Post: #1

Quote:As first reported in the Orlando Sentinel, Darden Restaurants -- owners of about 2,000 outlets including the Red Lobster and Olive Garden chains -- is studying ways to shift more employees under the 30-hour ceiling. About three-quarters of its 185,000 workers are already under, says spokesman Rich Jeffers. The question is "can we go higher and still deliver a great [eating] experience." The financial stakes are sizable. Suppose Darden moves 1,000 servers under 30 hours and avoids paying $5,000 insurance for each. The annual savings: $5 million

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...15851.html

Post: #2

Yep, for some reason people under estimate the intelligence of HR departments. I know a number of people who have an employer that is just going to cut their hours and hire a part timer or two. This plan has backfired.

Post: #3

Like they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The libs never look into the opportunity costs of anything they do with regards to social policy.

Hopefully, Romney will win and repeal Obamacare.

Post: #4

(10-22-2012 09:00 AM)wiscanada Wrote:  Yep, for some reason people under estimate the intelligence of HR departments. I know a number of people who have an employer that is just going to cut their hours and hire a part timer or two. This plan has backfired.

To be fair, you can't speak of it in the past-tense. We have yet to see what the real effects are. This is just pointing out a simple aspect most people lack the brains to perceive

Post: #5

I think we seem to keep forgetting that all the advanced countries of the world(we being the only exception) have some form of public option in health care. This is just the norm of the developed world. Somehow they manage to thrive just fine.

The only reason it's taken so long here is because we are raised to believe in rugged individualism. In Europe even the far right is much more collectivist. America's brand of conservatism is unique in the world, it's an odd combination of exceptionalism, religiosity, individualism, hawkishness and economic libertarianism.

Post: #6

(10-22-2012 11:04 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  I think we seem to keep forgetting that all the advanced countries of the world(we being the only exception) have some form of public option in health care. This is just the norm of the developed world. Somehow they manage to thrive just fine.

The only reason it's taken so long here is because we are raised to believe in rugged individualism. In Europe even the far right is much more collectivist. America's brand of conservatism is unique in the world, it's an odd combination of exceptionalism, religiosity, individualism, hawkishness and economic libertarianism.

On the bold faced point, read these:

One woman's lonely death on the NHS's 'care pathway' to the grave: MPs demand action after another patient is chosen to die without doctors telling family
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...amily.html

NHS 'heading for disaster' over lack of nurses
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...urses.html

NHS rationing is putting health at risk, says doctors' leader
Mark Porter, the new British Medical Association's chair of council, says cuts and rationing of drugs may harm patients
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/a...ors-leader

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Nationalized health services have one characteristic in common -- CENTRAL PLANNING. Central planning -- in any kind of business (health care, transportation, making cars) -- will fail because of the information problem. Government bureaucrats simply do not know enough to manage the complex quartet of supply, demand, quality, and price.

The result? Rationing, pricing distortions, unfulfilled demand, and, inevitably off-grid or black market activities.

I had this discussion the other day with a friend of mine -- a dyed in the wool lib -- and he said, "Health care is a right."

Really? On what tablet delivered from what deity does it say that? Where does it end? Do I have right to heirloom tomatoes? A jet pack? Landscaping?

Private economic systems are ALWAYS better than public ones. Are there dislocations? You bet. Manage the outliers then, create social safety nets. But don't implement central planning solutions. They are inevitably worse disasters than the disasters they are intended to prevent.

Inevitably.

Post: #7

Tenderman, you're oversimplifying. Not all nations with universal coverage centrally plan and ration health care. It's way more complex than that. Some countries have a decentralized system. Some use a mix of both public and private service. Some have universal coverage but private insurance companies are contracted by the government.

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-heal...012-6?op=1

And you can always cherry pick failures. You can do the same with our system. But the thing is, nobody other than us wants our kind of system. And it's misleading to think that just because ours is a private system that it's more efficient or effective. We aren't even close to the top on efficiency. Some nations with universal coverage spend less with better results. See the link above.

Btw, believe it or not I used to be pretty right wing, so the same arguments you are using I'm quite familiar with as I recited them to liberals at the time.

Post: #8

(10-22-2012 08:09 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

Quote:As first reported in the Orlando Sentinel, Darden Restaurants -- owners of about 2,000 outlets including the Red Lobster and Olive Garden chains -- is studying ways to shift more employees under the 30-hour ceiling. About three-quarters of its 185,000 workers are already under, says spokesman Rich Jeffers. The question is "can we go higher and still deliver a great [eating] experience." The financial stakes are sizable. Suppose Darden moves 1,000 servers under 30 hours and avoids paying $5,000 insurance for each. The annual savings: $5 million

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...15851.html

This has already been happening well before the Affordable Health Care Act - companies reducing hours, hiring temps or freelancers to avoid paying benefits.

