Jordan Johnson

[AZGrizFan]

I did read the article regarding how many new agencies and governmant employees were required to administer Obamacare. And you think this will improve cost-effectioveness and efficiency? The major objective is to move more money from the private sector into the public sector where it can be controlled and of course all those new public employees will be dem voters. Nothing new; part of the left game plan for years.

What about the administration of health insurance as it is now? Every hospital, clinic, etc., staffs just for insurance. I understand St. Pat's, for example, has one full-time employee for every insurance co. And, how many ins. co's are there in this state? Add the clerical help in addition. Same for the ins. co's. They have health ins. people, as well. Then, there's the $millions for the executives.

I'll bet the tens of thousands of health ins. processing staff out there right now could be vastly reduced by consolidating health ins. into one agency, that being the Fed. govt. Each hospital, clinic, etc., would have only one person handling claims, which would be a formality, just forwarding the info to the Feds. Not to mention NO health ins. staff needed anymore in the private sector.

I see HUGE economies with a universal health care system, unlike the jury-rigged, bloated, inefficient system we have now. Also, profit would be eliminated. Yes, there would be some expansion of staff on the Fed level, but that would be a fraction of the staff out there, now. Yes, taxes would increase, but I maintain the increase in taxes for this purpose would be FAR LESS than the cost of health ins. premiums, now.

Health ins. is one area where it's INEFFICIENT for the private sector to run it. The private sector has its place in our economy, but health ins. is not it. Consolidation is a tenet in any company; companies consolidate operations all the time while preserving effectiveness of objective. It just makes sense to consolidate all health ins. under one agency, and the Federal govt. is the only agency capable of doing that on a consistent, nation-wide basis.

And, Kem, stop this hysterical, "Oh, it's a leftist conspiracy!" That's BS & you know it. Maybe you don't know it & are just another Limbaugh Dittohead.

Name ONE thing the government does efficiently.

Locking people up in Prison

Incorrect. You would THINK that, given that we're the world's leading jailer. But, just because they do a LOT of it, doesn't mean they're efficient at it. The average cost for incarceration is $50,000/year/prisoner.... roughly 10x the amount spent on education. That's hardly "efficient".

 

[grizatwork]

I did read the article regarding how many new agencies and governmant employees were required to administer Obamacare. And you think this will improve cost-effectioveness and efficiency? The major objective is to move more money from the private sector into the public sector where it can be controlled and of course all those new public employees will be dem voters. Nothing new; part of the left game plan for years.

What about the administration of health insurance as it is now? Every hospital, clinic, etc., staffs just for insurance. I understand St. Pat's, for example, has one full-time employee for every insurance co. And, how many ins. co's are there in this state? Add the clerical help in addition. Same for the ins. co's. They have health ins. people, as well. Then, there's the $millions for the executives.

I'll bet the tens of thousands of health ins. processing staff out there right now could be vastly reduced by consolidating health ins. into one agency, that being the Fed. govt. Each hospital, clinic, etc., would have only one person handling claims, which would be a formality, just forwarding the info to the Feds. Not to mention NO health ins. staff needed anymore in the private sector.

I see HUGE economies with a universal health care system, unlike the jury-rigged, bloated, inefficient system we have now. Also, profit would be eliminated. Yes, there would be some expansion of staff on the Fed level, but that would be a fraction of the staff out there, now. Yes, taxes would increase, but I maintain the increase in taxes for this purpose would be FAR LESS than the cost of health ins. premiums, now.

Health ins. is one area where it's INEFFICIENT for the private sector to run it. The private sector has its place in our economy, but health ins. is not it. Consolidation is a tenet in any company; companies consolidate operations all the time while preserving effectiveness of objective. It just makes sense to consolidate all health ins. under one agency, and the Federal govt. is the only agency capable of doing that on a consistent, nation-wide basis.

And, Kem, stop this hysterical, "Oh, it's a leftist conspiracy!" That's BS & you know it. Maybe you don't know it & are just another Limbaugh Dittohead.

Name ONE thing the government does efficiently.

Well I am certainly not in favor of some of the parts of the Health Care Reform act. I do applaud some of it and the attempt to try to do something about some of the big holes we currently have. I would point out however that some of the literature I have read actually report that the government is extremely efficienct in providing medicare. It's administrative costs are at about 1%. Most 3rd party adminstrative costs are at 15 to 25%.

 

[Cats2506]

how did a thread on JJ evolve into a debate on obamacare.

Did JJ give the vitime a STD or something? :shock:

 

[hokeyfine]

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/
At least try to find sources that are unbiased. I don't care if your for or against the healthcare act, but at least don't quote partisan blogs and talking points. :roll:

I have found that factcheck.org sometimes has a bias and sometimes is either not correct or omits important things. Generally, I find that most of the fact check sites/organizations make too many mistakes. I've often thought that those organizations seem to have people who don't understand the particular subject doing the fact-checking. Their quality of work is sometimes like that of a college student doing a research paper on a subject they knew nothing about at the outset of their research.

