Apparently Starbucks CEO likes socialism.

[.blank cd]

And government encroachment in private business.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N0GR1DI20130826?irpc=932

[bu villain]

I wouldn't say his actions or statements say he likes socialism or government encroachment. He was doing some of these things voluntarily before but that doesn't mean he wants them to be mandatory.

[Vteckidd]

Thats perfectly his right, its his jobs to do with as he sees fit. I dont begrudge him for eating that cost.

But obviously that is not the norm.

Likeing or disliking Obamacare is irrelevant, the cost to businesses is what matters. Overwhelmingly its causing businesses to react.

Its funny , you act like SB is the same as every other business. Im sure their profit and loss model is not the same as say.......costco.................Home Depot.........UPS...............

not every business is created equal.

[Vteckidd]

Also, healthcare costs for him are prob negligible considering he employs $9-11 hr low wage workers.

Here you go:

The 2010 healthcare reform law, often called Obamacare, requires companies with more than 50 employees to offer health insurance for employees who work 30 hours a week or more. Starbucks currently provides healthcare to part-timers who work 20 hours a week or more.

So of course it doesnt matter, he already offers them HC. The real issue will be when the benefits change , which WILL HAPPEN.

[.blank cd]

Also, healthcare costs for him are prob negligible considering he employs $9-11 hr low wage workers.

So of course it doesnt matter, he already offers them HC. The real issue will be when the benefits change , which WILL HAPPEN.

Papa Johns also employs low wage workers

Whoops, forgot. He reneged on the Obamacare excuse. Lol.

[Vteckidd]

Papa Johns also employs low wage workers

Whoops, forgot. He reneged on the Obamacare excuse. Lol.

Again every business is different. you are assuming way too much and making terrible generalizations.

2 businesses who pay their employees LOW wages vs companies who have much higher costs.

The issue really isnt with providing healthcare , its more in the loss of benefits that will happen.

Companies that are on the "bubble" will be forced to make a decision. Companies that pay employees $9 hr might be able to get away with offering HC now. but companies that paid their workers ........12$/hr might end up lowering wages to give them HC, because the trade off was the companies were paying their labor force MORE MONEY than competitors.

this is what is happening.

Everyones profit model is different. If they can afford to eat the added cost, theyll offer HC. but that is NOT the norm.

I suppose youd be happy with everyone working for papa johns and SB for a living lol

[Vteckidd]

Also, you miss a key piece of this article:



Over the years, Schultz's commitment to employee benefits has been unwavering. Even when Starbucks took cost-cutting measures like shutting down stores and laying off employees, health care benefits -- which also include dental and vision -- have remained intact.

He is noble, but when stores and layoffs happen , Ill be sure to say "i told you so"

Ill stand by my OG prediction, youll have a choice, JOB, or HC. Starbucks sounds great, and if he keeps all his employees and keeps growing while eating this cost, good for him! But , if I hear that he is closing 100-200 stores, to keep benefits, you cant act like the 2 arent related.

[.blank cd]

Everyones profit model is different. If they can afford to eat the added cost, theyll offer HC. but that is NOT the norm.

I suppose youd be happy with everyone working for papa johns and SB for a living lol
I don't think affordability is an argument you want to make here. Lol

[.blank cd]

He is noble, but when stores and layoffs happen , Ill be sure to say "i told you so"

Ill stand by my OG prediction, youll have a choice, JOB, or HC. Starbucks sounds great, and if he keeps all his employees and keeps growing while eating this cost, good for him! But , if I hear that he is closing 100-200 stores, to keep benefits, you cant act like the 2 arent related.

Store closures and layoffs are something we can examine numerically. So if it happens we'll know exactly what it is, instead of assuming its because he wanted to take care of his employees.

Of course, Starbucks has remained a solvent multibillion dollar company all this time paying their employees more than the mandatory minimum wages and benefits. Wonder why....

[bu villain]

Of course, Starbucks has remained a solvent multibillion dollar company all this time paying their employees more than the mandatory minimum wages and benefits. Wonder why....

I'm pretty sure it is because their profit margins are through the roof. A "coffee drink" at Starbucks can cost the same as an entire meal at most fast food places. It's great for them but certainly those kinda of profit margins are not available to most businesses.

[Vteckidd]

Store closures and layoffs are something we can examine numerically. So if it happens we'll know exactly what it is, instead of assuming its because he wanted to take care of his employees.

Takingf care of employees by laying off employees ...............makes sense.


Of course, Starbucks has remained a solvent multibillion dollar company all this time paying their employees more than the mandatory minimum wages and benefits. Wonder why....

because they have really high profit margins, they pay AVERAGE hourly baristas $7-8 /hr, go look it up. He also closes stores an lays people off when profits tumble.

