Paul Ryan!!

[Ridgerunner]

I can summerize your paragraph: There is plenty of blame to go around.

Simply blaming all outsourcing on Republicans simply shows that one is ignorant of history.

Outsourcing is a business decision, and I’m sure most business people who see it as favorable to them don’t avoid doing it because of politics. Once China gained “Most Favored Nation” status, it was almost inevitable that a lot of product would come from there, and that a lot of people would set up production facilities there.

But in my mind, the worst “outsourcing” problem is the government debt that devours more and more of the nation’s income. Whether outsourced to China, oil states or to the Fed, the people in the U.S. are increasingly impoverished by it.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Curious why you think insurance companies would demand more tests. Intuitively that makes no sense at all as they have to PAY for each test. It would be preferable to question, reject or fail to authorize particular tests or treatments and thus reduce their costs. Working with insurance companies on a daily basis, I have yet to see one that asks the doctor to do MORE rather than less. Now there are certain tests and screenings that are mandated, mammograms etc. So the doctor will refer a patient for those tests even if he/she thinks they aren’t needed.

I think the main reason for “excess tests” is a doctor who is truly trying to do the best for his patient, trying to pin down a diagnosis or determine the best course of treatment depending on the results. Regardless of what some think that doctors are all in it for the money…greedy pigs that they are…the fact is that one MUST care about people or they wouldn’t get into medicine.

The other reason is the defensive medicine aspect. Honestly Meltzerboy, do you know of insurance companies that demand excessive test and if so why?

I know many people who went into the field of medicine. I can say that all of them went into it because they want to help others, and not primarily because of the money.

The reality of the situation is that it takes years of training and possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a nurse, pharmacist or MD. Many are in severe debt because of this. And they have to continue to keep up training on new treatments and techniques. Many of these people work long hours, weekends, nights and holidays in service to others.

Secondly there’s overhead such as malpractice which in some places can be a severe drain.

Simply painting all medical professionals as greedy is very short sighted and ignorant of reality.

 

[DeSanto]

True, unnecessary medical tests are often the result of a complex diagnosis where tests are run to prove or disprove their initial diagnosis. The problem with calling them “unnecessary tests” is that hindsight is 20/20. The test rules out a particular issue…is it “unnecessary” because it didn’t prove definitive? The reality is that doctors don’t order extra tests for fun and money. The doctor doesn’t make any more money ordering multiple tests since the samples are sent to big commercial labs. He gets paid for one blood draw if done in his office and then the samples go off to LabCorp or one of the other biggies which bills separately.

The other reason for “unnecessary tests” is defensive medicine. Say a doctor sees a patient and he thinks it might be X or Y. He can order a battery of tests to narrow it down although perhaps the patient would have been just as well cared for by his initial diagnosis. OTOH with our litigious society and trial lawyers trolling the waters, if by chance he MISSES something that would have been found by a test, he can be sued. Again the doctor doesn’t make anything more by ordering more tests but he may save his practice.

Onto the “Single Medical Record.” Sounds great right? A doc just needs to plug in a patient’s ID number and voila! He can see everything from the baby’s circumcision to his prostate cancer treatment. Not so great is the reality that this opens up a patients ENTIRE medical history to anyone able to get in. That means any office worker in any doctor’s office or hospital or anyone able to hack in. Data can be lost, compromised, or manipulated and the patient is none the wiser. These new systems are incredibly expensive. Our hospital has spent MILLIONS on software plus much more training people. And to what purpose? Perhaps a bit more streamlined than having Mrs Jones’ doc send his chart or the pertinent material. But I would be that in no way does this make practicing medicine any less expensive and it doesn’t do a THING to improve the patient’s outcome.

As I said, the whole Obamacare focus was bureaucracies for bureaucrats. The laws were written by those who may understand IT but they do not understand medicine. Imagine the billions now invested in this system…it would treat a LOT of indigent patients.

