Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2018 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/13/2018 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2018 10:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/13/2018 10:51:00 AM (view original):
What I am proposing with Medicaire, Medicaid and SSI would not result in job loss. You argue just to argue.

What solutions do you have? Taxes at 99%? LOL.

You’re arguing for less spending. Regardless of whether or not your ideas are good, less spending will reduces jobs. It’s an economic fact.

If a clerk has to issue a reimbursement for $100 or $50 its the same job. I 100% disagree.

So there’s a medical office that was receiving $100 and it’s now getting $50. You don’t think that will impact jobs in that medical office?

No. The doctor has a finite amount of patients. If Medicaire is renegotiated to where it actually pays more up front then the doctor will see that patient. So when I call with an initial issue Medicaire agrees to cover more and will cover less if the patient procrastinates or if the doctor does not take them sooner. Right now doctors put off taking these patients because seeing me is more profitable for them. This results in patients going to the ER or having an ambulance come and get them and that results in higher costs.

So if I call and a medicaire patient calls and we both have a sprained ankle, medicaire should cover 90% of what say private insurance covers. That 10% would not be enough for the MD to make them wait and force them to go to the ER. On a follow up the doc will only get $50 vs. $100 but that doc already knows its just a checkup and will not take more than 5-10 min., as he already saw that patient. So that will not cost any jobs. So now the doctor has made more money and the patient has not gone to the ER so Medicaire saves too.

Posted by strikeout26 on 8/13/2018 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, I didn't have a problem with the tax cuts. I had a problem with the tax cuts without cutting spending.

Front line winner. Cutting taxes, by itself, will never pay off the massive debt the country has.

The silly narrative right now is that America has an Opioid Addiction. The true addiction America has is an addiction to Credit...and it's killing us.

Posted by The Taint on 8/13/2018 10:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 8/13/2018 9:35:00 AM (view original):
The great Margaret Thatcher once said the problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of everyone else's money. Since we are already in beaucoup debt and have been for many decades, offering free healthcare, free education, free sucks and ***** and little rubber ducks is rather stupid. That's not a sound ideology. That's an appeal to emotion.

Like massive tax cuts while the economy is booming. Makes zero sense.


Agreed 100 percent.

In theory, I essentially agree.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2018 10:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 8/13/2018 10:24:00 AM (view original):
The problem is that if you cut anything, its political suicide.

It’s also just bad policy. There is no private primary health insurance market for people over 65. Cutting Medicare really isn’t an option.

It definitely isnt an option when you just made a huge, upper-class tax cut.

In reality, I completely agree.

I just agreed with taint and b_l.

The world is surely near its end.

The starter of this thread believes that debt is a good thing.

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/13/2018 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2018 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/13/2018 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2018 10:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/13/2018 10:51:00 AM (view original):
What I am proposing with Medicaire, Medicaid and SSI would not result in job loss. You argue just to argue.

What solutions do you have? Taxes at 99%? LOL.

You’re arguing for less spending. Regardless of whether or not your ideas are good, less spending will reduces jobs. It’s an economic fact.

If a clerk has to issue a reimbursement for $100 or $50 its the same job. I 100% disagree.

So there’s a medical office that was receiving $100 and it’s now getting $50. You don’t think that will impact jobs in that medical office?

No. The doctor has a finite amount of patients. If Medicaire is renegotiated to where it actually pays more up front then the doctor will see that patient. So when I call with an initial issue Medicaire agrees to cover more and will cover less if the patient procrastinates or if the doctor does not take them sooner. Right now doctors put off taking these patients because seeing me is more profitable for them. This results in patients going to the ER or having an ambulance come and get them and that results in higher costs.

So if I call and a medicaire patient calls and we both have a sprained ankle, medicaire should cover 90% of what say private insurance covers. That 10% would not be enough for the MD to make them wait and force them to go to the ER. On a follow up the doc will only get $50 vs. $100 but that doc already knows its just a checkup and will not take more than 5-10 min., as he already saw that patient. So that will not cost any jobs. So now the doctor has made more money and the patient has not gone to the ER so Medicaire saves too.

That makes zero sense. Anyone who read that is now dumber.

If we currently spend X and then we reduce that to .75X, the .25X that we’re no longner spending isn’t going somewhere that it currently is. That means that there are less jobs.

