Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 60 of 60

Thread: Apparently Starbucks CEO likes socialism.

  1. #41
    Gods Chariot Vteckidd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Atlanta Centennial Park
    Age
    42
    Posts
    33,102
    Rep Power
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
    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?
    Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
    -www.usedbarcode.net

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,627
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vteckidd View Post
    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?

  3. #43
    Gods Chariot Vteckidd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Atlanta Centennial Park
    Age
    42
    Posts
    33,102
    Rep Power
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
    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"
    Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
    -www.usedbarcode.net

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,627
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vteckidd View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vteckidd View Post
    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.

  5. #45
    Moderator BanginJimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Hiram, GA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    7,499
    Rep Power
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
    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/u...ing_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...b5M_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.

    Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
    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


    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
    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.
    Last edited by BanginJimmy; 08-29-2013 at 04:10 PM.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,627
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
    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/u...ing_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?

    Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
    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.

  7. #47
    Moderator BanginJimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Hiram, GA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    7,499
    Rep Power
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by article
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
    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.

  8. #48
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
    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.

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  9. #49
    Slowest Car on IA David88vert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Johns Creek
    Age
    51
    Posts
    8,378
    Rep Power
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .blank cd View Post
    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
    "Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen

  10. #50
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David88vert View Post
    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
    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?

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  11. #51
    Slowest Car on IA David88vert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Johns Creek
    Age
    51
    Posts
    8,378
    Rep Power
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .blank cd View Post
    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

    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.
    "Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen

  12. #52
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David88vert View Post
    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

    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?

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  13. #53
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    38

    Default Apparently Starbucks CEO likes socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by David88vert View Post
    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
    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.

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  14. #54
    Slowest Car on IA David88vert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Johns Creek
    Age
    51
    Posts
    8,378
    Rep Power
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .blank cd View Post
    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?
    "Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen

  15. #55
    Slowest Car on IA David88vert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Johns Creek
    Age
    51
    Posts
    8,378
    Rep Power
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .blank cd View Post
    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.






    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?
    "Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen

  16. #56
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    38

    Default Apparently Starbucks CEO likes socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by David88vert View Post
    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.

    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?

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  17. #57
    Slowest Car on IA David88vert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Johns Creek
    Age
    51
    Posts
    8,378
    Rep Power
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .blank cd View Post
    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?







    Last edited by David88vert; 08-30-2013 at 05:13 PM.
    "Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen

  18. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,627
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
    So you agree this will cause rates to rise?
    Yes I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
    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.

  19. #59
    Moderator BanginJimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Hiram, GA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    7,499
    Rep Power
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post

    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.

  20. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,627
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
ImportAtlanta is a community of gearheads and car enthusiasts. It does not matter what kind of car or bike you drive, IA is an open community for any gearhead. Whether you're looking for advice on a performance build or posting your wheels for sale, you're welcome here!
Announcement
Welcome back to ImportAtlanta. We are currently undergoing many changes, so please report any issues you encounter with the site using the 'Contact Us' button below. Thank you!