Latest Comments by MunoRN

Latest Comments by MunoRN

MunoRN 29,816 Views

Joined Nov 18, '10. Posts: 7,501 (68% Liked) Likes: 18,070

Sorted By Last Comment (Past 5 Years)
  • 2
    heron and herring_RN like this.

    Quote from AndyB
    If you like a socialist country than maybe you need to find one. I hear Venezuela is all about socialism and communism. I understand getting subsides and help, for a short period, when things go wrong but it is time to stop the parasites who live off of others.
    I think you're confusing a socialism based government with socialized programs. Socialized programs like the military, police, fire department, and healthcare are not limited to socialist countries, and actually can be found in every industrialized country in the world, including the US. You criticized that these entities exist in the US but it's still not clear if you're saying we should just get rid of them.

    If what you would change is the time span of subsidies, how are you suggesting that would work? Would treatment of a health condition only be done for a certain amount of time after the diagnosis of the condition, after the beginning of treatment, or would it be age based?

  • 0

    Quote from AndyB
    These MSP do not exist.
    Here's a sampling of the multi state plan offerings you claim don't exist:
    Blue Cross Blue Shield Solution 3 Blue Cross Blue Shield Solution 4
    On the Exchange On the Exchange
    BCBS Solution 3, a Multi-State Plan - Base Plan - ($4500/$6350) [IMG]http://www.bcbstx.com/images/bcbs/redesign/content/pdfIcon.gif[/IMG] BCBS Solution 4, a Multi-State Plan - Base Plan - ($6250/$6250) [IMG]http://www.bcbstx.com/images/bcbs/redesign/content/pdfIcon.gif[/IMG]
    BCBS Solution 3, a Multi-State Plan - American Indian Zero - ($0/$0) [IMG]http://www.bcbstx.com/images/bcbs/redesign/content/pdfIcon.gif[/IMG] BCBS Solution 4, a Multi-State Plan - American Indian Zero - ($0/$0) [IMG]http://www.bcbstx.com/images/bcbs/redesign/content/pdfIcon.gif[/IMG]
    BCBS Solution 3, a Multi-State Plan - American Indian Limited - ($4500/$6350) [IMG]http://www.bcbstx.com/images/bcbs/redesign/content/pdfIcon.gif[/IMG] BCBS Solution 4, a Multi-State Plan - American Indian Limited - ($6250/$6250) [IMG]http://www.bcbstx.com/images/bcbs/redesign/content/pdfIcon.gif[/IMG]
    BCBS Solution 3, a Multi-State Plan - Cost-Sharing Reduction - ($3000/$5200) [IMG]http://www.bcbstx.com/images/bcbs/redesign/content/pdfIcon.gif[/IMG] BCBS Solution 4, a Multi-State Plan - Cost-Sharing Reduction - ($5000/$5000) [IMG]http://www.bcbstx.com/images/bcbs/redesign/content/pdfIcon.gif[/IMG]
    BCBS Solution 3, a Multi-State Plan - Cost-Sharing Reduction - ($250/$2000) [IMG]http://www.bcbstx.com/images/bcbs/redesign/content/pdfIcon.gif[/IMG] BCBS Solution 4, a Multi-State Plan - Cost-Sharing Reduction - ($1500/$1500) [IMG]http://www.bcbstx.com/images/bcbs/redesign/content/pdfIcon.gif[/IMG]
    BCBS Solution 3, a Multi-State Plan - Cost-Sharing Reduction - ($0/$500) [IMG]http://www.bcbstx.com/images/bcbs/redesign/content/pdfIcon.gif[/IMG] BCBS Solution 4, a Multi-State Plan - Cost-Sharing Reduction - ($500/$500) [IMG]http://www.bcbstx.com/images/bcbs/redesign/content/pdfIcon.gif[/IMG]

    These are some of the more than 200 multi state plans available in 36 states in 2015, up from 150 plans in 31 states with 371,000 enrollees in 2014.

    An overview of currently available multi state plans

    Quote from AndyB
    You are reading material that is from 2015 that never happened.

