patrick.net

socal2 says

Yes, retreat into sarcasm - but people really don't like losing their doctors, networks AND paying higher premiums at the same time. Go figure!

-------------------------------
In addition to losing their doctors, healthplans, and reasonable premiums, most people don't like being lied to.... We'll find out how much come November.....

Iosef V HydroCabron says

The economy is always changing. Markets and industries have been lost for thousands of years. Jobs, house prices, assset values: they come and go.

Wanna explain that to the arrogant pricks from NYC and Boston who come to the SFBA and inflate home prices like its no tomorrow.

bob2356 says

socal2 says

marcus says

You really don't know what single payer means, do you.

Think you need to google UK's NHS and get back with me.

Maybe you should google the other 41 single payer countries and get back to me. Oh wait the NHS is poorly done, that's all that counts.

Though in fairness it still manages to rank a fair bit higher than the US system whilst also having a far lower cost.

Bigsby says

bob2356 says

socal2 says

marcus says

You really don't know what single payer means, do you.

Think you need to google UK's NHS and get back with me.

Maybe you should google the other 41 single payer countries and get back to me. Oh wait the NHS is poorly done, that's all that counts.

Though in fairness it still manages to rank a fair bit higher than the US system whilst also having a far lower cost.

That was my point. The status quo defenders who don't have a clue how health care is done other places take the worst designed, poorest funded public system on the planet, which still provides better care overall than the US, as the benchmark for public health care. Why don't the idiots ever want to talk about how awful public health care is in Japan, Singapore, NZ, Oz, Norway, France, etc., etc..

The US system is terrible. The far and away the worst of the 5 countries I've lived in long term. Not the health care itself. Doctors learn and do the same things using the same equipment everywhere. The providing of health care is the worst. Expensive, confusing, and a nightmare of paperwork for even the simplest problem. Other places you just go to the doctor or hospital and get treated then leave. That's it.

bob2356 says

The US system is terrible. The far and away the worst of the 5 countries I've lived in long term. Not the health care itself. Doctors learn and do the same things using the same equipment everywhere. The providing of health care is the worst. Expensive, confusing, and a nightmare of paperwork for even the simplest problem. Other places you just go to the doctor or hospital and get treated then leave. That's it.

Paper work ? .. rubish. You do it once and its done. For me that was over 20 yeas ago. I didnt even get a bill after my yearly visits, they mail it to my insurance company. As far as Other places like Japan to Europe.. not the case.. you make an appointment which takes months. The waiting list is longer than you can imagine.

If you truly believe in your own nonsense, you just wait and see what will happen as number of doctors shrinks and appointments get pushed out.

You will be the first to complain...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Criticisms

The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting fewer than 90 days.

The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans [56] is two weeks with 86.4% waiting fewer than 90 days.

The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting fewer than 90 days

thomaswong.1986 says

The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting fewer than 90 days.

Give your doc a call Tuesday and see when they can get you in. My pcp got me in 3 weeks. The 2 referrals from there: 4 weeks and TBD weeks. Wow for paying 10x here in the usa I have cut my wait times by a median of half a week compared to Canada. Also keep in mind that physicians such as dermatologists schedule appointments out sometimes as long as 3 or 4 months...in America. It's the same system here. Just costs hella lot more.

JH says

Give your doc a call Tuesday and see when they can get you in. My pcp got me in 3 weeks. The 2 referrals from there: 4 weeks and TBD weeks.

Things will change... it has for Japan, Europe and Canada.

Lets face the facts, the only reason for Obama is get EVERYONE covered.

Its no more than what Ted Kennedy and Later Hilary has been pushing..

Long lines and shortages will be the norm down the road...

thomaswong.1986 says

JH says

Give your doc a call Tuesday and see when they can get you in. My pcp got me in 3 weeks. The 2 referrals from there: 4 weeks and TBD weeks.

Things will change... it has for Japan, Europe and Canada.

Lets face the facts, the only reason for Obama is get EVERYONE covered.

Its no more than what Ted Kennedy and Later Hilary has been pushing..

Long lines and shortages will be the norm down the road...