Your article is a dumb attempt to say "LOOK SB ISNT GOING TO CUT HOURS! SO ALL THE OTHER COMPANIES SAYING THEY HAVE TO BECAUSE OF OC ARE LIEING!"

its quite funny

[Vteckidd]

I'm pretty sure it is because their profit margins are through the roof. A "coffee drink" at Starbucks can cost the same as an entire meal at most fast food places. It's great for them but certainly those kinda of profit margins are not available to most businesses.

Blank doesnt understand that all businesses are different. He doesnt understand that some companies will be able to afford it, other wont. Some are volume sellers with low margins, some are not.

The other main point he misses is that he only looks at 1 part of the equation. What Shultz said is meaningless because he already offers some type of HC to employees. (Id love to know what kind it is and compare it to other companies). What is not being presented in the article is he could make this statement about keeing HC, but if he closes 500 stores to keep the current HC, this article is incredibly dumb and misleading.

ALL BUSINESSES ARE NOT CREATED THE SAME

NEITHER IS HC.

THe other funny thing is, that if all these companies had such great HC being offered already, why are we requiring them to offer what the govt wants them to offer? I mean these companies were already offering care ON THEIR OWN DIME, why the mandate ?

http://www.moneycrashers.com/part-time-jobs-health-insurance-benefits/

[.blank cd]

Blank doesnt understand that all businesses are different. He doesnt understand that some companies will be able to afford it, other wont. Some are volume sellers with low margins, some are not.

I understand everything completely. I know exactly what a profit margin is.

[Vteckidd]

I understand everything completely. I know exactly what a profit margin is.

I dont think you do. Youre trying to insinuate that because Company "X" does something, then all other companies have the ability to do what company X is doing.

Simply not true.

Your thread title suggests that anyone who embraces OBamaCare (OC) is a socialist, as a sort of tongue in cheek to the hundreds of businesses who are citing that specific legislation as a reason for them cutting workers hours, and their own individual labor force.

So you make this thread saying "look, I guess Starbucks loves socialism because despite the rising costs of HC, hes going to continue doing what hes doing anyway".

It makes no sense, and its a dumb conclusion because its only 50% of the equation, and assumes all businesses have resources available to them that SB has.

you also, validate the other companies concerns because even Shultz himself admits that there will be millions in costs added to his bottom line from the OC law. I thought OC was supposed to lower costs?

[.blank cd]

I dont think you do. Youre trying to insinuate that because Company "X" does something, then all other companies have the ability to do what company X is doing.

You know what you get when you assume....


(BTW, I don't think businesses should have to cover healthcare at all)

[Vteckidd]

You know what you get when you assume....


(BTW, I don't think businesses should have to cover healthcare at all)

what does your thread title mean then?

Are you taking a shot at Sinfix?

[Sinfix_15]

Blank doesnt understand that all businesses are different. He doesnt understand that some companies will be able to afford it, other wont. Some are volume sellers with low margins, some are not.

The other main point he misses is that he only looks at 1 part of the equation. What Shultz said is meaningless because he already offers some type of HC to employees. (Id love to know what kind it is and compare it to other companies). What is not being presented in the article is he could make this statement about keeing HC, but if he closes 500 stores to keep the current HC, this article is incredibly dumb and misleading.

ALL BUSINESSES ARE NOT CREATED THE SAME

NEITHER IS HC.

THe other funny thing is, that if all these companies had such great HC being offered already, why are we requiring them to offer what the govt wants them to offer? I mean these companies were already offering care ON THEIR OWN DIME, why the mandate ?

11 Best Part-Time Jobs with Health Insurance Benefits (http://www.moneycrashers.com/part-time-jobs-health-insurance-benefits/)


Of course Blank doesnt understand. He's an obtuse moron. His company example is a novelty coffee shop with probably a 500% profit margin. I'm sure Obamacare wont hurt Ferrari, Lamborghini or Gucci either! ZOMG!!!! Obamacare good for business!!!!

The solution is so simple, every business just raise their prices to the highest price people are willing to pay....

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02430/surgeon_2430463b.jpg

[.blank cd]

Of course Blank doesnt understand. He's an obtuse moron. His company example is a novelty coffee shop with probably a 500% profit margin. I'm sure Obamacare wont hurt Ferrari, Lamborghini or Gucci either! ZOMG!!!! Obamacare good for business!!!!

11% last time I checked. And last time I checked, they were pretty global, not exactly novelty.

[Vteckidd]

11% last time I checked. And last time I checked, they were pretty global, not exactly novelty.

again, you misunderstand business at its core.

SB has a quarterly profit margin of 11%ish, they make around 40-50% per coffee cup doe. More on other products.

Starbucks Profit Margin Quarterly (SBUX) (http://ycharts.com/companies/SBUX/profit_margin)

2 totally different numbers

[Sinfix_15]

11% last time I checked. And last time I checked, they were pretty global, not exactly novelty.

When you pay $6 for a coffee, you think theyre making 11% off of it?

[.blank cd]

again, you misunderstand business at its core.

