[PassedOut]

 blackshoe, on 2013-October-09, 07:54, said:

There is a danger, I think, in "I'll never vote again for a Republican, even if I think he's the best candidate for the job". Many decry the two party system, saying it's not flexible enough. It seems to me that whether or not that's true, a one party system would be worse.

I agree. For the foreseeable future at least we in the US find ourselves effectively locked into a two-party system, so whether or not a there are better alternatives (and there might well be), it's important to me to have sensible republican candidates to vote for once again. So I'd never preclude voting for a republican that I thought would be best for the job (and I'm pretty sure that Ken would not actually do so either).

For the time being though, it is really hard for me to vote for a national republican (local is a different story, of course). Not only do I disagree with the national republicans on "social issues," but on my big issues as well. My big issues are (a) staying out of stupid wars and (b) maintaining fiscally responsible policies. On both those issues, the democrats these days are head-and-shoulders above the republicans.

[ArtK78]

 y66, on 2013-October-09, 07:40, said:

.....

Frank LoBiondo, R-New Jersey: LoBiondo penned an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer that said he supported a clean government funding bill.

.....

Woo Hoo! My Republican representative is a rational human being! I knew I liked him, even if he was a Republican.



I also note that Jon Runyan, a second term Republican representative from my parent's district, is also on board. Jon Runyan is a former offensive lineman for the Philadelphia Eagles, and was once voted the second dirtiest player in the NFL. Apparently he is not suffering from post-concussion syndrome. That can't be said about many Republicans.

[ArtK78]

 kenberg, on 2013-October-09, 06:01, said:

I will happily sign a pledge to not vote for any Republican anywhere under any circumstances, regardless of his good qualities, regardless of the defects of his opponent, regardless of anything. Bring it to an end or be gone.

Be careful about pledges. There are a lot of Republicans out there who took Grover Norquist's pledge that may regret it now.

But I have to admit, voting for a Republican is certainly something that I have rarely been accused of doing. There have been a couple of exceptions, but I can't think of what they were at this moment.

[ArtK78]

 Winstonm, on 2013-October-09, 07:47, said:

Thanks for the correction - then why the discrepancy?

Perhaps there are some people rich enough to be willing to pay full freight regardless of the circumstances. The list price certainly doesn't have anything to do with tax planning.

[Winstonm]

 ArtK78, on 2013-October-09, 08:56, said:

Perhaps there are some people rich enough to be willing to pay full freight regardless of the circumstances. The list price certainly doesn't have anything to do with tax planning.

Let me ask this, then: an uninsured comes into the ER and must be treated until stable. His condition is such that he needs to be hospitalized for 4 days. He is sent a bill for the full amount and cannot pay it, so files bankruptcy. How does the hospital determine its loss on that patient's care, and does that loss show on its balance sheet?

[ArtK78]

 Winstonm, on 2013-October-09, 09:25, said:

Let me ask this, then: an uninsured comes into the ER and must be treated until stable. His condition is such that he needs to be hospitalized for 4 days. He is sent a bill for the full amount and cannot pay it, so files bankruptcy. How does the hospital determine its loss on that patient's care, and does that loss show on its balance sheet?

There is no loss for tax purposes. Only income not realized. The hospital has its expenses, which it deducts in the usual course. As far as the income lost because the patient cannot pay its bill, there is no loss for income tax purposes. The only reason there would be a deductible loss would be if the hospital were to recognize the amount billed as income, which is not the case for a business (or an individual) reporting under the cash-basis method of accounting.

Many years ago, when I was a teenager, I worked for my father in his dental practice, handling the books. He would often ask me why he couldn't deduct the fees charged but not paid by some patients that did not pay their bills. I told him it was because there was no loss. If you don't receive the income, there is nothing to deduct.

[blackshoe]

 Winstonm, on 2013-October-09, 09:25, said:

Let me ask this, then: an uninsured comes into the ER and must be treated until stable. His condition is such that he needs to be hospitalized for 4 days. He is sent a bill for the full amount and cannot pay it, so files bankruptcy. How does the hospital determine its loss on that patient's care, and does that loss show on its balance sheet?

As I understand bankruptcy, it's the court-appointed Trustee who determines what the hospital gets. I would guess then that the hospital's loss is the difference between what it gets and what it charged. Of course, since the charge is severely overinflated bullshit in the first place, so is the "loss".

[bd71]

 Winstonm, on 2013-October-08, 13:09, said:

Btw, isn't it odd that the Republicans are against a law that: a) encourages free market competition, b) lowers taxes by way of healthcare tax credits, and c) is a market-based, rather than government-based solution to healthcare problems

I think your empirical claims in (a) and (b) are wrong, and while © may be right it's misleading.