My point is that it is already the same. If socializing it makes it worse than other developed nations...gee whiz.

thomaswong.1986 says

As far as Other places like Japan to Europe.. not the case.. you make an appointment which takes months. The waiting list is longer than you can imagine.

I never lived in Japan, but I lived in europe and austolasia. I saw my doctor the same day I called most of the time, the next day otherwise The few times I saw a specialist it was usually more or less the same amount of time as I have waited for approval in the US.

Exactly which country did you live in that took months to for you see your doctor? I actually doubt very much you've travelled further than the state fair.

JH says

Tea party originally was in boston in response to taxation without representation etc. This movement was about whining about taxes.

No it was about "taxation without representation". Because it wasn't taxation, it was just a sophisticated ransom. We need another one today, taxes are too high and everything they get they squander away on wars. That's not right in my book.

sbh says

An anecdote unworthy of being called data

It's more data than foxnews shares in a week.

sbh says

Ask most conservative Americans and they'll tell you something, anything, way different whether they know it to be a fact or not. It's terribly important to claim that Canada has loooong lines

You might first ask them 1) if they know any Canadians and 2) if they have ever been to Canada.

bob2356 says

Anyone notice a pattern of republican vs democratic administration spending here?

There is also a pattern of recessions during Republican terms. So not just that they spend, but they spend when tax receipts are low (whether by their control or not). Remember, deficits don't matter. (Unless they are not the ruling party, of course..........)

Saving money from Geiko can make you happy.
How happy Stan?

Happier than a Democrat that lost to a Republican rather than the tea party.

So it's come to this has it? After just a few years of Obama, and his failed policies you guys are now cheering old school Republicans to win elections. I feel ya, can't say I blame you one bit.

bob2356 says

The 92 million out of the workforce is a stupid number to throw up

Indeed.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=BCD

blue is jobs, red is 75% of working-age population, the basic full employment level of the late 1990s and later Bush Boom.

zooming into 2014:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=BCE

we can see we're about 8M jobs short of the long-term trend.

clambo says

GDP has been growing 2% since Obama, but employment has not.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=BCF

JH says

When pressed, the typical tea partier of a certain age would say, well of course I should get to keep MY social security. I saw that on more than one occasion.

I saw Tea Partiers holding up signs saying "Get your government hands off my Medicare." They couldn't understand why I was laughing at them.

indigenous says

Of course they did pay 15.4% of their salary into it...

No, they certainly didn't. If they were employed by someone else, they paid 6.2% and their employer paid 6.2%. If they were self-employed, they paid 12.4%. Except in the years that there a payroll tax holiday then it was 4.2%/6.2% and 10.4%.

Medicare is 1.45% for employee and employer, and 2.9% for self-employed.

Note that the "employer contribution" is deductible for a self-employed person -- i.e. 1/2 of the amount.

So no, no 15.4% anywhere.

corntrollio says

So no, no 15.4% anywhere.

It used to be, either way the point is the same.

The Professor says

Sounds like the democrats and republicans!

Actually it sounds pretty much like the tea party...

The Professor says

supporting millions of people that COULD work but decide the dole is easier.

Ah yes... no right-leaning commentary is complete without including broad and generalized comments about lazy good-fer-nothin's and welfare since as we all know ANYONE who uses ANY government funded program is lazy. I'll remember that when I take the trip home on the government-funded freeway system. Guess I must be lazy!

indigenous says

corntrollio says

So no, no 15.4% anywhere.

It used to be, either way the point is the same.

No, you just can't do math and don't understand payroll tax.

6.2% + 6.2% + 1.45% + 1.45% = 15.3%. That's the self-employment rate for total payroll tax. You just don't understand how this works. It didn't used to be higher than 15.3% -- you just made that part up.

corntrollio says

I saw Tea Partiers holding up signs saying "Get your government hands off my Medicare." They couldn't understand why I was laughing at them.

Hahahha, that is too painfully ironic it hurts my brain.

corntrollio says

No, you just can't do math and don't understand payroll tax.

6.2% + 6.2% + 1.45% + 1.45% = 15.3%. That's the self-employment rate for total payroll tax. You just don't understand how this works. It didn't used to be higher than 15.3% -- you just made that part up.