SB has a quarterly profit margin of 11%ish, they make around 40-50% per coffee cup doe. More on other products.

Starbucks Profit Margin Quarterly (SBUX) (http://ycharts.com/companies/SBUX/profit_margin)

2 totally different numbers

You just told me I misunderstand business at its core, then used the same chart I did to get your numbers. LOL.

[Vteckidd]

When you pay $6 for a coffee, you think theyre making 11% off of it?

theyre not, they make much more. Theyre normal coffee they pay $1.83 per lb, it averages out to be about $10-12 when they sell it back to you. However, gotta factor in $7/hr barista, over head, etc. Plus SB sells more than jsut coffee, CDs, food, merchandise, etc.

The point is, the article proves that a business decided that , for now, it will absorb the cost of Obamacare. Thats great, doesnt mean you can ignore the other 100s of companies who say it will hurt them.



See to drive by people, the uneducated voter, the low info person they read this and go HA, SEE, COMPANIES CUTTING LABOR FORCES BECAUSE OF OC ARE LIEING! SB CAN DO IT WHY CANT THEY?

It because quite frankly people arent smart enough to understand

Company doesnt = Company
and
HC doesnt = HC

BTW, 42% of SB employees , according to a recent study, dont have HC. So theres more to this story than what is being published

[Vteckidd]

You just told me I misunderstand business at its core, then used the same chart I did to get your numbers. LOL.

now you misunderstand posts.

I was showing you the chart that shows 11%ish Quarterly Profit margins. That is NOT the same as what they make in the store, which is what you were reponding to with Sinfix

[.blank cd]

When you pay $6 for a coffee, you think theyre making 11% off of it?

Ask Starbucks. That's their numbers they calculate themselves and release to the public. I didnt make those up.

[.blank cd]

now you misunderstand posts.

I was showing you the chart that shows 11%ish Quarterly Profit margins. That is NOT the same as what they make in the store, which is what you were reponding to with Sinfix

So then Sinfix must misunderstand profit margins.

[Vteckidd]

Ask Starbucks. That's their numbers they calculate themselves and release to the public. I didnt make those up.

wrong.

you realize Quarterly Profit statments are NOT the same as Per Item Profit Margins right?

ECON 101 bro

[.blank cd]

wrong.

you realize Quarterly Profit statments are NOT the same as Per Item Profit Margins right?

ECON 101 bro

I don't care what per item profit margins are. Per-item profit margins on a single item is only a fraction of the story. They might make 50% on a cup of coffee, they might lose 5% on a Danish, they might make 8% on a can of their energy drink. They might make 20% on a bag of coffee. I could then just as easily say Starbucks profit margins are -5% and be just as right and just as wrong as you were saying their margins are more than 11%. I don't understand how anyone who has any business sense would use a single item to describe a whole companies profitability.

Not seeing where I was wrong either, as that is definitely part of their quarterly earnings statements they release every quarter to their shareholders.

[Echonova]

So I just saw/read this thread. Pretty sure there is only one word to describe it.





































http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af146/melaka2011/facepalm.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/melaka2011/media/facepalm.gif.html)

[Sinfix_15]

I can afford to wipe my ass with a $100 bill each week, doesnt mean i should. I love how we're having a conversation about a business being able to endure the costs of Obamacare as if that is a positive for Obamacare. This is the typical liberal mindset shared by all Obamacrats like Blankcd, "those who can pay more, should". So our goal now is to endure Obama's mistakes? What is the benefit of it? and if the benefits are so great, why the mandate? Why are liberal policies so good that they have to be forced on everyone????

Starbucks is not an example of the typical business model. They sell a cheap product at a very high markup. Not every business can operate under the same model as starbucks and some are not even allowed to. I work for a company that employs nearly 1000 people. Immediately after the election, we had meetings to discuss cutbacks needed to accommodate healthcare. While obviously they didnt come out and say "Obama sucks" which is how most people interpreted it, they did say things like "pending the results of the election, we're going to have to make some changes". A lot of people got laid off, a lot of people got their hours cut back, a lot of people lost their job...... this is how the "typical" business is dealing with Obamacare. I guess if we just set our price at 3-4-500% what it costs us, like Starbucks, everything would be fine and we would be able to endure Obama. You know, because that's the american way, enduring the mistakes made by our politicians.

[BanginJimmy]

What starbucks says they will or wont do is meaningless. I look a companies like Delta who say Obamacare will cost them 100M a year at todays rates. I'm guessing it will probably be double that or more in 5 years.


A already pointed out, I would like to see SB's health care plan before I really judge. I would also like it re-examined in 3 years when the employer mandate kicks in. Until we do get some context into how SB's plan stacks up, I can only see this article as a snipe piece.

[bu villain]

I love how we're having a conversation about a business being able to endure the costs of Obamacare as if that is a positive for Obamacare.... A lot of people got laid off, a lot of people got their hours cut back, a lot of people lost their job...... this is how the "typical" business is dealing with Obamacare.