Lisa

Unneccessary test are not test that need to determine X and Y, the meaning is retaking test that have been taken already to determine x and y because you have for example changed doctors or gone to the emergency room. By sharing this info between doctors the amount of money saved by eliminating the need for repeated test would be insurmountable. It is pesimistic and unfounded to report that the cost to create this system one time outweighs the overall cost savings for a systems that will last years into the future. It is also pesimistic and unfounded to claim the system is a bad idea because of the chance of hackers. Our medical files will be in no more danger of being hacked as they arleady are today. We should not be afraid or deny implementing forward thinking, cost saving things as this because of a few bad people that may try to abuse the system. I’m sure there are ways to track hackers and enforce punishments on those who try. Probably easier than the system we have in place today. Our bank accounts and credit cards and identies are all pray to hackers yet we still use them. And btw, you speak of indigent care. If everyone is covered and more people are paying in I believe that will take care of big part of the “indigent care” thing also. This plan has many good, common sense solutions that will bring the overall costs down while covering more people, which was the whole point of it. Republicans can agree on many aspects of this bill. Actually, this is a republican bill that was supported by republicans not too long ago. to find an argument for each piece of this bill probably wouldn’t be too hard to do but what would be harder, think, is for a republican to admit any one part of this bill is a good idea…simply because it was Obama that finally was able to actually do something about healthcare after thirty some odd years, and not a republican. they had a chance to compromise, they chose a different route. One more thing, I believe TORT reform is a good idea and should be explored through a separate piece of legislation.

 

[DeSanto]

You criticize so-called “trickle down” theory, but with the modern Obama/Democrat welfare state you get trickle down charity which empowers bureaucrats, politicians, and increases dependency.

Ishii

So take from the poor and give to the rich is a better solution. Repeating the same behavior and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. It seems to me it the rich that have become dependent on these tax cuts…that were supposed to be TEMPORARY!!! Give it up…trickle down does not work, especially when everyone is up in arms over spending! This alone destroys any other republican argument when lecturing on the spending problem.

 

[Ridgerunner]

In addition to all of this, corporations are sitting on huge profits. And the wealthy so called job producers who received their tax cuts haven’t created the jobs we were led to believe they would and that we are always told they will. Or they add to their wealth by forcing one employee to take on another’s job. Lay off the other person. Cut benefits. You know the so called “trickle down” theory. It’s just when they won’t spend enough of their resources to create jobs, it’s not jobs that are trickling down upon the masses of people beneath them.

Before 2008, there was very low unemployment. It was actually “negative” if you consider the number of illegals who were working in the economy. It’s just inaccurate to say there was not at least a convergence between the Bush cuts and high employment. One can, of course, argue cause/effect forever.

Then there was a financial crisis fueled by too-low interest rates and mortgage derivative creators who provided a huge market for bad loans. There is little argument over that.

Then there was a spending orgy, the threat of higher taxes, higher health insurance costs and interest rates and regulation that curtails energy production for the future, and promises to make utility costs “skyrocket”. There is no argument that the regulatory environment is more stringent. Nor is there any real argument that businesses are leery about investing due to those threats. Whether they should be leery or not can, of course, be argued. Personally, I think those in business who can’t project costs anymore due to government actions can hardly be blamed for being cautious.

This is not a matter of “trickle down”. It’s a matter of a terrible business environment that is largely government-created. “Crunch down from above” might be a better description of it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, corporations are not charities. They only hire people when they can understand what the cost of hiring will be, and when they stand a good chance of making more profit by adding bodies. Under Obama, there is little incentive to hire anyone. The golden goose, or private sector, is being strangled. Set the goose free!!! Trickle down government is killing us. uch: Rob

Odd response. I never said or suggested they were “charities.” ? However, you are making my case for me. It was dishonest of them to argue urgency in negotiating tax breaks for themselves (the context of the timing was the immediate national need for job creation and how businesses proposed to respond to that national need), if

Under Obama, there is little incentive to hire anyone.

That was the point I already made in replying to ishii. The corporations lied. They had no intention of adding jobs in the short term, regardless of how they protested (which they did; I remember this clearly) that tax breaks now (then) would result in job creation within the year.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Before 2008, there was very low unemployment. It was actually “negative” if you consider the number of illegals who were working in the economy. It’s just inaccurate to say there was not at least a convergence between the Bush cuts and high employment. One can, of course, argue cause/effect forever.

Then there was a financial crisis fueled by too-low interest rates and mortgage derivative creators who provided a huge market for bad loans. There is little argument over that.

Then there was a spending orgy, the threat of higher taxes, higher health insurance costs and interest rates and regulation that curtails energy production for the future, and promises to make utility costs “skyrocket”. There is no argument that the regulatory environment is more stringent. Nor is there any real argument that businesses are leery about investing due to those threats. Whether they should be leery or not can, of course, be argued. Personally, I think those in business who can’t project costs anymore due to government actions can hardly be blamed for being cautious.