It is not hard to understand, there is little point in separating the two they are services that few are going to realize but certainly paid for. Which is the point, not the minutiae.

Since employers have to compete for employees the 7.5% would go to the worker, if not paid to the government.

Another poll showing "Minuteman" Donnelly ahead of "TARP bagman" Kashkari in the race for second place (CA open primary for governor).

indigenous says

It is not hard to understand, there is little point in separating the two they are services that few are going to realize but certainly paid for. Which is the point, not the minutiae.

Since employers have to compete for employees the 7.5% would go to the worker, if not paid to the government.

There is no proof the 7.65% would go to the employees -- employers would just cut this cost if they could, like they've been doing with everything else (e.g. you can't argue Obamacare will cause employers to cut health insurance out of one side of your mouth, and then say they would pay an extra 7.65% to employees if not for payroll tax out of the other side of your mouth).

Furthermore, you misunderstood the numbers -- 2.9% is for Medicare, 12.4% is for Social Security. There was never any 15.4% going to Social Security like you stated above. You both misstated the number and where it was going because you didn't understand how payroll tax worked before I explained it to you.

corntrollio says

I saw Tea Partiers holding up signs saying "Get your government hands off my Medicare." They couldn't understand why I was laughing at them.

To be fair people -- half the boomers -- have been paying that 2-3% into the program all their lives and haven't drawn a penny out yet.

Now, their benefits helped pay for their parents' Medicare, but people don't think that way.

corntrollio says

There is no proof the 7.65% would go to the employees -- employers would just cut this cost if they could, like they've been doing with everything else (e.g. you can't argue Obamacare will cause employers to cut health insurance out of one side of your mouth, and then say they would pay an extra 7.65% to employees if not for payroll tax out of the other side of your mouth).

None but it would. To assume otherwise is like saying the money coerced from the economy by the government would not be spent in the free market.

corntrollio says

Furthermore, you misunderstood the numbers -- 2.9% is for Medicare, 12.4% is for Social Security. There was never any 15.4% going to Social Security like you stated above. You both misstated the number and where it was going because you didn't understand how payroll tax worked before I explained it to you.

Yes dumbass I understand it, have been paying it for decades. The point once again is that people have been paying into a program deserve to get the benefits of that program.

corntrollio says

I saw Tea Partiers holding up signs saying "Get your government hands off my Medicare." They couldn't understand why I was laughing at them.

Problem isn't them, problem is you not understanding them.

FortWayne says

Problem isn't them, problem is you not understanding them.

Yeah, we all misunderstood the deeper fundamental reality. Like my parents, they want the services but not the associated taxes. Anything else is not patriotic.

indigenous says

The point once again is that people have been paying into a program deserve to get the benefits of that program.

Yes they do. So, putting 2.9% of $50k into an investment with 5% return over 30 years yields $100k. What happens once you hit $100k? Done. How long would that take a 65 year old to burn through?

Caveat: few were making $50k 30 years ago, so the $100k is inflated.

Bottom line: after you hit $100k in medical expenditures, you might want to change the wording on your sign.

JH says

What happens once you hit $100k? Done. How long would that take a 65 year old to burn through?

Don't know, consult LBJ.

indigenous says

Since employers have to compete for employees the 7.5% would go to the worker, if not paid to the government.

Like they are competing now with all the raises and bonuses?

bob2356 says

Like they are competing now with all the raises and bonuses?

Not so much at the moment but in the past certainly

indigenous says

Don't know, consult LBJ.

So it is his fault that it is underfunded?

JH says

So it is his fault that it is underfunded?

Absolutely, with help from others since.

indigenous says

Absolutely, with help from others since.

Let us not forget the voters who elected them all...and now want more than $100k in free medical care

JH says

Let us not forget the voters who elected them all

You are preaching to the choir.

bob2356 says

Why don't the idiots ever want to talk about how awful public health care is in
Japan, Singapore, NZ, Oz, Norway, France, etc., etc..

Face it, US government bureaucracies are some of the most inefficient and incompetent organizations on the planet. EVERYTHING the US government does is far more expensive and wasteful than it needs to be. We spend far more per pupil on education than all OECD countries and get shitty results. Democrats ruined civil service once they allowed them to unionize.