I put these two statements side by side because they are really the same thing. They both speak to how much impact the policy will have on business which is that some will be affected greatly and others not so much. That is an important factor but it certainly isn't the sole criteria we should judge the policy on. If the impact on jobs is your main concern, you also have to account for the jobs that will be created in the healthcare industry.


What is the benefit of it? and if the benefits are so great, why the mandate? Why are liberal policies so good that they have to be forced on everyone????

You do recognize the existence of tragedy of the commons issues where good policies must be enforced for everyone even if they are good policies. We wouldn't need a mandate if everyone who didn't have insurance actually paid for all their medical treatment but that is simply not reality.

[Vteckidd]

You do recognize the existence of tragedy of the commons issues where good policies must be enforced for everyone even if they are good policies. We wouldn't need a mandate if everyone who didn't have insurance actually paid for all their medical treatment but that is simply not reality.

its kind of a conundrum ,

Businesses are being forced to cut back benefits because ..........a law is supposed to give people benefits?

Doesnt make much sense does it?

it goes back to my OG argument over this, this law is a broad generalization to fix a problem for less than 8% of the population. HC was NOT broken in the USA, it just wasnt a priority for most people. There were better ways to improve the system.

[bu villain]

its kind of a conundrum ,

Businesses are being forced to cut back benefits because ..........a law is supposed to give people benefits?

Doesnt make much sense does it?

it goes back to my OG argument over this, this law is a broad generalization to fix a problem for less than 8% of the population. HC was NOT broken in the USA, it just wasnt a priority for most people. There were better ways to improve the system.

It is not just a problem for less than 8% of the population. It is a problem for 100% of the population. I have been insured my entire life but it affects me because my insurance costs rise in part due to the people who can't pay their medical bills.

[Vteckidd]

It is not just a problem for less than 8% of the population. It is a problem for 100% of the population. I have been insured my entire life but it affects me because my insurance costs rise in part due to the people who can't pay their medical bills.

the people who dont pay their medical bills = 8% of the population who get bills their care doesnt cover or they dont have coverage. Its really a SMALL miniscule problem to the overall HC industry.

No the reason why your premiums rise is because of
Lack of competition
Too much Govt Intervention (mC/MC)
Lack of transparency on actual costs of care.

its partly insurance companies, the other part is consumers dont shop for HC

[BanginJimmy]

It is not just a problem for less than 8% of the population. It is a problem for 100% of the population. I have been insured my entire life but it affects me because my insurance costs rise in part due to the people who can't pay their medical bills.

So now your problem is going to be even worse because of the 'solution'.

Obamacare has a lot of good parts to it. It falls far short of addressing the real reasons for skyrocketing costs though.

Sent from my Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2.

[bu villain]

the people who dont pay their medical bills = 8% of the population who get bills their care doesnt cover or they dont have coverage. Its really a SMALL miniscule problem to the overall HC industry.

Except aren't those 8% usually the ones with huge medical bills which is why they can't pay. I bet those 8% of people are responsible for much more than 8% of HC billing.


No the reason why your premiums rise is because of
Lack of competition
Too much Govt Intervention (mC/MC)
Lack of transparency on actual costs of care.

its partly insurance companies, the other part is consumers dont shop for HC

That is also true but that is a separate issue from why the mandate is necessary.


So now your problem is going to be even worse because of the 'solution'.

Obamacare has a lot of good parts to it. It falls far short of addressing the real reasons for skyrocketing costs though.

I don't see how the solution makes the tragedy of the commons aspect worse. I think if anything, it fixes that aspect. Now cost is a separate issue and I think Obamacare does address some of the reasons for cost but certainly it doesn't address many others.

[Vteckidd]

Except aren't those 8% usually the ones with huge medical bills which is why they can't pay. I bet those 8% of people are responsible for much more than 8% of HC billing.

Show me a study that that 8% is responsible for the lions share of premiums rising. You wont find it because its not true.

Numbers fluctuate, but any given monthly snapshot shows that 40-50 million adults were without HC. Of taht 40-50 million

were using and passing through the system, to another job.
8-12 million illegal immigrants
People legitimately without coverage
People who choose NOT to have coverage

What it all comes down to is 20-25 million people without coverage. 10% of the total population and under.

Some people are under insured , but thats not what we are talking about.

Of the 50 million people without coverage, Id love to see a study that suggest they are solely responsible for rising premiums. I dont think thats true. The studies I have seen comes down to the BILLING and rates for re-imbursement that directly affect cost.

[BanginJimmy]

I don't see how the solution makes the tragedy of the commons aspect worse. I think if anything, it fixes that aspect. Now cost is a separate issue and I think Obamacare does address some of the reasons for cost but certainly it doesn't address many others.