In fact this is an argument in favor of having some type of "public option", that the employer based insurance system is a failure and leaves too many people uninsured. It's old fashioned and doesn't serve a dynamic economy where people are much more mobile than they were in the past. People are fearful to move, change jobs, or to take risks.. like to quit a job with benefits to open a business because of lack of health insurance.

If any of you get sick and lose your job/health insurance, you will not be able to buy individual health insurance without the affordable healthcare act.

On 60 Minutes, Romney said you can just call an ambulance and go to the emergency room (whether you have cancer or whatever). By the way, guess who pays for that? Taxpayers.

Post: #9

(10-22-2012 12:02 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Tenderman, you're oversimplifying. Not all nations with universal coverage centrally plan and ration health care. It's way more complex than that. Some countries have a decentralized system. Some use a mix of both public and private service. Some have universal coverage but private insurance companies are contracted by the government.

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-heal...012-6?op=1

And you can always cherry pick failures. You can do the same with our system. But the thing is, nobody other than us wants our kind of system. And it's misleading to think that just because ours is a private system that it's more efficient or effective. We aren't even close to the top on efficiency. Some nations with universal coverage spend less with better results. See the link above.

Btw, believe it or not I used to be pretty right wing, so the same arguments you are using I'm quite familiar with as I recited them to liberals at the time.

After I wrote what I did I noticed that you said "some form of public option" so your point is taken.

The fact is, though, we DO have some form of public option here -- Medicaid and Medicare.

But I would argue that our system is bad because it provides perverse incentives.

--Tax-free employment insurance disincentivizes individuals to find health care based on the price-quality tradeoff. Price becomes irrelevant.

--Government mandated pricing for the services IT funds requires providers to charge differentially for other consumers. But the other consumes don't care because they never SEE the price they pay.

--There is zero -- ZERO -- incentive for the obese in this country to control this problem, the #1 problem driving our health care costs. If fat individuals had to pay more for health insurance and health care, we might see this obesity epidemic slowed.

--Rent seeking supply restrictions by interest groups dampens choice. Recall that the AMA tried desperately to regulate Wal Mart's attempt to open low cost clinics.

--Finally, think of the products and services that, over time, have become higher quality AND lower cost -- computers, cell phones, TVs. And it's happened in some areas of heatlh care -- LASIK surgery, non-invasive ligament repair. If you open the market to real competition, and keep regulation and central planning requirements to the barest minimum, prices will go down and quality will go up.

Bottom line, most of us spend more time figuring the out the cost/feature equation for a flat screen TV than we do for healthcare. I don't know how old you are, but if I were say 25 and on my own, I would want the cheapest highest deductible insurance I could find. If I was unlucky enough to have a pre-existing condition, then a government guaranteed risk pool makes sense.

But with Obamacare, and centralized health care markets, you are going to have a very hard time finding those kinds of high deductible low cost price alternatives for those who want them. It will be one size fits all with all of its attendant distortions.

Post: #10

Cherry-picked stories are are poor arguments. I remember the AMA journal had an article about howBritain got better outcomes overall with less money than the USA. And the American doctors make MUCH more and are therefore motivated to support our system.

Here is more like that with Cancada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_...ted_States

When you argue with emotions and personal stories in stead of logic, you are arguing like a woman, not like a manly Rightist.

Post: #11

(10-22-2012 09:07 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  Like they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The libs never look into the opportunity costs of anything they do with regards to social policy.

Hopefully, Romney will win and repeal Obamacare.

Isn't President Obama's health care plan directly modeled after the plan Romney passed when he was governor of Massachusetts? Kind of ironic, huh?

Post: #12

(10-22-2012 12:45 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  But with Obamacare, and centralized health care markets, you are going to have a very hard time finding those kinds of high deductible low cost price alternatives for those who want them. It will be one size fits all with all of its attendant distortions.

This is precisely what the Affordable Healthcare Act does (AKA "Obamacare")- uses market forces to control costs and offer competitively priced options.

It sets up insurance exchanges where people (healthy and sick) can shop for an appropriate insurance premiums (not one size fits all in anyway).