    The little-known provision, found in section 1333 of the roughly 1,000-page Affordable Care Act, ...
    An Obamacare Provision Even Republicans Can Love | US News
    Regulations for multi-state plans were finalized by the OPM and started in 2014. The OPM has allowed these plans to be largely regulated by the states taking part in these plans, the NAIC, a insurance lobbying group, has been asking for regulations that would override the state's autonomy in regulating plans since it's easier for them to deal with 1 source of regulations rather than 50, which the OPM has been reluctant to do. Given Trump's stance on state's autonomy in regulating insurance plans, it's pretty unlikely this would change significantly if he becomes president.

    Quote from AndyB
    So are you saying the HSA's are now available that : readily available to anyone who wanted to open one, meaning Obama removed the IRS’ requirements. NO HE DID NOT. Or they could they could be shared among family members? SHARED HSA's? NOT UNDER OBAMA. What if a person included the HSA funds in their estate upon passing, the money in the fund would pass to their heirs without being subject to any state or federal estate or death tax. NO TAX? NOT UNDER OBAMA. Pay attention MUNO.
    Anyone who wants one is allowed to purchase an HSA plan. HSA's are already shared among family members, my HSA is used to pay for expenses for my kids and my wife. HSA's are already exempt from estate tax when transferred to a spouse, and while the funds would be taxed if passed on to someone other than a spouse this applies to less than 0.1% of estates, and Trump is free to exclude this 0.1% as well but has not offered how he would pay for that.

    Quote from AndyB
    The Medicaid program is jointly funded by the federal government and states. What part of FEDERAL don't you understand?
    And under block grants would continue to be jointly funded by the federal and state governments.

    Quote from AndyB
    Trumps plan to EXPAND medicaid? Another mistruth from you.

    "Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources."

    Do you even know what a block grant is? Does the statement above say EXPANDING MEDICAID? NO it does not.
    Trump's description of his plan for how to deal with those who cannot afford the full cost of health insurance as well as though denied coverage is that they would be covered by the government, ie they would be added to medicaid. That would mean everyone currently covered by medicaid would remain under medicaid, and everyone currently purchasing private health insurance through the exchanges but using a subsidy would also be added, as well as everyone dropped from insurance for pre-existing conditions. When you make changes that only add to the number of people covered by government safety net insurance, then yes that is "expanding" it.http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/0...al-Health-Care

  • 2
    herring_RN and heron like this.

    Quote from AndyB
    Another Muno statement without a link. You have been caught posting false statements at least 10 times pal so start backing up your statements.
    It was actually MassED that posted a quote attributed to a source that never actually said it, generally it's the responsibility of the person claiming a particular statement was made and quoting them, but if MassED had read the article they posted correctly they would have noticed the quote was falsely attributed. The quote actually came from an anti-muslim conspiracy theorist, not the Journal of Minority Muslim affairs as MassED suggested.
    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/upload...Kampf-copy.pdf

  • 2
    heron and nursej22 like this.

    Quote from MassED
    Do you work for this "journal?" Are you a muslim scholar?
    I'm not but if you prefer the view of a muslim scholar, here's one;
    “I wouldn’t consider it (Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs) ‘radical.’ Quite the contrary,” said Noah Feldman, director of the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at Harvard Law School. “That doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of articles expressing conservative viewpoints, of course. But I’ve never seen anything in any way radical.”

    Quote from MassED
    Can you honestly look at this journal, her association, her mother, the connection, and put your head in the sand? Can our country afford to put our head in the sand? It is stupid. This is OUR country, these are legitimate questions that require due diligence in our investigation. These facts are no coincidence.

    I don't propose to be an expert, but let's look at the facts, to educate you and others who are defending (seemingly) an ideology that wants to eradicate our way of life, our culture, our beliefs. OPEN YOUR MIND AND REALLY LOOK AT WHAT IS OUT THERE. If you don't believe what you read, go to another source and check that source. If it seems unlikely and unsavory, don't DISCOUNT it because it doesn't jive with your sensibilities. That is just narrow-minded.
    Moderate, mainstream Islam does not want to "eradicate our way of life, our culture, our beliefs", that's a major part of what defines extremist, radical Islam as being different from mainstream Islam. What I'm defending is that mainstream Islam and radical Islam are not the same thing. Radical Islam such as ISIL is our enemy and should be roundly destroyed, but to defeat an enemy you first have to be able to at least accurately recognize it.