I was quoting you talking about cost. What reasons does Obamacare address? There is not yet a single shred of proof that a significant number of uninsured healthy people will sign up for coverage over paying the fine. There is a boatload of proof that the previously uninsurable will sign up, this will cause rates to rise for everyone. There is nothing in the bill to force medicare to pay market value for services, forcing rates on private insurance to rise. There are significant increases in mandated coverages, these will cause rates to rise. We already have doctor shortages and its going to get much worse over the next decade. Reduced resources and increased demand will cause rates to rise. Where are the provisions that will cause rates to drop?

[Echonova]

Also, healthcare costs for him are prob negligible considering he employs $9-11 hr low wage workers.

Here you go:


So of course it doesnt matter, he already offers them HC. The real issue will be when the benefits change , which WILL HAPPEN.He needs to pay $15/hr. Otherwise he's not giving them a "living wage" apparently.

[bu villain]

Show me a study that that 8% is responsible for the lions share of premiums rising. You wont find it because its not true. ... Of the 50 million people without coverage, Id love to see a study that suggest they are solely responsible for rising premiums. I dont think thats true. The studies I have seen comes down to the BILLING and rates for re-imbursement that directly affect cost.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not talking about costs, I am talking about participation. There is a tragedy of the commons problem where some people get medical services but don't pay. Not because the rules say they don't have to pay but because they are circumventing the rules. Everyone was already paying for the medical bill defaulters before, and we still will be after Obamacare. So that doesn't change much. The difference is we are controlling how those cost are passed around and forcing everyone to have some skin in the game (via the mandate), rather than letting each individual decide if they want to pay their bill or not.


I was quoting you talking about cost. What reasons does Obamacare address? There is not yet a single shred of proof that a significant number of uninsured healthy people will sign up for coverage over paying the fine. There is a boatload of proof that the previously uninsurable will sign up, this will cause rates to rise for everyone. There is nothing in the bill to force medicare to pay market value for services, forcing rates on private insurance to rise. There are significant increases in mandated coverages, these will cause rates to rise. We already have doctor shortages and its going to get much worse over the next decade. Reduced resources and increased demand will cause rates to rise. Where are the provisions that will cause rates to drop?

But if currently uninsured people pay the fine, that is greater than the 0 dollars they contribute now. The previously uninsurable will raise premiums if those people weren't actually getting medical care before. The problem was that many uninsured people were still getting the care, often through the most expensive avenues like ERs, and just not paying for it. Your statement that demand will rise assumes that people without insurance weren't already demanding care but they were. So the provisions that would lower rates include the use of electronic records and increased access to checkups/preventative medicine which has been shown to decrease costs. Now, keep in mind, I am not saying that in aggregate the rates will go down. They most certainly will continue to go up as they have been for years now. I'm just saying that some provisions will act as a cost lowering force while others will act as a cost raising force.

[Vteckidd]

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not talking about costs, I am talking about participation. There is a tragedy of the commons problem where some people get medical services but don't pay. Not because the rules say they don't have to pay but because they are circumventing the rules. Everyone was already paying for the medical bill defaulters before, and we still will be after Obamacare. So that doesn't change much. The difference is we are controlling how those cost are passed around and forcing everyone to have some skin in the game (via the mandate), rather than letting each individual decide if they want to pay their bill or not.



So why not just charge people a fine who dont have healthcare, and leave it at that?

[bu villain]

So why not just charge people a fine who dont have healthcare, and leave it at that?

Assume you mean healthcare insurance, isn't that precisely what the mandate does?

[Vteckidd]

Assume you mean healthcare insurance, isn't that precisely what the mandate does?

why require health exchanges? Why require medicare subsidies for poor? Why require a mandate? Why require businesses to offer healthcare based upon hours worked?

Just say, hey, you got 3 years to get some form of insurance, if not, you pay "X"

[bu villain]

why require health exchanges? Why require medicare subsidies for poor? Why require a mandate? Why require businesses to offer healthcare based upon hours worked?

There are different reasons for each of those and I don't agree with all of them either. I wish businesses didn't offer employee health care at all.


Just say, hey, you got 3 years to get some form of insurance, if not, you pay "X"

That is basically what the mandate says.

[BanginJimmy]

But if currently uninsured people pay the fine, that is greater than the 0 dollars they contribute now.

Wrong. The money from the fines will go to the govt to pay for giving away health insurance to the poor, not private insurers. The govt may see a windfall from it but private insurers will only see increased rates for care.


The previously uninsurable will raise premiums if those people weren't actually getting medical care before.

Even if they were getting care previously, it was not to the same levels that would be provided by private insurers.



The problem was that many uninsured people were still getting the care, often through the most expensive avenues like ERs, and just not paying for it.

No reason to believe that will change in any significant way. See my next response for my reasoning.




Your statement that demand will rise assumes that people without insurance weren't already demanding care but they were.

