patrick.net

MMR says

entrepreneurial [vs] current system of waiting 6 wks for appointments and having to take half day off for primary care appointment

I agree if by "entrepreneurial" you mean evening and weekend appointments and housecalls, but in practice we see more unnecssary and injurious tests including diagnostic radiation with no benefit. Patients brag about having the "best" insurance (meaning it covers the most things) and the "best" doctors (meaning they drive the fanciest cars) and feel valued, but they receive "no proven benefits" and are probably worse off. Some doctors get illegal kickbacks in exchange for ordering unnecessary tests, while others own (legally) shares in the testing labs. The Kaisers' empire combines ostensibly "non-profit" hospitals (so they pay no tax) with expressly for-profit labs located inside the hospitals.

I miss Turtledove, who commented in detail about the methods hospital corporations use to stifle genuinely entrepreneurial competition. SF has the most restrictive zoning I've seen anywhere, there's basically nothing medical on a weekend evening except the hospital emergency rooms, which are (by their own account) the most expensive places in town. If doctors are required to maintain hospital admitting privileges, for example, the hospital can make an offer they can't refuse: either sell the practice to the hospital corporation, or face trumped up allegations to lose the necessary admitting privileges.

PeopleUnited says

Alternatively we could just bring all our troops home, close all our foreign military bases and use the savings to pay for free VA based health care to all Americans.

We wouldn't even need to close the bases: we could simply quit starting unnecessary and undeclared wars, e.g. Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and southeast Asia. We could have provided universal VA care for everyone at a lower cost than what we've spent there. In fact, if the Iraq war had been managed competently, we could have done both. Instead, we pursued an Orwellian strategy to maintain scarcity and internal power differentials by destroying surplus production in a way that most of the population found psychologically acceptable. It's both sad and amazing to see what people accept when hypnotized by NATO MSM.

curious2 says

PeopleUnited says

Alternatively we could just bring all our troops home, close all our foreign military bases and use the savings to pay for free VA based health care to all Americans.

We wouldn't even need to close the bases: we could simply quit starting unnecessary and undeclared wars, e.g. Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and southeast Asia. We could have provided universal VA care for everyone at a lower cost than what we've spent there. In fact, if the Iraq war had been managed competently, we could have done both. Instead, we pursued an Orwellian strategy to maintain scarcity and internal power differentials by destroying surplus production in a way that most of the population found psychologically acceptable. It's sad and amazing to see what people accept when hypnotized by NATO MSM.

Sounds like a good start to me. Why do we let them get away with it (policies of endless war)?

jazz music says

Blurtman says

It's all shit.

You should have seen the higher positioned songs, most of them are rap, with that gratuitous ebonics and use of nigga to signal cult belonging. Do you realize that people are buying these songs and that's what makes them high on the list?

What were the parents of the early 60s saying when Elvis was gyrating his hips?

PeopleUnited says

Why do we let them get away with it (policies of endless war)?

Manufacturing Consent.

BlueSardine says

How so, MrMrs Junior?

joeyjojojunior says

Except that he is enriching himself more directly through the Presidency than any other politician in history. He's not even hiding it

PeopleUnited says

I don't think Trump needs any more money, but if you are to indict him, where is the evidence?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-mar-lago-travel-triggers-cost-ethics-concerns-n743541

And then there's the "coincidence" that Ivanka gets 3 lucrative trademarks in China on the day that Daddy met with the Chinese.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ivanka-trump-brand-20170418-story.html

Do I need to continue? That's in the first 100 days.

They are funds well spent to have a happy healthy president.
You want trump making bad decisions while in a bad white house mood? Remember the white house is a step down in quality living for him.

Ironman says

joeyjojojunior says

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-mar-lago-travel-triggers-cost-ethics-concerns-n743541

Ahhh, the opinion of ONE guy... that's it... Case settled..

joeyjojojunior says

Do I need to continue?

Please do, I'll get some more popcorn.

He's supposedly going to mar a lago every weekend for privacy of conversations. The price absolutely seems wasteful as fuck. Is suggest leaving the entourage in DC. If trump wants to jet off to FL, let him foot his own bill.