    Quote from MassED

    Sperry: Huma Abedin Worked at Radical Muslim Journal for Decade - Breitbart

    Abedin’s journal was founded and funded by the former head of the Muslim World League...
    Abedin's journal was founded by Abedin's father, not the former head of the Muslim World League. Abedin's journal was also not the journal of the Muslim World League, that's a different journal which you seem to be confusing for Abedin's journal.

    Quote from MassED
    LOOK BACK AT DEFINITION OF SHARIA FOR REFERENCE.
    Sharia Advisors – Barack Obama's Muslim Appointees in High Security Positions - Freedom Outpost
    all sorts of interesting tidbits on the above link.
    Sharia is a set of religious rules which are followed to varying degrees by those who follow Islam, most of the Islamic world lives under a very limited use of Sharia law in guiding how they live their lives, more broad implementation of sharia law is what defines radical and militant muslim extremists. For instance, following dietary rules during a period of religious observance is a widely practiced aspect of sharia (ramadan), similar to Christians who follow biblical dietary rules during lent.
    And no, I don't consider a candidate's aide's mothers comments on the benefits of traditional gender rules as being synonymous with implementing more extreme sharia laws like stoning adulters any more than when the same general arguments on gender roles are made by American Christians could be considering synonymous with arguing for the implementation of more extreme biblical laws that also call for stoning adulters, gays, etc.

  • 2
    toomuchbaloney and nursej22 like this.

    Quote from MassED
    Let's begin with your vetting point. Trump said the current method of vetting is obviously not working, so "until that is figured out" there needs to be a pause. This is safe and reasonable for our country. Since I am not in government, I cannot presume to know what else may work, but I agree the current method is not working. Anyone can see this.

    You wouldn't just allow anyone into your house without being sure they were safe, so using some common sense, at a minimum , is required.

    We already know the FBI is essentially derelict in their duty and even though clearly identified horrific acts committed by HRC, they gave her a pass, to which Comey should be held accountable. This shows we cannot count on the FBI as they are corrupt.

    You don't think Trump bringing business's back to the US will boost our economy, really? You wouldn't say he's successful? He is funding HIS OWN CAMPAIGN. He has gone there and back in business, our government is a business. He is better suited over anyone else to run it.
    We paused and revamped the process 8 years ago, those who would implement improvements are not aware of any more than can be added, and apparently neither are you. What would you like to see changed?

  • 3

    Quote from AndyB
    Becoming a regular occurrence of you posting mistruths with just about everyone of your posts now. The S&P 500 claim is only concerning his top 5 stocks. "the average price-to-earnings ratio of Trump’s top five holdings was 16.4, based on what those companies are expected to earn this year. That’s less than the average stock in the S&P 500, which had a P/E multiple of 18." The types of stocks in Trump’s portfolio suggests that he is cautious about the stock market right now. And his portfolio is relatively well positioned to survive a drop.

    Source: Here Are Donald Trump's Biggest Stock Holdings and Picks

    "portfolio Trump was given by his father". Untrue. No documentation that Trump was given stocks by his father.

    "He would have more money now had he just invested it broadly in US businesses."

    Trump owns stock in many well-known companies including Apple, Microsoft, Pepsi, Nike, Whole Foods, Google, Philip Morris, Raytheon, Facebook, and Morgan Stanley, among others.

    Trump only has a small fraction of his wealth in the stock market. Just $91.5 million of his $10 billion net worth is invested in the stock market.

    Here Are Donald Trump's Biggest Stock Holdings and Picks
    Donald Trump's stock portfolio - Business Insider


    According to the New York Times: "Then came the unveiling of Fred Sr.’s will, which Donald had helped draft. It divided the bulk of the inheritance, at least $20 million, among his children and their descendants, “other than my son Fred C. Trump Jr.”"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/us...ring.html?_r=0

    So around 20 million divided by 3 other siblings AND THEIR CHILDREN and he ends up with $10 billion.

    I guess your type of brilliant is a politician who receives cash for foreigners in a pay to play scheme.
    I never mentioned Trump's stock portfolio, it's supposed his ability to run businesses that makes him a good potential president, not his ability to invest.

    It's true he's been a moderately successful businessman, but "brilliant" would suggest at least above average, and the performance of the businesses he's run, his overall portfolio, given the money he started with is below average, using the standard business performance comparison.

  • 0

    Quote from AndyB
    2.While Obamacare allows for states to create "health care choice compacts" permitting insurers to sell policies to consumers in any state participating in the compact, as long as they follow specific rules this has not been done. Why?