As you already stated, most of the uninsured go to the ER. If those same people had insurance you assume they would be going to a primary care doc instead. Imagine just 10% of the currently uninsured go this route. That is another 3M patients wanting to see a doctor, but we already dont have enough primary care doctors in the US and the shortfall is growing every year.

http://depts.washington.edu/uwrhrc/uploads/Aging_MDs_PB.pdf

This is from 2009, before Obamacare, and it was already a matter of concern. This paper deals with metro vs rural docs, but the info is just as relevant.

As for increased medicare and medicaid recipients, I can see them having a much harder time finding a doctor willing to take them.

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/Local-doctors-turning-away-Medicare-patients/HAPVH_fx1UiZub5M_DTlkw.cspx

Almost 9500 docs opted out of medicare in 2012.

This is something I didnt know and is actually quite scary. If true, the dems gave the federal govt the power to take away a docs ability to write a prescription.


So the provisions that would lower rates include the use of electronic records and increased access to checkups/preventative medicine which has been shown to decrease costs.

Electronic records will save money but what will be the security cost? We already know there are elements within the govt that will abuse the public trust and give away confidential info for political purposes (See IRS). We also know HHS has failed every information security milestone and audit to date.

Preventive care saves money? Not so much.
Think preventive medicine will save money? Think again | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/us-preventive-economics-idUSBRE90S05M20130129)


Oh and Blank, you need to call up Reuters and get this Journalist for breaking on their commandments by using a question mark in a title.


Now, keep in mind, I am not saying that in aggregate the rates will go down. They most certainly will continue to go up as they have been for years now. I'm just saying that some provisions will act as a cost lowering force while others will act as a cost raising force.

I simply dont see how you are coming to this conclusion.

[bu villain]

Wrong. The money from the fines will go to the govt to pay for giving away health insurance to the poor, not private insurers. The govt may see a windfall from it but private insurers will only see increased rates for care.

I never said it would go to the insurers. If the government using it to provide insurance to the poor, then they will not need to raise as much of it from taxes.


Even if they were getting care previously, it was not to the same levels that would be provided by private insurers.

People may go more often if they have insurance but it can also lead to savings in the long run by finding problems sooner and by going to a GP instead of the ER.


As you already stated, most of the uninsured go to the ER. If those same people had insurance you assume they would be going to a primary care doc instead. Imagine just 10% of the currently uninsured go this route. That is another 3M patients wanting to see a doctor, but we already dont have enough primary care doctors in the US and the shortfall is growing every year.

http://depts.washington.edu/uwrhrc/uploads/Aging_MDs_PB.pdf

This is from 2009, before Obamacare, and it was already a matter of concern. This paper deals with metro vs rural docs, but the info is just as relevant.

Yes doctor shortages are a real problem. But is the solution to make sure we don't allow more people to see doctors or is to to train more doctors?


Electronic records will save money but what will be the security cost? We already know there are elements within the govt that will abuse the public trust and give away confidential info for political purposes (See IRS). We also know HHS has failed every information security milestone and audit to date.

I can't say I have done all that much analysis personally on this. Of course it depends very much on how much security you think it requires. Plenty of room for debate on that alone.


Preventive care saves money? Not so much.
Think preventive medicine will save money? Think again | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/us-preventive-economics-idUSBRE90S05M20130129)

Actually that article shows preventative care can save money. It says "Some disease-prevention programs do produce net savings. Childhood immunizations, and probably some adult immunizations (such as for pneumonia and the flu), are cost-saving, found a 2009 analysis for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation." What they are saying is that not all things that are billed as "preventative care" save money. I agree and think we should stick to the ones that do save money.



I simply dont see how you are coming to this conclusion.

You don't see how I came to the conclusion that health care costs will continue to rise? The reuters article you referenced shows how preventative medicine can save money.

[BanginJimmy]

I never said it would go to the insurers. If the government using it to provide insurance to the poor, then they will not need to raise as much of it from taxes.

So you agree this will cause rates to rise?


People may go more often if they have insurance but it can also lead to savings in the long run by finding problems sooner and by going to a GP instead of the ER.
Yes doctor shortages are a real problem. But is the solution to make sure we don't allow more people to see doctors or is to to train more doctors?

Who is preventing anyone from seeing a doc now? Absolutely no one. Its just a matter of paying for it.


I can't say I have done all that much analysis personally on this. Of course it depends very much on how much security you think it requires. Plenty of room for debate on that alone.

HHS Inspector General: Obamacare Privacy Protections Way Behind Schedule; Rampant Violations Of Law Possible - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/07/hhs-inspector-general-obamacare-privacy-protections-way-behind-schedule-rampant-violations-of-law-possible/)




Actually that article shows preventative care can save money. It says "Some disease-prevention programs do produce net savings. Childhood immunizations, and probably some adult immunizations (such as for pneumonia and the flu), are cost-saving, found a 2009 analysis for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation." What they are saying is that not all things that are billed as "preventative care" save money. I agree and think we should stick to the ones that do save money.