MMR says

What were the parents of the early 60s saying when Elvis was gyrating his hips?

I understand that POV, but there are seemingly quite a few young people who long for better music, if you read Youtube comments. I have a few millennial friends who long for the music of the 60's and 70's.

Reagan killed the middle class, exploded the deficit, and sold out America. We'd all be twice as rich if Reagan were never president. The facts are indisputable.

www.youtube.com/embed/z5CCRI1vdwE

www.youtube.com/embed/CTa8H6vAMyQ

www.youtube.com/embed/534YLXIKT1E

Reagan was a lying sack of shit who created all the economic problems that we still face today. Anyone who worships Reagan is morally bankrupt.

Ironman says

So, @Marcus, you think computerized Medicare billing records are the SAME as electronic health records??

REALLY??

Folks, you can't make this shit up...

The only thing that qualifies for the "you can't make this shit up" here is that I'm willing to argue with you.

I'm not an expert on the subject at all, but common sense would suggest that the networks, systems, EHRs, and databases that are out there in health care are extremely immature compared to what they will be even a decade from now. This is partly based on what I've heard from people in the industry.

And yes, cross referencing health records against billing would be only one off the top of my head way that monitoring medicare fraud by taking advantage of continued digitization of everything in health care. The amount of money that can be made (and will be made) by IT people helping the government get medicare fraud under control boggles the mind.

You haven't made a single argument as to why medicare can not or will not put downward pressure on health care costs in the future. In fact, the demographics of the baby boom guarantee it will happen for reasons that even you should be capable of understanding.

http://observer.com/2016/05/what-digital-innovation-in-healthcare-will-look-like/

https://hbr.org/2016/02/speeding-up-the-digitization-of-american-health-care

http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare-systems-and-services/our-insights/healthcares-digital-future

The proportion of American hospitals with an electronic health record has grown eight-fold in recent years, from 9% in 2008 to 76% in 2014. For physicians, the comparable increase has been from 17% to 51%.

Stop with the Technophilia. This has little to do with carbon copy vs. electronic.

If Congress actually began policing medicare fraud, private hospitals would have big league problems paying big dividends to investors and million dollar salaries to management.

The C-Diff to Private Hospital to Private Nursing Home to Private Hospital again is a cash machine roller coaster.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

This has little to do with carbon copy vs. electronic.

Yes of course, I can totally imagine AI or at least "smart" automated systems reading a bunch of carbon copies looking for billing that's not justified.

joeyjojojunior says

BlueSardine says

How so, MrMrs Junior?


joeyjojojunior says

Except that he is enriching himself more directly through the Presidency than any other politician in history. He's not even hiding it

PeopleUnited says

I don't think Trump needs any more money, but if you are to indict him, where is the evidence?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-mar-lago-travel-triggers-cost-ethics-concerns-n743541

And then there's the "coincidenc...

So your evidence that Trump and his family continue to run successful businesses while simultaneously serving in the White House means what exactly? What would make you happy? Would you rather he sold his company (for a profit no doubt) to the highest bidder? I don't think even that would satisfy you.

Dan8267 says

Reagan...created all the economic problems that we still face today.

I agree with you. Reagan was the start down our current neo-con path that every president since him has followed, including Clinton and Obama. This is why Trump won, and why Bernie would have won. The people are pissed at neo-cons.

iPig says

Obama switched from a policy of bringing back body bags to a policy of targeted strikes of high profile terrorist leaders. Although there are still innocent casualties, they are lower by an entire order of magnitude or more. Furthermore American servicemen are also safer by far more than an entire order of magnitude. Obama was far superior, incomprehensibly superior to Bush.

Props to you iPig. You paint a rosy picture of Obama on defense. However, the devil is in the details.

iPig says

the rise of the Al Qaeda and ISIS resistance in Iraq,

Even if you want to blame Bush/American involvement in Iraq for the rise of Al Qaeda and ISIS in Iraq, it became Obama's responsibility when he took over. He called ISIS the JV team and let them become an international terrorist threat. He failed to recognize the problem of ISIS/Islam and consequently failed to act decisively to prevent the ISIS movement from becoming a regional and global force.