    Under the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services was directed to consult with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners on regulations for the compacts and issue them by July 2013. The regulations would clarify how such plans would work, given that health insurance plans usually offer coverage in specific areas. Consumers were supposed to be able to buy insurance in states other than the one in which they live – should they reside in a state that had joined a compact, currently 5 states, starting Jan. 1 of this year.




    However, the NAIC says HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell has not even reached out to the group for consultation. "Under the law they were supposed to come up with regulations and they haven't yet," an NAIC spokesman says.


    So it still is impossible to buy plans across state lines because the Obama administration's Department of Health and Human Services has not acted on the regulation.
    There are currently more than 200 multi-state plans available in 36 states. Where are you getting they don't currently exist?

    Quote from AndyB
    3. Under the ACA you can take tax deductions for medical and dental expenses that exceed 10% of your annual Adjusted Gross Income. You cannot take a deduction for health insurance you paid for with pre-tax money.

    Once again you get punished if you earn more. I don't enjoy the government taxing me in order to hand it out to partially pay for someones medical care as I'm not a fan of socialism.
    That doesn't make any sense since that's also how we pay for police departments, fire departments, the military, etc. Are you arguing that nobody should contribute to these programs any more than what the poorest among us can pay, since that would be zero.

    Depending on need, you can get tax credits to help afford insurance, that what the subsidies are.

    Quote from AndyB
    4. HSAs were established as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003. They were developed to replace the medical savings account system. They are only available to individuals covered by high-deductible health plans.


    Step 4 of Trumpcare stipulations that HSAs would be readily available to anyone who wanted to open one, meaning he would remove the IRS’ requirements, they could be shared among family members and passed on to heirs upon the HSA owner’s passing. Most importantly, Donald Trump would not disturb the characteristic of HSAs that makes them tax-free if the funds are used for medical expenses. Furthermore, if a person included the HSA funds in their estate upon passing, the money in the fund would pass to their heirs without being subject to any state or federal estate or death tax.

    Mr. Trump anticipates that offering HSAs to all Americans would be particularly attractive to young people who would rather put money away into an account, tax-free, to accumulate over the years and pay the cost of a high deductible health plan that they may hardly use because they are healthy instead of getting a more expensive plan from the beginning.
    HSA's are already passed to heirs tax free, so what are you referring to? And they are already available and widely used.


    Quote from AndyB
    5. Prior to buying something that costs a lot of money you receive an esimate of costs. While this may not be prudent in an emergency situation most procedures are not immediately done. They sgould give you an estimate (free of charge) so you can shop around. This compititiveness will help decrease medical costs.
    There are a number of sources available for prices at specific facilities and you can also obtain this information from the facilities directly.

    Quote from AndyB
    6. Cutting medicaid funding? Read it again. Trump wants the control and management of the Medicaid program to stay in the hands of the states that know their people the best. He states that if the authority to manage Medicaid is with the states alone, they will have the incentive to eliminate fraud and financial waste. Presumably, this is due to the fact that the states would be funding Medicaid entirely on their own so they would be more protective and watchful of where the money is going.
    Medicaid is already joint funded by the states and is managed by the states, so incentive and ability to manage these programs already exists. Medicaid already underpays for services, Trump's plan to expand medicaid even further but also limit funding won't produce a sustainable funding system.

  • 1
    nursej22 likes this.

    Quote from MassED
    “Muslim Minority Affairs,” the title of the Journal Mr. Abedin founded, and its goal to “establish a global Sharia in our modern times.”

    A SHARIA LAW JOURNAL.

    Huma Abedin worked at a radical Muslim journal for a dozen years | New York Post

    Huma Abedin's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood | TheHill

    You have to be high to think she's not furthering her Anti-American agenda by being in cohoots with HRC. Seriously high.
    The journal has never proposed any such purpose, the quote you've attributed to the journal as never said by the journal or anyone working for them.

  • 0

    That's actually a story about this very thread, the story points out that this claim is a rumor that has never been supported with any evidence.