Dont forget the preceeding paragraph.


A 2010 study in the journal Health Affairs, for instance, calculated that if 90 percent of the U.S. population used proven preventive services, more than do now, it would save only 0.2 percent of healthcare spending.

Who is most likely to use all these preventive services though? My guess would be those that already care and actively invest in their health. Reasoning tells me that those that dont take an active interest in their health, such as the obese and smokers, are more likely to have chronic illnesses and are less likely to seek preventive services. This will drasticly change the ratio of money saved vs money spent and use up all of that 2 cents per $100 spent.


You don't see how I came to the conclusion that health care costs will continue to rise? The reuters article you referenced shows how preventative medicine can save money.

I dont see how you are coming to the conclusion that some provisions will cut costs and offset some of the measures that raise costs. Its like you are saying I am saving money by buying a $15 item over a $10 item that does the same thing because I will get a .2% discount on the $15 item.

[.blank cd]

Oh and Blank, you need to call up Reuters and get this Journalist for breaking on their commandments by using a question mark in a title.

They answered the question in the headline. All clear.

[David88vert]

They answered the question in the headline. All clear.

What about CNN? Their main headline on their site right now is, "Does Congress get a say in this?" and the article below it is titled, "REVENGE PORN: SHOULD IT BE ILLEGAL?", and then the other one in the main box that reads, "U.S. to go it alone after UK vote fails?" Are they "All clear." with their headlines?

LOLOL

[.blank cd]

What about CNN? Their main headline on their site right now is, "Does Congress get a say in this?" and the article below it is titled, "REVENGE PORN: SHOULD IT BE ILLEGAL?", and then the other one in the main box that reads, "U.S. to go it alone after UK vote fails?" Are they "All clear." with their headlines?

LOLOLAssuming all 3 are editorials, since I didnt read them...

"Does Congress Get a Say In This?"
Answer: No, next...

"Revenge Porn: Should it be illegal?"
Answer: No. Next....

"U.S. to go it alone after UK vote fails?"
Answer: No. Next....

Did you miss the headline he was pointing out?

"Think Preventative Medicine Will Save Money?.....
[Answer in the headline]: Think again"

I don't see how you're pointing out an inconsistency here. Just trying to find an exception to the rule to disprove the whole thing?

[David88vert]

Assuming all 3 are editorials, since I didnt read them...

"Does Congress Get a Say In This?"
Answer: No, next...

"Revenge Porn: Should it be illegal?"
Answer: No. Next....

"U.S. to go it alone after UK vote fails?"
Answer: No. Next....

Did you miss the headline he was pointing out?

"Think Preventative Medicine Will Save Money?.....
[Answer in the headline]: Think again"

I don't see how you're pointing out an inconsistency here. Just trying to find an exception to the rule to disprove the whole thing?

You know what they say about assumptions.....

The answer to the first one is not "No". If you looked closer, it actually is, "How much say will Congress have on Syrian chemical weapons response?" - as in they don't know yet. Congress wants a voice on Syrian chemical weapons response - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/obama-congress-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

The answer to the second one is not "No" either. California is looking to make it illegal, and the article states it so.

The answer to the third ones is not "No" - again, you fail (3 strikes you're out). An official has already stated that the US is looking at unilateral action against Syria. You shouldn't have assumed "No".

I've already shown that your "journalism rule" was not true. It's only a "journalism rule" in your own mind.

[.blank cd]

You know what they say about assumptions.....

The answer to the first one is not "No". If you looked closer, it actually is, "How much say will Congress have on Syrian chemical weapons response?" - as in they don't know yet. Congress wants a voice on Syrian chemical weapons response - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/obama-congress-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

The answer to the second one is not "No" either. California is looking to make it illegal, and the article states it so.

The answer to the third ones is not "No" - again, you fail (3 strikes you're out). An official has already stated that the US is looking at unilateral action against Syria. You shouldn't have assumed "No".

I've already shown that your "journalism rule" was not true. It's only a "journalism rule" in your own mind.

Do you just realize you've proved me right?

[.blank cd]

You know what they say about assumptions.....

The answer to the first one is not "No". If you looked closer, it actually is, "How much say will Congress have on Syrian chemical weapons response?" - as in they don't know yet. Congress wants a voice on Syrian chemical weapons response - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/obama-congress-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)The question in the headline was not "How much say will Congress have on Syrian chemical weapons response?"

Good try


The answer to the second one is not "No" either. California is looking to make it illegal, and the article states it so.The question in the headline was not "Is California Looking To Make Revenge Porn Illegal?"

Are you just trolling, are you changing the headlines as you go along to try to prove me wrong or what? You're not to good at this....


The answer to the third ones is not "No" - again, you fail (3 strikes you're out). An official has already stated that the US is looking at unilateral action against Syria. You shouldn't have assumed "No".