This is not a matter of “trickle down”. It’s a matter of a terrible business environment that is largely government-created. “Crunch down from above” might be a better description of it.

Job growth is usually a trailing indicator of economic recovery as hiring and paying benefits are expensive.

Even though the stock market is up and profits may be up, there is still a bit of uncertainty, especally because of Obama’s policies and unemployment is high and workforce participation is still low.

 

[DeniseNY]

This plan has many good, common sense solutions that will bring the overall costs down while covering more people,

Having “coverage” and receiving care are two different things

beforeitsnews.com/financial-markets/2012/07/video-robert-reich-on-the-shocking-truth-about-obamacare-2331499.html

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Having “coverage” and receiving care are two different things

beforeitsnews.com/financial-markets/2012/07/video-robert-reich-on-the-shocking-truth-about-obamacare-2331499.html

No one can be denied care in an ER, and most all doctors and hospitals will work with you if you need treatment.

 

[DeniseNY]

No one can be denied care in an ER, and most all doctors and hospitals will work with you if you need treatment.

True, but an ER can’t give you chemotherapy or perform open heart surgery.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I recall Bush was pro-life, what did he do about abortion?

The topic is Paul Ryan, not George Bush. There are threads on Bush’s pro-life achievements. But since you are new here, I’ll provide the below

■The Presidential Record on Life

■ President Bush appointed two justices to the U.S.
Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and
Justice Samuel Alito. In 2007 both justices voted to
uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

In 2003, President Bush signed into law the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. When legal
challenges were filed to the law, his Administration
successfully defended the law and it was upheld by
the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Bush also signed into law several other
crucial pro-life measures, including the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act, which recognizes unborn
children as victims of violent federal crimes, the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which affords
babies who survive abortions the same legal
protections as babies who are spontaneously born
prematurely, and legislation to prevent health care
providers from being penalized by the federal, state,
or local governments for not providing abortions.

In 2007, President Bush sent congressional
Democratic leaders letters in which he said that he
would veto any bill that weakened any existing
pro-life policy. This strong stance prevented
successful attacks on the Hyde Amendment and
many other pro-life laws during 2007 and 2008.
The Administration issued a regulation
recognizing an unborn child as a “child” eligible for
health services under the State Children’s Health
Insurance Progam (SCHIP).

In 2001, President Bush declared that federal funds
could not be used for the type of stem cell research
that requires the destruction of human embryos. He
used his veto twice to prevent enactment of bills that
would have overturned this pro-life policy. The
types of adult stem cell research that the President
promoted, which do not require the killing of
human embryos, realized major breakthroughs
during his administration.

The Bush Administration played a key role in the
United Nations, in adoption by the UN General
Assembly of the historic UN declaration calling on
member nations to ban all forms of human cloning
(2005), and in including language in the Convention
(Treaty) on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
which protects persons with disabilities from being
denied food, water and medical care (2006).
President Bush strongly advocated a complete ban
on human cloning, and helped defeat “clone and
kill” legislation.

President Bush restored and enforced the “Mexico
City Policy,” which prevents tax funds from being
given to organizations that perform or promote
abortion overseas. The President’s veto threats
blocked congressional attempts to overturn this
policy. The Administration also cut off funding for
the United Nations Population Fund, due to that
agency’s involvement in China’s
compulsory-abortion program.

The first thing President Obama did upon his inauguration is repeal the Mexico City Policy.

What do you think?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

True, but an ER can’t give you chemotherapy or perform open heart surgery.

Again, that would fall under the second part of my statement.

Most places would work with patients to create a payment plan.

Of course, this brings up an important rhetorical question - how much is ones life worth? I would gladly pay whatever hospital bill if my child needed chemo.

 

[DeniseNY]

Again, that would fall under the second part of my statement.

Most places would work with patients to create a payment plan.

Of course, this brings up an important rhetorical question - how much is ones life worth? I would gladly pay whatever hospital bill if my child needed chemo.

What about the elderly who currently sacrifice to make supplemental insurance payments so they have coverage on top of their Medicare? They should now have to bear the full burden of paying hospital bills for chemo or life saving surgery because everyone is being herded into ObamaTax? Is our system improved by making everyone equally miserable? If I recall correctly, Obama at one point did mention just giving the elderly a pill. Seems to me the only plan of Obama’s where anything is “shovel ready” are the elderly under ObamaTax.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So take from the poor and give to the rich is a better solution. Repeating the same behavior and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. It seems to me it the rich that have become dependent on these tax cuts…that were supposed to be TEMPORARY!!! Give it up…trickle down does not work, especially when everyone is up in arms over spending! This alone destroys any other republican argument when lecturing on the spending problem.