Maybe thats still ultimately a good move, but know what’s happening. In the same way that cuting defense spending costs jobs, cutting Medicare (or anything else) does too.

Posted by strikeout26 on 8/13/2018 11:34:00 AM (view original):
The starter of this thread believes that debt is a good thing.

(permanent) Debt is The Devil. Sell your soul now and don't worry about what happens when the bill comes due later.

Posted by strikeout26 on 8/13/2018 11:34:00 AM (view original):
The starter of this thread believes that debt is a good thing.

Debt is a tool. It’s not inherently good or bad. It’s just a thing.

That’s like saying, “the starter of this thread believes flat-head screw drivers are a good thing.”

Well, sometimes flat-heads are necessary. Other times, they aren’t the correct tool for the job.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2018 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/13/2018 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2018 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/13/2018 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2018 10:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/13/2018 10:51:00 AM (view original):
What I am proposing with Medicaire, Medicaid and SSI would not result in job loss. You argue just to argue.

What solutions do you have? Taxes at 99%? LOL.

You’re arguing for less spending. Regardless of whether or not your ideas are good, less spending will reduces jobs. It’s an economic fact.

If a clerk has to issue a reimbursement for $100 or $50 its the same job. I 100% disagree.

So there’s a medical office that was receiving $100 and it’s now getting $50. You don’t think that will impact jobs in that medical office?

No. The doctor has a finite amount of patients. If Medicaire is renegotiated to where it actually pays more up front then the doctor will see that patient. So when I call with an initial issue Medicaire agrees to cover more and will cover less if the patient procrastinates or if the doctor does not take them sooner. Right now doctors put off taking these patients because seeing me is more profitable for them. This results in patients going to the ER or having an ambulance come and get them and that results in higher costs.

So if I call and a medicaire patient calls and we both have a sprained ankle, medicaire should cover 90% of what say private insurance covers. That 10% would not be enough for the MD to make them wait and force them to go to the ER. On a follow up the doc will only get $50 vs. $100 but that doc already knows its just a checkup and will not take more than 5-10 min., as he already saw that patient. So that will not cost any jobs. So now the doctor has made more money and the patient has not gone to the ER so Medicaire saves too.

That makes zero sense. Anyone who read that is now dumber.

If we currently spend X and then we reduce that to .75X, the .25X that we’re no longner spending isn’t going somewhere that it currently is. That means that there are less jobs.

Maybe thats still ultimately a good move, but know what’s happening. In the same way that cuting defense spending costs jobs, cutting Medicare (or anything else) does too.

I disagree. Defense goes to private contractors. This goes to administators...So do you like the idea overall?

I don’t even understand your “idea.” You realize that most Medicare spending is the money going to medical providers, right?

The feds decide to pay for X provided by company A.

X could be a drone provided by Northrop or a knee surgery provided by Sharp Healthcare.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2018 11:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 8/13/2018 11:34:00 AM (view original):
The starter of this thread believes that debt is a good thing.

Debt is a tool. It’s not inherently good or bad. It’s just a thing.

If debt is a means to an end, then I agree with you again. I could never have afforded my house without assuming debt. However, I took on the debt with the plan to pay it off. Unfortunately, America has rooted itself into permanent, crushing debt with no inkling (or intention) of paying off the I.O.U. IMHO, that is inherently bad.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 8/13/2018 11:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2018 11:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 8/13/2018 11:34:00 AM (view original):
The starter of this thread believes that debt is a good thing.

Debt is a tool. It’s not inherently good or bad. It’s just a thing.

If debt is a means to an end, then I agree with you again. I could never have afforded my house without assuming debt. However, I took on the debt with the plan to pay it off. Unfortunately, America has rooted itself into permanent, crushing debt with no inkling (or intention) of paying off the I.O.U. IMHO, that is inherently bad.

It’s clearly not a crushing amount of debt, though.

Yes but unlike the military the doctors refuse to take medicaire patients. I'll dumb it down.

I call: I have a sprained ankle. What is your insurance? Harvard Pilgrim. Doc can see you tomorrow.

Old person calls: I have a sprained ankle. What's your insurance? Medicaire. Doc is available in 24 days.

The patient ends up going to the ER and it costs more. Medicaire remibursement rates need to be adjusted so they pay more up front so that MDs will see these patients rather than have them going to more expensive options like the ER.