You failed at this. Sorry.

[David88vert]

Do you just realize you've proved me right?

Do you realize that I proved your wrong - just like I did when I showed you that all of the journalism schools, and professional copy editors, and professional journalists think that your "rule" is a nothing more than a rant by the uninformed?

[David88vert]

The question in the headline was not "How much say will Congress have on Syrian chemical weapons response?"

Good try

The question in the headline was not "Is California Looking To Make Revenge Porn Illegal?"

Are you just trolling, are you changing the headlines as you go along to try to prove me wrong or what? You're not to good at this....



You failed at this. Sorry.

Really? I happened to save the screenshots - just because I knew that you would set yourself up for it.

http://imageshack.us/a/img594/1103/9evt.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img855/8047/dvsi.jpg


All of those headlines are right there.

These guys don't know what they are doing though right?

How many journalism awards did your high school teacher win, and how many years did he/she spend writing as a copy editor for major news outlets?

[.blank cd]

Really? I happened to save the screenshots - just because I knew that you would set yourself up for it.Ok. So you require further explanation of the guideline. I will help you. I'm not at a desktop, so my clicks result in something completely different, so we'll go off your screenshots. Thank you for taking them.

Is this the headline you're asking about?

1.http://imageshack.us/a/img594/1103/9evt.jpg

Or is this the headline you're asking about?

2.http://imageshack.us/a/img855/8047/dvsi.jpg

It would seem to me that #2 is the actual headline. From what I can see, the headline doesn't appear to be a yes or no question. And from what I can sew, it doesn't appear to be an editorial.

#1 also appears to be a headline to another story as well. "Does congress have a say in this? Lawmakers...."

Are we still on track here?

[David88vert]

Ok. So you require further explanation of the guideline. I will help you. I'm not at a desktop, so my clicks result in something completely different, so we'll go off your screenshots. Thank you for taking them.

Is this the headline you're asking about?

1

Or is this the headline you're asking about?

2

It would seem to me that #2 is the actual headline. From what I can see, the headline doesn't appear to be a yes or no question. And from what I can sew, it doesn't appear to be an editorial.

#1 also appears to be a headline to another story as well. "Does congress have a say in this? Lawmakers...."

Are we still on track here?

We are way off track from the original subject - no disagreement from me on that.

"Does Congress get a say in this?" in the first screenshot links to the article in screenshot #2.
The other titles that have "?" link to different articles, not the one in screenshot #2. I figured that should have been obvious to you.
Your statement previously was that a question mark should never be used in a headline, correct?
Are you saying that only applies to editorials now?
If so, what do you make of these editorials on major news outlets? Do you think that you know more than these professional copy editors do concerning their own jobs?

http://imageshack.us/a/img845/8399/hag5.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img15/5575/8sgd.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img94/6096/u6df.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img196/1616/qkwf.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img35/7104/gpmr.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img35/1342/u5vy.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img560/2703/30xw.jpg

[bu villain]

So you agree this will cause rates to rise?

Yes I agree.


Who is preventing anyone from seeing a doc now? Absolutely no one. Its just a matter of paying for it.

I didn't say anyone is prevented from seeing a doc. I am saying if we have a shortage of doctors, that's not a problem with Obamacare, that is a problem of needing to train more doctors.



Dont forget the preceeding paragraph.

I didn't. The preceeding paragraph supports my point. Preventative care done right will save money. Huge piles of money? No, but savings non the less.


Who is most likely to use all these preventive services though? My guess would be those that already care and actively invest in their health. Reasoning tells me that those that dont take an active interest in their health, such as the obese and smokers, are more likely to have chronic illnesses and are less likely to seek preventive services. This will drasticly change the ratio of money saved vs money spent and use up all of that 2 cents per $100 spent.

I think what you are saying is that the savings will be less than expected if preventative services are offered but I don't see how offering them will result in a negative savings. Immunizations aren't just for people who are otherwise unhealthy. They are important for the most physically fit/healthy people too.


I dont see how you are coming to the conclusion that some provisions will cut costs and offset some of the measures that raise costs. Its like you are saying I am saving money by buying a $15 item over a $10 item that does the same thing because I will get a .2% discount on the $15 item.

Except I never said the savings will equal the extra expenses. See my response to the first quote above.

[BanginJimmy]

I think what you are saying is that the savings will be less than expected if preventative services are offered but I don't see how offering them will result in a negative savings. Immunizations aren't just for people who are otherwise unhealthy. They are important for the most physically fit/healthy people too.

Preventive care isn't just immunizations though. It is things like cancer screenings and healthy checkups which have shown to have a net cost, not net savings.


Sent from my Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2.

[bu villain]

Preventive care isn't just immunizations though. It is things like cancer screenings and healthy checkups which have shown to have a net cost, not net savings.

I'm an advocate of the preventative care that saves money in the long run, not testing everything just in case.