PeopleUnited says

So your evidence that Trump and his family continue to run successful businesses while simultaneously serving in the White House means what exactly? What would make you happy? Would you rather he sold his company (for a profit no doubt) to the highest bidder? I don't think even that would satisfy you.

No, my evidence is that Trump is purposely forcing the US Government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on businesses owned by Trump. That is the definition of using the Presidency to enrich himself. No other President in US history has done anything resembling this level of behavior.

And we haven't even started on the quid pro quo with China to enrich Ivanka. Basing US foreign policy to funnel $$ to his family.

It is truly unprecedented. Or unpresidented, as Trump would write.

joeyjojojunior says

PeopleUnited says

So your evidence that Trump and his family continue to run successful businesses while simultaneously serving in the White House means what exactly? What would make you happy? Would you rather he sold his company (for a profit no doubt) to the highest bidder? I don't think even that would satisfy you.

No, my evidence is that Trump is purposely forcing the US Government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on businesses owned by Trump. That is the definition of using the Presidency to enrich himself. No other President in US history has done anything resembling this level of behavior.

And we haven't even started on the quid pro quo with China to enrich Ivanka. Basing US foreign policy to funnel $$ to his family.

It is truly unprecedented. Or unpresidented, as Trump would write.

So lets examine the situation with a parallel. I work for Acme company. They pay for me to eat lunch. I chose to eat lunch at my favorite restaurant (I happen to own it). Am I therefore guilty of forcing my employer to support my business? I guess so. Big deal. Trump is just choosing to patronize his favorite businesses. The fact that they happen to be owned by him might be unprecedented but it certainly isn't unethical. He has the prerogative to do so, and America has the prerogative to judge him for it. I simply don't think it fair to judge a man for doing exactly what he did before he was president, patronizing his own businesses.

PeopleUnited says

So lets examine the situation with a parallel. I work for Acme company. They pay for me to eat lunch. I chose to eat lunch at my favorite restaurant (I happen to own it). Am I therefore guilty of forcing my employer to support my business? I guess so. Big deal. Trump is just choosing to patronize his favorite businesses. The fact that they happen to be owned by him might be unprecedented but it certainly isn't unethical. He has the prerogative to do so, and America has the prerogative to judge him for it. I simply don't think it fair to judge a man for doing exactly what he did before he was president, patronizing his own businesses.

What company pays you to eat lunch?? And yes, most companies have strict conflicts of interest policies to avoid this type of situation. Very few large companies would allow a purchasing manager to hire a company owned by an employee to do contracting work.

It IS a big deal. We elected a huge snake oil salesman and he is using his position to take money from you and me and put it into his pockets. Obviously it doesn't bother you because you are part of the Trump cult. But that doesn't make it any less of a big deal.

Meh, nothing by Taylor Swift.

tr6 says

Obamacare is a "heritage foundation" disaster passed by Obama.

The only reason why Republican can't repeal it because it's pretty much what they would have passed in the first place.

CBOEtrader says

Go look at wealth disparity, workforce participation %, number of people on food stamps, % of population in poverty, and real wages... then compare that to the price of a home or food or gas or HEALTHCARE OR COLLEGE. The net result of Obama's policies hurt the poor and helped the rich.

More accurate to say that Obama was not single handedly able to reverse these strong trends which continued during his Presidency. These trends can all be placed at the foot of both parties, especially the republicans.

But you're completely right, Obama wasn't able to do much to prevent it from getting worse. I wonder why ?

Dan8267 says

Reagan killed the middle class, exploded the deficit, and sold out America. We'd all be twice as rich if Reagan were never president. The facts are indisputable.

Reagan took economy out of recession, won the cold war, turned everything around. But you liberal pinheads will never give him credit, and he's dead so he doesn't care what you think of him. He was one of the greatest presidents this country had.

Honey, the videos I posted show actual evidence. Your baseless rewriting of history carries no weight. Reagan was a loser who betrayed the American people, and they are still suffering from his inept policies.

CBOEtrader says

No, we put trump in power because of those things.

With the intent to fix any of that? Or just because he was non-establishment?