(a) You suggest health reform "encourages free market competition"

Point 1: "heavily-regulated competition" is not the same as "free market competition"...through the exchanges, the health reform law is consistent with the former but definitely not the latter.

Point 2: I think being "consistent with" competition is a better description than "encourages" competition. Competition is already happening in the markets for individual and small group insurance. In some markets, that competition is limited due to significant monopoly advantages of some Blue Cross plans, but that is also going to be true on the Exchanges. Other than goosing the market with subsidy dollars, the health reform bill is doing nothing else to really "encourage" competition.

(b) You suggest health reform "lowers taxes" through the credits/subsidies.

There are lots of new tax changes coming through the health reform bill; the tax credits through subsidies is only one part. In net, this bill is adding significantly to the national tax burden rather than diminishing it....and it's not even close.

© You suggest health reform is "market-based" rather than "government-based."

Slippery words. I guess this may be accurate in a vague sort of way if your point is that it's not actual government confiscation and ownership of the health care industry. It all depends on your benchmark. The post-health reform health system may be "more" market-based than many other nations' approaches to health care. But I think this is incredibly misleading...the full extent of local, state, and federal rules and taxes that touch health care make it one of the most-regulated industries in the United States. That was actually true even BEFORE the health reform bill, which adds a significant amount of new rules. So sure, it's still a "market", but to suggest that it's NOT also "government-based" as well is misleading. For what it's worth, the government pays/finances well more than 50% of all health care bills through Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and current/former government employees health benefits (including veterans). Still care to describe our health system as NOT "government-based"?

[Winstonm]

 bd71, on 2013-October-09, 10:42, said:

I think your empirical claims in (a) and (b) are wrong, and while © may be right it's misleading.

(a) You suggest health reform "encourages free market competition"

Point 1: "heavily-regulated competition" is not the same as "free market competition"...through the exchanges, the health reform law is consistent with the former but definitely not the latter.

Point 2: I think being "consistent with" competition is a better description than "encourages" competition. Competition is already happening in the markets for individual and small group insurance. In some markets, that competition is limited due to significant monopoly advantages of some Blue Cross plans, but that is also going to be true on the Exchanges. Other than goosing the market with subsidy dollars, the health reform bill is doing nothing else to really "encourage" competition.

(b) You suggest health reform "lowers taxes" through the credits/subsidies.

There are lots of new tax changes coming through the health reform bill; the tax credits through subsidies is only one part. In net, this bill is adding significantly to the national tax burden rather than diminishing it....and it's not even close.

© You suggest health reform is "market-based" rather than "government-based."

Slippery words. I guess this may be accurate in a vague sort of way if your point is that it's not actual government confiscation and ownership of the health care industry. It all depends on your benchmark. The post-health reform health system may be "more" market-based than many other nations' approaches to health care. But I think this is incredibly misleading...the full extent of local, state, and federal rules and taxes that touch health care make it one of the most-regulated industries in the United States. That was actually true even BEFORE the health reform bill, which adds a significant amount of new rules. So sure, it's still a "market", but to suggest that it's NOT also "government-based" as well is misleading. For what it's worth, the government pays/finances well more than 50% of all health care bills through Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and current/former government employees health benefits (including veterans). Still care to describe our health system as NOT "government-based"?

1) The health insurance exchanges offer competition among the providers - it is irrelevant that the health industry is regulated - we are only talking about competition among the companies selling payments for health services.
2) Prices in California and NY are substantially lower than expected because of increased competition for those large markets. If this is not an example of encouraged competition, I suggest you need a new dictionary.
3) Medicare projected payouts are already estimated to be falling as a direct result of the Affordable Care Act. Your claim of higher costs is simply that: an unfounded claim.

[blackshoe]

AFAICS, any time the government says "you will buy X product, or you will be fined," however that fine is implemented (a tax penalty in this case), and whatever choices you may have as to versions of X, you can throw any claims of "free market" right out the window. Not to mention any of the hundreds of other ways in which the government ensures that the health care market is not free.

[kenberg]

 blackshoe, on 2013-October-09, 07:54, said:

Like Ken, I'm fed up with this nonsense. I am, and have been most of my adult life, a registered Republican. The reason for that is that the stated goals and I ideals of no other party matched my own as closely as theirs. But stated goals aside, what the Republican Party is now showing, by their actions, their goals and ideals to be, no longer matches mine, not even close. That would make me a Democrat, I suppose, if that were my only other choice. Fortunately, it's not. I can be a Libertarian, or an Independent, or even a Communist, if I so desire. Or I can have no political party at all. I can be a party of one.