    Back in February of 2008, the alleged quote once again reared its ugly head. In a message to AllNurses, a user inquired regarding her statement about nurses being “glorified babysitters.”The inquiry was revealed to be a last resort in finding information regarding the matter after searching the web to no avail. For her sake, the user hopes that the rumor is proved to be false, as nurses comprise a large voting population.
    In every case where the authenticity of the rumor is challenged, many people claim that they distinctly remember her saying such statements. However, when asked to provide concrete evidence, they simply reason out that the statement was made in the 90s when information was not readily available.
    The rumor once again appeared on the same forum last month. This time it claimed that Mrs. Clinton called nurses “overpaid” and “nothing but doctor’s handmaidens.”

  • 1
    elkpark likes this.

    Quote from AndyB
    Oh yeah real "conservative" huh:

    Huma is listed as “assistant editor” on the masthead of the 2002 issue in which her mother suggested the US was doomed to be attacked on 9/11 because of “sanctions” it leveled against Iraq and other “injustices” allegedly heaped on the Muslim world.

    Headlined “Women’s Rights Are Islamic Rights,” a 1996 article argues that single moms, working moms and gay couples with children should not be recognized as families. It also states that more revealing dress ushered in by women’s liberation “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.”
    This is the same basic argument made by libertarians; that our foreign policy has put us at risk, Ron Paul made the same basic argument, should he be feared as a radical muslim or radical muslim supporter?
    Ron Paul: ‘Flawed’ US policies led to 9/11 | TheHill

  • 1
    herring_RN likes this.

    Quote from AndyB
    The most important thing is to control the cost of healthcare services, but in terms of how we pay the costs, it's far more efficient (cheaper) to recognize from the start in general the same healthcare services are going to be provided no matter what, so the most efficient way to do it is to collect and pay our costs out of a single account.


    The Average ObamaCare premium is $408 per month. This is a 9% increase from 2015.


    The cost of health insurance has actually been rising sharply since long before obamacare.
    [IMG]http://allnurses.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22902&stc=1[/IMG]
    Pre-obamacare premium increases were typically around 6%, with premiums going up by double digits in certain markets. A number of private insurers in some markets failed to properly calculate the ratio of healthy to chronically ill consumers that would purchase their insurance, and as a result are now having to adjust with increases around 9%. Obamacare just gives is a way to pay more of the cost of healthcare.

    Quote from AndyB
    Insurance was cheaper before Obamacare. Obama decided to add mandatory "qualified health plans" to the mix which requires unnecessary item coverage to people who have no use for these items. One example is men are for to buy new plans that include prenatal care, maternity coverage, and newborn care coverage. This includes women past childbearing age. Children’s visits to doctors, dentists, and eye doctors even if you have no children. Obamacare policies also must include mental health and substance abuse services.

    Yes, these added provisions increase the cost of medical insurance to people who do need or do not want these provisions.
    That's not how insurance works, if you're a man and therefore unlikely to use maternity coverage for instance, that potential amount is not calculated into the cost, at least by reasonably competent insurance adjustors. Premiums are based on the amount of claims they predict they will pay out, if they are predicting they will pay out maternity coverage on a male and raising premium costs as a result then they are violating the actuarial value requirements of the ACA.

    If the cost of insurance through the exchanges is wildly over-estimated, why are so many insurers barely breaking even or even losing money?

    Prior to the ACA, individual insurance certainly was cheap, but that's because it didn't really function as insurance. I went from paying about $600 a year for an individual market plan to more than $7000 through an employer, and was happy to do so.

    Previously, the individual market was allowed to essentially decide they just didn't want to pay claims anymore on someone, the rate of claim denials was 1 in 7, with 6 digit claims almost guaranteed to result in plan cancellation. The ACA makes individual market plans pay their claims, which compared to not paying out claims is very expensive..


    Quote from AndyB
    As for your statement of "The CBO said that there will be a reduction in demand for hours amounting to about 2 million FTE's, not that it would "cost" 2 million jobs."

    I guess you failed to see the link I posted clearly that said: "CBO: 2 million jobs' worth of hours lost under ObamaCare" Since you did not see it last time I put it in bold for you.

    I did read it, did you? Because what it said was that the 2 million full time job equivalent reduction in hours was "almost completely due to decreased demand for hours" and cited the availability of quality insurance outside of employer-sponsored insurance as being a major factor.

    Quote from AndyB
    "Prior to the ACA, adequate insurance was only available through the employer-sponsored group markets, which led many people to work "just for the benefits" ie access to quality health insurance."