If Trump was only a middle finger to the establishment, joke's going to be on the Trump supporters, because he is (and will always be) on amazingly weak footing in DC.

Let me tell you how the next 12 to 16 years will go. Temp and Republicans will give tax cut. Deficits will grow liberal and the economy will grow. Tax revenue may grow temporarily as people bring money back (declare deferred income) and people are more likely to declare capital gains to rest their basis while taxes are low. Republicans will do something to spend money explicitly or by going to war. Then their will be a crash. We will turn to a Democrat. After the crash, the deficit will be through the roof, due to reduced gdp. The Democrat will bring the ship back slowly with no new spending and a reduction in wars, but the debt will keep growing due to the shit show that was left to him. Pubs will blame the Democrat.

After all history repeats itself.

PCGyver says

Wait should the Democrats be labeled the conservative?

Democrats have been more fiscally conservative for a long time. The only time that Republicans are more fiscally conservative in action is when it comes to social security or medicare spending. The only time they are more fiscally conservative in their assertions is when a Democrat is president. 'The debt will kill us. The debt will kill us.' was the refrain for the past 8 years. What are they saying today?

Republicans (religious republicans in particular) have been fighting social change throughout my lifetime. The demands of the Christian right and the lunacy of the Bush tax cut / war spending combination are the primary reasons that I'm a Democrat.

we believe ARLP is well positioned to once again consider gradually increasing distributions to our unitholders."

The Democrat stance on the environment is also more conservative than the Republican position. This isn't saying much considering the Republican position is to sell off public lands, pump mercury and CO2 into the oceans, get rid of any effort to conserve fuel, and to cut other emission control policies.

Lefties hate them too

Awe yeah!

Coal prices in the Illinois Basin seem to be trending poorly (all time lows). Isn't this where they sell 80% of their coal?

https://www.quandl.com/data/EIA/COAL-US-Coal-Prices-by-Region?utm_medium=graph&utm_source=quandl

c1561490 says

Coal prices in the Illinois Basin seem to be trending poorly (all time lows). Isn't this where they sell 80% of their coal?

https://www.quandl.com/data/EIA/COAL-US-Coal-Prices-by-Region?utm_medium=graph&utm_source=quandl

look at ARLP's earnings report - you'll have your answers

The dishonest media should have reported this as the major negotiation victory (for the world's best negotiator) that it was. That way, he'd be happy about it and excited to go for his round 2 victory.

Seriously, I thought that Trump losing the election in 2016 would break the Republican party. They seem to be broken badly enough for Trump's victory to ruin things. There is just not enough unity in the party to agree on much of anything. Hopefully, it will stay that way, but I'm not totally confident that will happen.

Yup that's what Tax cuts do.
I would prefer the poor hungry and driven in a healthy economy. Rather than kept underfed in a Socialist zero sum game.

Let the billionaires employ the poor.

Did not read, but the title of your thread is painfully stupid.

jazz music says

TRUMP TAX PLAN TO GIVE TRILLIONS FROM WORKING FAMILIES TO THE RICHEST FAMILIES

How can that be when everyone gets a tax cut?

jazz music says

At the same time, lower- and middle-income families could be in a worse position. The White House proposes to reduce the number of tax brackets from seven to three: 10, 25 and 35 percent. But no one yet knows where the income cutoff lines are being drawn. People who end up being pushed into a lower bracket would be better off, but those kicked into a higher bracket would not be.

Families with after-tax income between roughly $19,000 and $76,000, for example, are now in the 15 percent marginal tax bracket, which is slated for elimination.

“That’s where the middle of America is,” Mr. Kleinbard said. While some may drop into the new 10 percent bracket, others could be nudged up into the 25 percent range.

Translation: nobody knows nothing, but let's pretend our wild-ass guesses is the truth.

jazz music says

Repealing the estate tax, for example, would affect just 5,300 or so fortunes a year. For 2017, couples can shield up to $11 million of their estates from any taxation, leaving only the largest inheritances subject to taxation.

If we were a meritocracy, estate tax would be 90% across the board.
Each person would start from roughly the same square.
Plus rich old people would be actually spending like crazy to finish at 0.

Trump believers are truly a cult.