I suppose that registering as a Republican gives some "support" of some kind to the Party - they can say "see? look how many Republicans there are". If we want to express displeasure with what they're doing, one way is to to de-register. If enough Republicans do that, maybe the ones remaining will wake up. Or maybe not.

There is a danger, I think, in "I'll never vote again for a Republican, even if I think he's the best candidate for the job". Many decry the two party system, saying it's not flexible enough. It seems to me that whether or not that's true, a one party system would be worse.

I understand yor cautionary advice, seconded by PO. Actually, no one here cares a fig anyway. This is a heavily Democratic state and I have been gerrymandered into a Democratic district. See http://en.wikipedia....i/File:MD-8.jpg

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2013-October-09, 17:10, said:

AFAICS, any time the government says "you will buy X product, or you will be fined," however that fine is implemented (a tax penalty in this case), and whatever choices you may have as to versions of X, you can throw any claims of "free market" right out the window. Not to mention any of the hundreds of other ways in which the government ensures that the health care market is not free.

Fine. We will play your game and say any market not 100% free cannot be considered free in any sense.

So, now we amend the above to say that "the Affordable Care Act fosters competition among healthcare providers within the market."

[Thiros]

 kenberg, on 2013-October-09, 17:21, said:

I understand yor cautionary advice, seconded by PO. Actually, no one here cares a fig anyway. This is a heavily Democratic state and I have been gerrymandered into a Democratic district. See http://en.wikipedia....i/File:MD-8.jpg

Opened up the link and was treated to what looked like a picture of an elephant cub fondling a sea horse, which, in turn, was humping the right foreleg of a giant turtle.

Somewhat amusing and slightly disheartening, but hardly surprising.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-October-09, 17:10, said:

AFAICS, any time the government says "you will buy X product, or you will be fined," however that fine is implemented (a tax penalty in this case), and whatever choices you may have as to versions of X, you can throw any claims of "free market" right out the window. Not to mention any of the hundreds of other ways in which the government ensures that the health care market is not free.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

A free market is a market structure which is not controlled by a designated authority. A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government policy intervenes in the setting of prices.

So while the ACA requires you to purchase health insurance, it's still a free market. Insurers get to set their prices, and consumers get to choose among them. That choice is what generally defines a free market.

The ACA does put restrictions on the types of plans insurers can offer -- they have to cover a specified list of treatments, they can't turn customers away because of preexisting conditions, etc. But that's not much different from the kinds of regulations we have in other industries, like FDA inspections of food or approval of drugs, or SEC oversight of investment firms.

[kenberg]

 Thiros, on 2013-October-09, 20:48, said:

Opened up the link and was treated to what looked like a picture of an elephant cub fondling a sea horse, which, in turn, was humping the right foreleg of a giant turtle.

Somewhat amusing and slightly disheartening, but hardly surprising.

I have thought a little more about this. I am a registered Democrat. What, I ask, is the legitimate meaning of that choice? The state is not entitled to know how I vote. If they insist on knowing, I am entitled to give a false repsonse to a question that is none of their business. It follows that the correct interpretation of registering as a Democrat is that I wish, for whatever my reason, to vote in the Democratic primary. That's the full meaning, and nothing else.

So: Once the district has been successfully redrawn so that the winner of the Democratic primary will be the winner of the general election, it follows, does it not, that a Repu8blican who wishes to have some say in who represents him should register to vote in the Democratic primary. Similarly, in districts with artificial borders that virtually guarantee a Republican victory, a Democrat who wishes to have a say in who represents him should register to vote in the Republican primary.


This has always seemed to me to be like flying a false flag, but upon reflection I think it isn't. A Republican registering "as a Democrat" should not be seen as claiming to be a Democrat. It's his own business, not the state's, which position he favors. He is only saying that he wishes to vote in the Democratic primary, and that is being both truthful and, given the facts on the ground, sensible.

Of course mischief is possible, but it's not inevitable. Back a bit, I think in one of the Carolinas, the Republicans managed to get some poor oaf on the Democratic ballot. I think they had to help him spell his name, or some such. Of course this is wrong. What I am suggesting is more along the lines of a voter saying "All right, you clever guys win. You have rigged it so that our representative will definitely come from party X. In that case, I wish to vote in the primary of party X". This is not so much subverting democracy as coping with the fait accompli that it has been subverted. The inetention would be not sabatoge, the ultimate victory of party X would be accepted as inevitable, the purpose would be to have one's vote make a difference.