Because of the insurance mandate (a conservative idea) both healthy and sick people buy insurance. The way it works now, before the exchanges take effect, is that sick people are the main buyers of health insurance so costs sky rocket for everyone, or they not permitted to buy it at all no matter how much they want to pay because of pre-existing conditions. With both healthy and sick people buying insurance, the risk is spread, premium rates are stabilized, and people can shop for the right plan for them in the exchanges.

The high risk pools are expensive, and don't spread risk because they are full of sick people, and are also not big enough to handle everyone.

The A.C.A./Obamacare, otherwise known as "Romneycare" has worked well in Massachusetts.

Post: #13

(10-22-2012 12:52 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  Cherry-picked stories are are poor arguments. I remember the AMA journal had an article about howBritain got better outcomes overall with less money than the USA. (Oh, so THIS ISN'T cherry picked?)
And the American doctors make MUCH more and are therefore motivated to support our system. (Of, course precisely the reason we SHOULD have more market forces applying).

Here is more like that with Cancada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_...ted_States (Wikipedia?? Seriously??)

When you argue with emotions and personal stories in stead of logic, you are arguing like a woman, not like a manly Rightist. (Personal stories? Where's the personal story? Do you know how to read?)

Post: #14

That is a piece that is appealing, the no precondition denial part of it. That's what is unfortunate about this legislation is that it turned into a handicapped compromise bill. I would have enjoyed a final version that looked like either the democrat or the republican proposal as they would have been heavy handed either way but effective at least.

Its like the two parties spent the whole night at the bar arguing over whether or not to bring home the 8 short and thick brazillian or the 8 tall and slim ukrainian they argued so long that next thing they knew it was 5 min to bar close and they had to bring home the 3 american beast in flip flops because they had to do something and fast. No one is proud of it, everyone regrets it and its full of unforseen loopholes and consequences from last minute choices.

(10-22-2012 12:03 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 08:09 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

Quote:As first reported in the Orlando Sentinel, Darden Restaurants -- owners of about 2,000 outlets including the Red Lobster and Olive Garden chains -- is studying ways to shift more employees under the 30-hour ceiling. About three-quarters of its 185,000 workers are already under, says spokesman Rich Jeffers. The question is "can we go higher and still deliver a great [eating] experience." The financial stakes are sizable. Suppose Darden moves 1,000 servers under 30 hours and avoids paying $5,000 insurance for each. The annual savings: $5 million

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...15851.html

This has already been happening well before the Affordable Health Care Act - companies reducing hours, hiring temps or freelancers to avoid paying benefits.

In fact this is an argument in favor of having some type of "public option", that the employer based insurance system is a failure and leaves too many people uninsured. It's old fashioned and doesn't serve a dynamic economy where people are much more mobile than they were in the past. People are fearful to move, change jobs, or to take risks.. like to quit a job with benefits to open a business because of lack of health insurance.

If any of you get sick and lose your job/health insurance, you will not be able to buy individual health insurance without the affordable healthcare act.

On 60 Minutes, Romney said you can just call an ambulance and go to the emergency room (whether you have cancer or whatever). By the way, guess who pays for that? Taxpayers.

Post: #15

(10-22-2012 11:26 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  Nationalized health services have one characteristic in common -- CENTRAL PLANNING. Central planning -- in any kind of business (health care, transportation, making cars) -- will fail because of the information problem. Government bureaucrats simply do not know enough to manage the complex quartet of supply, demand, quality, and price.

The Interstate system seems to work pretty well.

Ever been to a National Park? They are pretty fucking awesome.

NASA just landed on Mars.

Post: #16

(10-22-2012 11:26 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  On the bold faced point, read these:

One woman's lonely death on the NHS's 'care pathway' to the grave: MPs demand action after another patient is chosen to die without doctors telling family

You make your policy decisions based on anecdotes?

How very feminine of you to find a few horror stories and then become hysterical.

Any human system is going to have errors, i.e., horror stories.

A mans looks at overall outcomes systemwide rather than get all emotional over a few tales.

Post: #17

(10-22-2012 01:37 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  The Interstate system seems to work pretty well.

Ever been to a National Park? They are pretty fucking awesome.

NASA just landed on Mars.

Apples to Oranges.

The Interstate system was built by private contractors. It's also not a market that has price-quality-supply-demand issues. It's one-time project. Markets are ongoing and have substantial changes in offerings over time. (Road repairs and widening are improvements at the margin). And roads should be the province of governments -- the government is correct to fund the commons, which includes most infrastructure.

National Park are also not markets. It's a preservation activity.