To me, use of the term “trickle down” is just one of those catch phrases coined for the purpose of substituting prejudices for discussion of facts.

You can’t really say the Bush cuts were intended to be temporary just because they had a sunset provision. Undoubtedly, some legislators wanted them to be permanent and some didn’t, and the sunsetting was a compromise. Had there been no wars, no mortgage mess and no post-2008 spending spree, the budget would probably balance today and extension of the Bush cuts would not be seriously opposed by anyone. If you look at the numbers, the deficit did, indeed, increase with the wars, but then steadily decreased to a point in 2007 when it was about 1/10 what it is now on an annual basis.

Even Obama supported extending them even for “the rich” until very recently when he appears to have decided it is good politics to extend them for everybody but relatively high earners. Certainly, as a revenue resource, it would do little good, and Obama even admitted the potential for it to be revenue negative. It’s just an emotional appeal; an appeal to envy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What about the elderly who currently sacrifice to make supplemental insurance payments so they have coverage on top of their Medicare? They should now have to bear the full burden of paying hospital bills for chemo or surgery because everyone is being herded into ObamaTax? Is our system improved by making everyone equally miserable?

I think you can rest assured that Obama and congressmen will not be miserable with their health plans. Some number of people in the lower middle class might benefit, depending on what employers are able to afford, and depending on how much the members of the middle-middle and upper middle income classes will be able to afford to subsidize them. Everybody else will lose, and maybe everybody, including the lower-middle income classes. Well, I guess Big Pharma won’t because they successfully lobbied the administration to escape government price controls, at least for now.

Union members won’t lose until about 2016 when their Obamacare waiver expires.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The opposing argument is that food stamps are a government entitlement (that is, a socialist evil), which fosters dependency and poverty since it is so much easier to receive help from the government than to help oneself. At the same time, entitlements drain the economy and deprive people of their human dignity. Therefore, instead of dispensing food stamps, Obama should have required people to find new jobs or retrain for them, however long that might take. In the meantime, they should make due with whatever finances they have left or borrow money from their relatives or friends to tide them over until they find a job. After all, we live in a capitalist economy and we have an American pioneer tradition of rugged individualism. Conservatives, did I get it right (and Right)?

As I’ve written before,I usually like your well-thought out posts, even though I don’t always agree with you.

This post is not.

My concern is not that people are on entitlements, it’s why are the number of people on entitlements increasing if the jobless rate is decreasing?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Romney Campaign Raises $10M with Careful Ryan Rollout

politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/08/17/romney-campaign-raises-10m-careful-ryan-rollout

 

[qui_est_ce]

One of the few areas about which I agree with you wholeheartedly. I wrote a similar post to this on either this or another thread in the last couple of days.

The most recent excuse that the corporations have given for not creating jobs with their newer tax cuts (which, yes, they promised they would do) is that they’re still insecure about the economy. Hmmm.

That is unfortunately what is happening in my company. They are hiring, but no raises.

I haven’t had a raise in 4 years, yet the price of gasoline and food are spiraling.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You criticize so-called “trickle down” theory, but with the modern Obama/Democrat welfare state you get trickle down charity which empowers bureaucrats, politicians, and increases dependency. But atleast it makes certain liberals*** feel*** they are living out the ideals in the gospel by supporting wealth redistribution. Maybe wealthy/corporations are “sitting on their profits” because they fear that Obama administration will, if it wins, begin acting on its anti-business philosophy that it has espoused in non-teleprompter, unguarded speeches: “we need to spread the wealth around” “you didn’t build this business” etc.

How about the stimulus package, Cmatt. Wasn’t it supposed to spur economic growth and reduce unemployment? What happened? Obama doesn’t know the first thing about what causes economic growth and business to flourish - please tell me what in his life experience would give him a clue about how the economy and business works? Community organizing? Harvard Law School? He is a committed ideologue - and so are his defenders on these forums.

Ishii

I think this is a huge problem for President Obama if you look at his record objectively.

Our government/economy is unsustainable.

Doesn’t anybody look to what happened in Greece, Spain, Ireland, Iceland??
We are following that same path.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think this is a huge problem for President Obama if you look at his record objectively.

Our government/economy is unsustainable.

Doesn’t anybody look to what happened in Greece, Spain, Ireland, Iceland??
We are following that same path.