand plan to cover the uninsured that is already wildly over budget.Having said that, when you speak of incorporating the best of the Netherlands, France, UK and Canada, did you have specific policies in mind?
Comment Posted By c3 On 13.08.2009 @ 13:09
An FYI. I came across this report from HHS (Bush administration) with the "leg work" by Lewin Group. (warning PDF) (Yes, I've seen Lewin disparaged on the Left because they are owned by United Healthcare). It uses the Mass reforms as a reference point. I think its fairly balanced between costs and benefits. Its interesting that (if I'm reading it correctly) an implementation of a "mixed" approach a la Massachusetts would cost the Federal Government $156 billion more a year. Doing the math that's $1.5 trillion over ten years, in the "ballpark" of the Obama numbers.
I've seen that. It is interesting except MA reforms are busting the budget there. Their subsidy has gone up 50% in 3 years. In short, it's not working to bring down costs although it is insuring more people.
ed.
Comment Posted By c3 On 12.08.2009 @ 15:28
Rick;
I liked this editorial in the WSJ from the founder of Whole Foods. It outlines some worthwhile counter proposals to the Democratic plan.Rich, who has been a medical insurance consultant for more than a quarter century, sees a senior citizen backlash coming against the Dems.
If this is so then I'd have long-term concerns for the Republican Party. How can you preach fiscal responsibility if a core constituency is adamantly against changing two large federal entitlements that are "going under" (Medicare in 2017 and Social Security in ?2045)?
Comment Posted By c3 On 12.08.2009 @ 13:58
