Meet Barack Hussein Mugabe

[Patroklos]

The vast majority of basic research is publicly funded...

They are not considered the best institutions in the world simply because of funding (though that obviously very much contributes to achieving what does make them the best institutuins).

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lancer

So Obama isn't going to tax oil companies and send everyone $1000? Thats what I refering to. I'm all for it by the way, the oil cos are too far into my pocket. But...its vote buying.

It is vote buying just like the last round of rebate checks and I don't much like either round. I can give Obama this where as the last round just borrowed $130 billion from the Chinese and then gave everyone a $600 welfare check Obama at least has a way to pay for his proposed $1000. Once again it is bad policy but he at least pays for it instead of just borrowing money again.

Second point, tying these two subjects together as Obama has is good political posturing for Dems. It is designed to put Republicans in a no win situation just like Republicans tried (unsuccessfully IMO) to do to Dems with the off shore drilling rhetoric. Namely if Republicans don't vote for the very popular "uncle money bags gives you $1000" plan then Democrats get to endlessly say "SEE! We wanted to help you but the evil, dastardly Republicans voted to screw you over in order to help their friends in Big Oil!" if Republicans do vote for the second round of stimulus checks then they end up screwing over one of their biggest campaign donors (big oil) who gives almost exclusively to Republicans. Again Democrats lose nothing but Republicans are put in a no win situation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Republicans tried (unsuccessfully IMO) to do to Dems with the off shore drilling rhetoric

The polls show different on that account... and they got Obama to bend a little on it as well. Its getting far more positive play than a windfall profit tax on oil companies.

[Ramo]

They are not considered the best institutions in the world simply because of funding (though that obviously very much contributes to achieving what does make them the best institutuins).

We were talking about research, right? Funding is pretty much the only issue here.

About doctor training, that's a completely sepearate question... Our medical schools are the "best" because the AMA forces GP's to get a graduate education (in most countries, an MD is a 4 year undergraduate degree; only the minority of doctors who want to be specialists get more training). Which forces GP's to get a ridiculous amount of debt, forcing John Q Public to waste ridiculous amount of money paying off that debt. In this respect, "our great schools" are a bug, not a feature.

[Dinner]

My personal opinion has always been drill as much of the coast as possible though I admit as a geologist I'm making a selfish career helping choice here.

I think most people, other then the extreme partisans, knows that there isn't enough oil in the US to effect world oil prices by more then a few cents per gallon and that it would take 20 years to build enough platforms to even get those few cents (probably less then $0.05 per gallon). I'm betting that gas in 2028 is even more then the current $4.00 per gallon so we're talking about a truly trivial price difference.

That said we should still drill it but the big savings are going to come not from drilling but from raising CAFE standards and efficiency standards like building codes and reducing energy usage. Replacing as much oil and natural gas fired power plants with nuclear will also help. In the end though the US has 3% of the world's oil but consumes 20% of the world's supply so we're going to have to consume less if we want to slash our dependence on foreign oil. There is no way around this truth.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Republicans tried (unsuccessfully IMO) to do to Dems with the off shore drilling rhetoric

The polls show different on that account... and they got Obama to bend a little on it as well. Its getting far more positive play than a windfall profit tax on oil companies.

I'm kind of on the fence about the windfall oil tax. On one hand I'm pissed off that oil companies have lobbied themselves into so many subsidies and pay virtually no royalties for oil extracted on public land. On the other hand I realize oil is an extremely capital intensive industry and over all their margins are above average good but not great (about 10%).

With the current price of oil the oil companies have all the incentive in the world to drill and we really don't need to keep giving them subsidies. The bastards can pay their fair share just like everyone else. That said I'd rather cancel the subsidies and make them start paying some hefty royalties instead of using a more clumsy windfall profits tax.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Shhh... some on this site may say that oil has not been subsidized by the government.

I'd cancel the subsidies as well... and maybe we can get the agg subsidies cut out in the same bill

[Patroklos]

We were talking about research, right? Funding is pretty much the only issue here.

I said research AND education based medical universities.

And no, money alone does not garuntee you breakthroughs even if it does grease the wheels to a great degree. And where money does help, it depends entirely and how it is managed.