What's your solution to our terrible education system Bob? Spend more money? Get more government involved?

What's your solution to the terrible VA scandal and treatment of our vets? Get more government involved? The government already runs everything at the VA and totally fucked it up. You want that kind of service for 300+ million of us?

What's your solution to the massive waste and fraud in Medicare? Get more government involved?

Can you point to a single well run government entitlement or service to give Libs their religious faith that moar government is the solution?

The premise of this thread is flawed.

The same monied ideologues who founded it, have temporarily decided to hide the powdered wigs in order to win the next election. Once the election is over and both bodies are firmly in GOTP control, they will be back with a vengeance.

Whether you call them Birchers or Teabaggers or simply peasants of Kochland, they are the same people.

socal2 says

Democrats ruined civil service once they allowed them to unionize.

Actually the 62th congress that passed the Lloyd-Lafollette Act in 1912 was split with a democratic house and a republican senate. A republican, Taft, was president. Don't let facts screw you up.

socal2 says

What's your solution to our terrible education system Bob? Spend more money? Get more government involved?

Perhaps you weren't aware of it but the US government doesn't run schools in the US, local school boards do. The US doesn't spend more than than all other oecd countries.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp " In terms of countries’ expenditures by education level, the percentage of GDP the United States spent on elementary and secondary education was similar to the OECD average percentage of GDP spent on elementary and secondary education (4.0 percent each)."

The US is mid pack in results. But the leading countries don't have anywhere near the social problems or poverty of the US. I'm not aware of any other OECD country educating 12 million illegals disadvanteged (to say the least) children living in poverty for example. Things could certainly be better but your argument doesn't wash on the facts. Terrible? Get a grip. Don't let facts screw you up.

socal2 says

What's your solution to the terrible VA scandal and treatment of our vets? Get more government involved? The government already runs everything at the VA and totally fucked it up

Should have never happened. Congress is totally responsible for providing adequate oversight and failed miserably. Not the first or last time it will happen. Good thing there has never been a massive scandal in the private sector. Say like Enron or Madoff or Worldcom. Nope lying cheating and stealing would never happen outside of government.

socal2 says

What's your solution to the massive waste and fraud in Medicare? Get more government involved?

Massive? If medicare didn't have fee for service then there wouldn't be any way to commit fraud. Like public health care around the world that deliver better results for half the cost.

If medicare is so bad then were increases in medicare less then private insurance for the last 15 years. Why is medicare close to the per beneficiary cost of private insurance at $8500 when medicare takes over 65 (aka the old and sick) and private insurance under 65?

I'm far from being a fan of medicare, but it does a decent job.

socal2 says

Can you point to a single well run government entitlement or service to give Libs their religious faith that moar government is the solution?

I'm not a liberal and don't have religious faith the "moar" government is the solution. There are area's where government makes more sense, there are area's where private makes more sense. There are plenty of well run government services and even a couple well run entitlements, but since your version of religious faith won't accept that thought going over them is utterly pointless.

So can you point to the US health system that is not government and call it well run based on the cost and results? I don't think so.

JH says

FortWayne says

Problem isn't them, problem is you not understanding them.

Yeah, we all misunderstood the deeper fundamental reality. Like my parents, they want the services but not the associated taxes. Anything else is not patriotic.

And your parents were right. If 1% of the population owns 99% of the money and the politicians, than they should pay for the 99% of the services.

I think that's a very conservative and a fair deal. Why burden the poor and the middle class when they do all the work anyway. I think the 1% is not paying their fair share! We the 99% do not work for free, we are not the bitch for the 1%, we deserve what we earn!

Vicente says

The premise of this thread is flawed.

The same monied ideologues who founded it, have temporarily decided to hide the powdered wigs in order to win the next election. Once the election is over and both bodies are firmly in GOTP control, they will be back with a vengeance.

Yes and no. Sure- the monied guys who setup the tea party will likely continue to stick their fingers into politics to get what they want via some sort of manipulation. The method this time was to get politicians into congress using a fake grass roots "movement". Now that has failed they'll pull their money and as you mentioned- will probably come up with some other bullshit thing the next election cycle.

But for all practical purposes the tea party is done.