NASA in an interesting case -- but when you think about it, it's objectives tend to be quite narrow, and focused, and run by highly competent technicians. It's very much a "project" based system, not a market-oriented activity.

Of course, it will be interesting to see what happens now that the private enterprise is getting into the space race. Stay tuned on that one.

Post: #18

(10-22-2012 01:40 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 11:26 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  On the bold faced point, read these:

One woman's lonely death on the NHS's 'care pathway' to the grave: MPs demand action after another patient is chosen to die without doctors telling family

You make your policy decisions based on anecdotes?

How very feminine of you to find a few horror stories and then become hysterical.

Any human system is going to have errors, i.e., horror stories.

A mans looks at overall outcomes systemwide rather than get all emotional over a few tales.

I can find hundreds, even thousands, of article decrying the warped realities of centralized health care.

Meanwhile, prove to me that the "outcomes" are better. Show me the evidence.

Post: #19

(10-22-2012 01:51 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 01:40 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 11:26 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  On the bold faced point, read these:

One woman's lonely death on the NHS's 'care pathway' to the grave: MPs demand action after another patient is chosen to die without doctors telling family

You make your policy decisions based on anecdotes?

How very feminine of you to find a few horror stories and then become hysterical.

Any human system is going to have errors, i.e., horror stories.

A mans looks at overall outcomes systemwide rather than get all emotional over a few tales.

I can find hundreds, even thousands, of article decrying the warped realities of centralized health care.

Meanwhile, prove to me that the "outcomes" are better. Show me the evidence.

1) The A.C.A./Obamacare is not "central planning". It controls costs by making sure everyone has insurance, not only sick people.

2) Look at Romneycare in Massachusetts. People like it. It works well. The A.C.A./Obamacare is based on it.

3) Ask old people how they like their Medicare. Has good outcomes.

4) Ask congress how they like their health insurance - it's similar to medicare. Has good outcomes. Why's it good enough for them but not everyone else?

5) Ask veterans how they like their health insurance. Has good outcomes.

Post: #20

I am not american but even I can see you clearly don't have private health care and you haven't since the 60's. Medicaid and medicare is socialized medicine.

Post: #21

(10-22-2012 01:40 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  A mans looks at overall outcomes systemwide rather than get all emotional over a few tales.

You're right. Systemwide outcome of every nation with a form of national heathcare:


Going bankrupt.

Post: #22

(10-22-2012 02:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 01:40 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  A mans looks at overall outcomes systemwide rather than get all emotional over a few tales.

You're right. Systemwide outcome of every nation with a form of national heathcare:


Going bankrupt.

Not true.

Maybe going bankrupt but not from healthcare.

Post: #23

(10-22-2012 02:17 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 02:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 01:40 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  A mans looks at overall outcomes systemwide rather than get all emotional over a few tales.

You're right. Systemwide outcome of every nation with a form of national heathcare:


Going bankrupt.

Not true.

Maybe going bankrupt but not from healthcare.

Name a country with universal healthcare that isn't going bankrupt?

Also, universal healthcare was first tried in Germany's old weimar state back in 1883. 40 years later the entire state was bankrupt.


It's not that healthcare alone makes a country go bankrupt, it's that the type of people that would vote in universal healthcare are also the types of people that will vote in countless other pork items that result in total entrenchment of the government and complete stagnation of the economy.

The type of people that vote in healthcare are the types who will sit idly while their government starts expensive wars, print trillions of money to give to their allies, and generally not follow a strong rule of law.

Universal healthcare has always been, and always will be, the product of demagoguery, and corrupt states such as these ultimately fail.

Post: #24

(10-22-2012 02:21 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 02:17 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 02:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 01:40 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  A mans looks at overall outcomes systemwide rather than get all emotional over a few tales.

You're right. Systemwide outcome of every nation with a form of national heathcare:


Going bankrupt.

Not true.

Maybe going bankrupt but not from healthcare.

Name a country with universal healthcare that isn't going bankrupt?

Also, universal healthcare was first tried in Germany's old weimar state back in

Name some that are going bankrupt as a result of universal healthcare?

It's been tried now, in Massachusetts, with Romneycare and it works.

Post: #25

(10-22-2012 02:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 01:40 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  A mans looks at overall outcomes systemwide rather than get all emotional over a few tales.

You're right. Systemwide outcome of every nation with a form of national heathcare:

Going bankrupt.

U.S.: Going bankrupt.

We Americans ride a high horse.

The fall is going to be quite painful.