    That is not true. As a previous travel nurse it was easy to obtain coverage independently. You used to be able to simply go to a Blue Cross Blue Shield site, check out what you needed or wanted, and get the quote along with getting the insurance if so desired. This coverage was available for families also so I don't understand how you are trying to pain the picture that medical insurance was unavailable to small business owners also.

    You trying to say that new grads from nursing schools can't get jobs? How bizarre. Last I knew we already have a nursing shortage and it is expected to get even worse:

    The U.S. Is on the Verge of a Major Nursing Shortage - The Atlantic

    The only people cutting hours are those who do not want to lose subsides. But other peoples hours are being cut by employers so they won't have to be forced to offer them medical insurance. Garden's link: Fed Survey: Obamacare Causing Companies to Cut Jobs - CFO Journal. - WSJ

    Obamacare has not saved money. It has increased medicaid sign-ups by 9 million to 10 million. This is paid for by taxpayers. In a recent report to Congress, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said the cost of expansion was $6,366 per person for 2015, about 49 percent higher than previously estimated.
    Source:

    Medicaid estimate renews cost concerns over '''Obamacare'''

    Where is the money coming from to pay for Obamacare subsides? This is paid for by taxpayers.


    As for your statement of "(the first year of the ACA cost containment measures was the first time in 50 years that healthcare inflation didn't rise faster than general inflation)".

    Another falsehood. The last time this happened was in 2008 which is 2 years before Obamacare.

    Source:
    Quote from AndyB
    U.S. Health Care Costs Rise Faster Than Inflation Forbes Welcome

    You're correct that subsidies are funded by tax credits and tax deductions, which varies based on the persons ability to pay. Trump's plan greatly expands the amount taxpayers are contributing to health insurance for those who need insurance. The amount taxpayers contribute should be the minimum required, I don't agree with Trump's view that if we're going to contribute part of the cost that we should just go ahead and pay all of it.

  • 1
    herring_RN likes this.

    Quote from AndyB
    Oh Really?

    Only an extremely small portion of administrative costs are related to the dollar value of health care benefit claims. Expressing these costs as a percentage of benefit claims gives a misleading picture of the relative efficiency of government and private health plans.Medicare beneficiaries are by definition elderly, disabled, or patients with end-stage renal disease. Private insurance beneficiaries may include a small percentage of people in those categories, but they consist primarily of people are who under age 65 and not disabled. Naturally, Medicare beneficiaries need, on average, more health care services than those who are privately insured. Yet the bulk of administrative costs are incurred on a fixed program-level or a per-beneficiary basis. Expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs makes Medicare's administrative costs appear lower not because Medicare is necessarily more efficient but merely because its administrative costs are spread over a larger base of actual health care costs. When administrative costs are compared on a per-person basis, the picture changes. In 2005, Medicare's administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453.

    -Greg Mankiw Professor of Economics at Harvard University

    N. Gregory Mankiw

    Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance
    By Robert A. Book, Ph.D.

    Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance


    The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'



    Forbes Welcome

    Hope you are not going to tell us the VA and Post Office are experts in efficiency because they are government.
    I'm familiar with Mankiw's piece on private vs public administration costs, as well as the various articles in response that pointed out his rationale was exactly backwards which he seemed to agree with.
    It is true that the typical medicare beneficiary uses far more healthcare services than the typical under-65 private insurance recipient. As a result there are far more claims to process per beneficiary in medicare, which is why the per-beneficiary cost is higher for medicare. So while we're paying medicare slightly more per person, the volume of work per person is much higher, which means for the same amount of work, medicare does that work for less.

  • 1
    herring_RN likes this.

    Quote from AndyB
    At the beginning of the healthcare reform debate in 2009, Obama and most Congressional Democrats said private insurers would be less able to gouge consumers with unreasonably high premiums and deductibles if they had to compete with a government-run plan. That’s because even though such a plan would have to abide by all the same rules as private insurers, the Public Option health plan would not be run by Wall Street and consequently would not need to allocate a substantial portion of premium revenue to reward shareholders (and, of course, insurance company CEOs).

    You do realize that Hillary's campaign has gotten over $41 million from from Wall Street don't you:

    Top Industries data for Hillary Clinton, 216 Cycle | OpenSecrets

    While they were saying that publicly, behind closed doors Obama administration officials were in constant communication with insurance industry lobbyists, and those lobbyists made it abundantly clear to the White House that while the industry could go along with most of the reform proposals Democrats were considering, they would not tolerate a Public Option.