[Ramo]

And no, money alone does not garuntee you breakthroughs even if it does grease the wheels to a great degree. And where money does help, it depends entirely and how it is managed.

Academia is managed here the same as it is in Western Europe. There's no "management" difference. The difference, again, is the NSF and NIH.

I said research AND education based medical universities.

Ummm... I addressed education in that very post. That's what the entire post except for the bit you quoted was about. Dunno why you ignored that...

As I said, education is a bug, not a feature. It's directly leading to a crappier health care system.

And I don't see how any of this has anything to do with universal heath care.

[Patroklos]

As I said, education is a bug, not a feature. It's directly leading to a crappier health care system.

I am sorry if you find high standards yielding quality professionals to be a bug, you are a minority.

And I don't see how any of this has anything to do with universal heath care.

That there is a reason the majority of top rated medical institutions and thus inovators are in the US and not in places with nationalized health care.

[Ramo]

Ok, so instead of making a coherent argument, you've decided to go with meaningless platitudes. Cool.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I have to agree with Ramo on this one. Martini was talking out his back side.

All right here's another man's opinion:

Doctors have benefited from fee-for-service reimbursements for patient care during the years. Even in recent years, with dramatic reductions in reimbursements for similar services, fee-for-service payments provide compensation for services to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries certainly better than if the same patients were uninsured. The inherent problem with this system, however, is that demand inexorably increases to meet supply, no matter how much supply increases, as long as the service is free to patients. Patients demand more access to all possible treatments and, because reimbursements for individual services have decreased, supply-side providers have a built-in financial incentive to offer more services and more extensive services to patients, often using more relaxed, less stringent indications.

More patients with complaints and less stringent criteria governing application lead to overutilization (Fig. 2;Table 2). More services are offered, and more expensive and more complex procedures are provided for less stringent indications; despite reductions in reimbursements for individual services, the net result is an explosion in the numbers of procedures and costs, i.e., an out-of-control health care system (10a).

Faced with this situation, the federal government has made multiple attempts to improve medical care and control health care costs. These efforts have produced precisely the opposite effects. Patients and physicians have been burdened with the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, complex and irrational Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) equations, and endless institutional and individual audits. We have become overwhelmed with cumbersome governmental mandates and restrictions. These legal shackles have not improved health care or controlled costs. However, they have had singularly devastating effects, i.e., they have made our work to provide top-quality care to the most important component of our practices, our patients, more difficult, more impersonal, and more expensive.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was a recent attempt by the government to control costs, yet another federal effort to slow the accelerating increase in health care spending in the United States. It capped the pool of federal funds available to health care institutions and providers offering services to patients with Medicare health insurance. Rather than rationally increasing that pool of resources as millions of new beneficiaries have been added to the system, as techniques and technology have expanded and advanced, and as the complexity and risks of the services we offer have increased, the government, in response to the increasing proportion of the Gross Domestic Product devoted to health care costs, has chosen to leave its resource pool fixed. Therefore, compensation for professional services provided to Medicare participants has been decreased year after year (Figs. 3 and 4). Not surprisingly, for-profit, nongovernmental health insurance providers have followed suit and, ostensibly in reliance on the CMS cost-control model, have denied coverage, decreased reimbursements, or both. These actions have not reduced the costs of health care in the United States; they have simply redistributed the costs unfairly and inequitably and have provided a perverse incentive for physicians to avoid Medicare beneficiaries .

Congress of Neurological Surgeons, presidential address


here's a link debunking the 2% administrative cost myth.


http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf


Like I've said before, Medicare isn't a bad program, all in all, it provides care for many. But fixing the US health care system isn't as simple as extending Medicare to all people.

[Patroklos]

Ok, so instead of making a coherent argument, you've decided to go with meaningless platitudes. Cool.

I gave you two indisputable facts, just like the fact that nuclear power is profitable, and try as you might banging your head against these facts will do nothing but give you a headache.

[Ramo]

Cheese is tasty, garlic is tasty, therefore you are wrong.

Two indisputable facts!

[Patroklos]

So is this where you admit you were wrong again, or where you make yourself look stupid by pretending and failing to be witty?

Oh wait...