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2013-October-10, 06:15, said:

So: Once the district has been successfully redrawn so that the winner of the Democratic primary will be the winner of the general election, it follows, does it not, that a Republican who wishes to have some say in who represents him should register to vote in the Democratic primary. Similarly, in districts with artificial borders that virtually guarantee a Republican victory, a Democrat who wishes to have a say in who represents him should register to vote in the Republican primary.

That certainly makes sense to me.

Where I live, the district is now closely divided. Whichever primary I choose, I'll be unable to vote for some candidates in the other party that I'd like to see on the ballot. It comes down to figuring out who I think is most likely to make it on anyway and who is not, and my track record on that is not too good.

[y66]

 kenberg, on 2013-October-10, 06:15, said:

I have thought a little more about this. I am a registered Democrat. What, I ask, is the legitimate meaning of that choice? The state is not entitled to know how I vote. If they insist on knowing, I am entitled to give a false repsonse to a question that is none of their business. It follows that the correct interpretation of registering as a Democrat is that I wish, for whatever my reason, to vote in the Democratic primary. That's the full meaning, and nothing else.

So: Once the district has been successfully redrawn so that the winner of the Democratic primary will be the winner of the general election, it follows, does it not, that a Repu8blican who wishes to have some say in who represents him should register to vote in the Democratic primary. Similarly, in districts with artificial borders that virtually guarantee a Republican victory, a Democrat who wishes to have a say in who represents him should register to vote in the Republican primary.


This has always seemed to me to be like flying a false flag, but upon reflection I think it isn't. A Republican registering "as a Democrat" should not be seen as claiming to be a Democrat. It's his own business, not the state's, which position he favors. He is only saying that he wishes to vote in the Democratic primary, and that is being both truthful and, given the facts on the ground, sensible.

Of course mischief is possible, but it's not inevitable. Back a bit, I think in one of the Carolinas, the Republicans managed to get some poor oaf on the Democratic ballot. I think they had to help him spell his name, or some such. Of course this is wrong. What I am suggesting is more along the lines of a voter saying "All right, you clever guys win. You have rigged it so that our representative will definitely come from party X. In that case, I wish to vote in the primary of party X". This is not so much subverting democracy as coping with the fait accompli that it has been subverted. The inetention would be not sabatoge, the ultimate victory of party X would be accepted as inevitable, the purpose would be to have one's vote make a difference.

If citizens are duty bound to cast votes that determine election outcomes then yes it follows that, in districts in which the only election that matters is the dominant party primary, citizens have an obligation to vote in that primary.

[kenberg]

I have thought a little more. Why must we register as Democrats or Republicans in order to vote in the primary of our choice? Surely we could enter the private voting chamber and select which primary we wish to vote in. For that matter, I don't see why we should not be allowed to vote in the Democrstic primary for governor and the Republican, or Libertarian, or Socialist, or the Whatever, primary for Senator. I guess the argument is that we should not be allowed last minute changes. Why not? We are allowed last minute changes in who we vote for and on how we vote on referenda. Hmm, my spell checker prefers referendums. Anyway, spelling aside, I really don't see the point of requiring us to list our affiliation, or lack of it, with the state. Is there any state that allows the voter to make his preference, as to which primary he will vote in, known only to the machine?

Switching hats. I was at Starbucks drinking coffee and reading USA today, with opinions on whether or not the debt ceiling will be raised. One opinion" "If it isn't, the voters will see to it that nobody is re-elected". Sounds right to me.

[billw55]

 kenberg, on 2013-October-10, 13:38, said:

Switching hats. I was at Starbucks drinking coffee and reading USA today, with opinions on whether or not the debt ceiling will be raised. One opinion" "If it isn't, the voters will see to it that nobody is re-elected". Sounds right to me.

I wish it were true that legislative choices had strong feedback in the following elections. Sadly it is not. In reality, the vast majority of voters just vote their party, eyes ears and brain closed tight. For now, the "undecideds" can swing a minority of races, but both parties are working hard to eliminate even that with gerrymandering.

[FM75]

For those of you who have bought into the argument that the exchanges will foster competition from insurers, you should give this a read.

http://www.bloomberg...care-costs.html

Multiple sources of a product is a necessary condition for competition, but not a sufficient one. There is a reason for the Sherman Anti-trust Act. If we can learn from history, though, it is clear that explicit collusion is not the only route to uncompetitive markets - and that is for markets where people have a choice not to purchase.