I disagree. I rarely see factcheck.org have to re-state an argument or retract one. I have not seen a biased opinion. It's refreshing to go to a site and see them point out the "untruths" of both the left and the right.
The problem with voters today is that they are hyper partisan, lazy, and only follow partisan blogs and web sites. Most of the time when we look at "untruths" and think they are flawed it's because we don't want to believe it.
The left and right blogs will constantly repeat talking points eventhough they've been proven wrong. They do this because they know the people who read their sites won't bother to look at other sources to see if it's correct.

 

[jcu27]

how did a thread on JJ evolve into a debate on obamacare.

Did JJ give the vitime a STD or something? :shock:

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I did read the article regarding how many new agencies and governmant employees were required to administer Obamacare. And you think this will improve cost-effectioveness and efficiency? The major objective is to move more money from the private sector into the public sector where it can be controlled and of course all those new public employees will be dem voters. Nothing new; part of the left game plan for years.

What about the administration of health insurance as it is now? Every hospital, clinic, etc., staffs just for insurance. I understand St. Pat's, for example, has one full-time employee for every insurance co. And, how many ins. co's are there in this state? Add the clerical help in addition. Same for the ins. co's. They have health ins. people, as well. Then, there's the $millions for the executives.

I'll bet the tens of thousands of health ins. processing staff out there right now could be vastly reduced by consolidating health ins. into one agency, that being the Fed. govt. Each hospital, clinic, etc., would have only one person handling claims, which would be a formality, just forwarding the info to the Feds. Not to mention NO health ins. staff needed anymore in the private sector.

I see HUGE economies with a universal health care system, unlike the jury-rigged, bloated, inefficient system we have now. Also, profit would be eliminated. Yes, there would be some expansion of staff on the Fed level, but that would be a fraction of the staff out there, now. Yes, taxes would increase, but I maintain the increase in taxes for this purpose would be FAR LESS than the cost of health ins. premiums, now.

Health ins. is one area where it's INEFFICIENT for the private sector to run it. The private sector has its place in our economy, but health ins. is not it. Consolidation is a tenet in any company; companies consolidate operations all the time while preserving effectiveness of objective. It just makes sense to consolidate all health ins. under one agency, and the Federal govt. is the only agency capable of doing that on a consistent, nation-wide basis.

And, Kem, stop this hysterical, "Oh, it's a leftist conspiracy!" That's BS & you know it. Maybe you don't know it & are just another Limbaugh Dittohead.

Name ONE thing the government does efficiently.

Well I am certainly not in favor of some of the parts of the Health Care Reform act. I do applaud some of it and the attempt to try to do something about some of the big holes we currently have. I would point out however that some of the literature I have read actually report that the government is extremely efficienct in providing medicare. It's administrative costs are at about 1%. Most 3rd party adminstrative costs are at 15 to 25%.

Swing and a miss. Try again.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But most important, because Medicare patients are older, they are substantially sicker than the average insured patient — driving up the denominator of such calculations significantly. For example: If two patients cost $30 each to manage, but the first requires $100 of health expenditures and the second, much sicker patient requires $1,000, the first patient’s insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the second’s will have a ratio of only 3%. This hardly means the second patient’s insurance is more efficient — administratively, the patients are identical. Instead, the more favorable figure is produced by the second patient’s more severe illness.

 

[grizbrokebacker1]

Feel terrible for the kid. One of thousands upon thousands of men whom life is ruined because of a false rape allegation.

And you know this because you were there? So, you "witnessed" this consensual sex firsthand? Kinky...

 

[dupuyer griz]

I did read the article regarding how many new agencies and governmant employees were required to administer Obamacare. And you think this will improve cost-effectioveness and efficiency? The major objective is to move more money from the private sector into the public sector where it can be controlled and of course all those new public employees will be dem voters. Nothing new; part of the left game plan for years.

What about the administration of health insurance as it is now? Every hospital, clinic, etc., staffs just for insurance. I understand St. Pat's, for example, has one full-time employee for every insurance co. And, how many ins. co's are there in this state? Add the clerical help in addition. Same for the ins. co's. They have health ins. people, as well. Then, there's the $millions for the executives.

I'll bet the tens of thousands of health ins. processing staff out there right now could be vastly reduced by consolidating health ins. into one agency, that being the Fed. govt. Each hospital, clinic, etc., would have only one person handling claims, which would be a formality, just forwarding the info to the Feds. Not to mention NO health ins. staff needed anymore in the private sector.

I see HUGE economies with a universal health care system, unlike the jury-rigged, bloated, inefficient system we have now. Also, profit would be eliminated. Yes, there would be some expansion of staff on the Fed level, but that would be a fraction of the staff out there, now. Yes, taxes would increase, but I maintain the increase in taxes for this purpose would be FAR LESS than the cost of health ins. premiums, now.

Health ins. is one area where it's INEFFICIENT for the private sector to run it. The private sector has its place in our economy, but health ins. is not it. Consolidation is a tenet in any company; companies consolidate operations all the time while preserving effectiveness of objective. It just makes sense to consolidate all health ins. under one agency, and the Federal govt. is the only agency capable of doing that on a consistent, nation-wide basis.