    Why are you lying about Trump having a plan identical to Obamacare?

    Trumps's plan:

    1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.

    2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.

    3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.

    4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.

    5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.

    6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.

    7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.
    Free market principles and having no requirement to buy insurance is far from Obamacare:

    Healthcare Reform | Donald J Trump for President
    I went through is plan in the forum dedicated to that topic, but again;

    #2 The ACA already allows for insurers to sell plans across state lines, it actually encourages this through the use of multi-state compacts which facilitate insurers in offering multi-state plans.

    #3 Helping people afford insurance through offsetting taxes is a good idea, that's what the subsidies are. The difference in what Trump is proposing is that it would help a very small window of consumers go from not being able to afford insurance to being able to afford it since it would be a broad tax break. What makes more sense is to focus those tax incentives where they are really needed, otherwise we're just wasting money while at the same time doing less to fix the problem.

    The biggest problem with this part of his plan is what he plans to do for those where a straight insurance deduction won't help, which is to put them on all fully government paid medicaid.

    #4 HSA based are already not only an option but are more popular than ever. And you can already pass HSA's on to heirs tax free.

    #5 The fees hospitals and other providers charge are already available, either through the CMS online database, various private groups that collect and share this data, and from the hospitals and providers themselves. Shopping around can be very useful, but only for a relatively small portion of the healthcare services we use. When you roll into the ER with a stroke, MI, etc, you don't have much leverage to bargain at that point, what makes far more sense is to utilize a service that can pre-negotiate all possible care you might need and use the leverage of a large block of consumers to negotiate for lower prices.

    #6 Putting more people into medicaid while simultaneously cutting medicaid funding only makes the basic problem of medicaid worse. This will either result in these costs just getting shifted back to private insurance plans (which makes fewer people able to afford private insurance pushing them into medicaid which creates an ever-worsening death spiral of healthcare underfunding) or some portion of the population will just have to be removed from access to medical care.

    #7 This one I agree with.

  • 4

    Quote from PinayUSA
    Well it appears as if Huma worked at a radical muslim journal for 12 years.

    Huma Abedin worked at a radical Muslim journal for a dozen years | Fox News
    Huma worked for her mother's Journal on Muslim issues, this was a peer reviewed research journal which was an open forum for Muslims to discuss Muslim issues, this of course included conservative views. This was not a journal sponsored by or otherwise promoting extremist or terrorist groups.

  • 1
    PMFB-RN likes this.

    Quote from cisneroj
    I see a few liberals here do not like conservatives, is it because we want a balanced budget, a strong military, states rights ect??
    You people are so funny talking about how bad the GOP is, "we have to pass the bill before we see whats in it" and that was a liberal quote. But you liberals have blinders on and cant see facts, or you just do not understand them.

    Fact. Trump does say stupid things when he goes off script, just like Obama how can we forget he said we have 57 states lol.

    Fact. Trump wants to deport Illegal Immigrants, NOT immigrants. And the funny thing that is already LAW in this country.

    Fact. Clinton wants to bring in thousands of refugees from Syria to the USA, remember the director of the FBI and CIA said these people cant be vetted, we do not know who is coming here. But liberals dont care about the facts.

    Fact. When Obama took office the national debt was $10.4 trillion, now our national debt is almost $20 trillion. Now I may not be that great at math but is that almost doubled??? So from our first president to Bush the debt was $10.4 and in a short 7 years of a liberal president he almost doubled it. Must be the trillion $$ he spent on the roads and bridges LOL.

    Fact. Hilary Clinton lied to congress, PER the director of the FBI

    Now I can go on and on with facts not talking points but you liberals will never listen. Liberals will vote for Clinton knowing she is unfit to be president. How many liberals voted to raise the debt ceiling vs how many conservatives. Liberal politicians want to destroy America by putting us farther in debt.
    I really don't understand how anyone who favors fiscal responsibility can support Trump. His proposed increases in deficit spending are unprecedented in recent history, maybe you should look at what he's said he will do as President.
    Trump’s Massive Tax Cuts and New Spending Alarm Fiscal Conservatives | The Fiscal Times
    Donald Trump Plans to Explode the National Debt With More Borrowing
    Trump's budget: Making the deficit great again - POLITICO


close
close