And, Kem, stop this hysterical, "Oh, it's a leftist conspiracy!" That's BS & you know it. Maybe you don't know it & are just another Limbaugh Dittohead.

Name ONE thing the government does efficiently.

Spend more money than they make...also, why aren't we talking about football on here, I keep hoping this thread will take a turn for the football but oh well

 

[blackfoot griz]

According to the link, the Feds can't even afford the Federal govt.!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW5IdwltaAc&feature=youtu.be" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AZGrizFan]

Name ONE thing the government does efficiently.

Spend more money than they make...also, why aren't we talking about football on here, I keep hoping this thread will take a turn for the football but oh well

This thread was never about football.

 

[Grizzoola]

This is true fox news reports and gwen florios articles on UM football do share alot in common as they are both worth using as toilet paper.

Regarding your slander of Fox News by comparing to Gwen Florio, you expose your interest in only one side to any story. Thank goodness there is a Fox News; otherwise we would all be lemmings to an otherwise aligned liberal media. I guess in your mind Fox News is bad because they report that a $16 trillion deficit, increasing $4 trillion per year is not good and there can be consequences. Every time I think you have hit your peak, you soar to new heights of opinionated cerebral misfire.

Well said finally some common sense on here. Libs like Tokyo don't like fox because they exploit all that is wrong with the liberal movement for some the only defense is to criticize even when they know policies like Obamacare are unsustainable and unrealistic.

This is where the thread got derailed. JJ > Florio > Fox > Liberals > ObamaCare. Yes, this is a football forum, but when it gets into the press vs. a Griz, it gets out of hand. I hope all references to people, government, news organizations, etc., not involved in a thread not be mentioned. I'm S&T of knocks being made out of the blue by any eGrizzer against either conservatives or liberals.

On the other hand, what would eGriz be without passion? Too many times that passion spills over into areas that are OT. We tear each other apart on eGriz, but when we're in WaGriz, we're all together. Right?

 

[casewinter13]

WHOA WHOA WHOA, GRIZOOLA! Hate to stay on this subject in a football board, but in good conscience I can't let you fill this board up with absolute nonsense! Your off the wall story about hospitals needing 1 employee per insurance company is just comical...I say comical because you just made an argument for the opposite side of your full of shit argument...hospitals do not need an employee per insurance company...if theyre using that model, theyre ineffecient morons...What they do need is a glut of employees to comply with government regulations. I have intimate knowledge of this complete waste and over-regulation due to my work and it's a massive pain in everyone's ass that works in a hospital.

We certainly need less insurance involved, with the exception of catastrophic plans, theyre just a middleman and middlemen always increases costs. But insurance is not what requires inefficiency running a hospital, its oppressive regulation from the federal government. Give it a rest with your, "my cousin's brother's uncle's best friend told me", garbage...

So how bout that jordan johnson, huh! Helluva QB! :thumb:

 

[Grizzoola]

WHOA WHOA WHOA, GRIZOOLA! Hate to stay on this subject in a football board, but in good conscience I can't let you fill this board up with absolute nonsense! Your off the wall story about hospitals needing 1 employee per insurance company is just comical...I say comical because you just made an argument for the opposite side of your full of shit argument...hospitals do not need an employee per insurance company...if theyre using that model, theyre ineffecient morons...What they do need is a glut of employees to comply with government regulations. I have intimate knowledge of this complete waste and over-regulation due to my work and it's a massive pain in everyone's ass that works in a hospital.

We certainly need less insurance involved, with the exception of catastrophic plans, theyre just a middleman and middlemen always increases costs. But insurance is not what requires inefficiency running a hospital, its oppressive regulation from the federal government. Give it a rest with your, "my cousin's brother's uncle's best friend told me", garbage...

So how bout that jordan johnson, huh! Helluva QB! :thumb:

Yes, this is about JJ, a helluva QB. And, I've already said the Missoulian has unfairly headlined a story about cases transferred routinely to the county attorney to be about JJ. Why a TRO is treated this way, I don't know, and neither do any of us. Re: ObamaCare, you get rid of govt regulation by letting the govt do it. It's no accident govts in other countries run their health care systems far cheaper with the same level of service. As to efficiency, just ask your parents, grandparents, etc., if they prefer private plans to Medicare. I'm on Medicare, and I say, NO WAY IN HELL!

 

[grizatwork]

What about the administration of health insurance as it is now? Every hospital, clinic, etc., staffs just for insurance. I understand St. Pat's, for example, has one full-time employee for every insurance co. And, how many ins. co's are there in this state? Add the clerical help in addition. Same for the ins. co's. They have health ins. people, as well. Then, there's the $millions for the executives.

I'll bet the tens of thousands of health ins. processing staff out there right now could be vastly reduced by consolidating health ins. into one agency, that being the Fed. govt. Each hospital, clinic, etc., would have only one person handling claims, which would be a formality, just forwarding the info to the Feds. Not to mention NO health ins. staff needed anymore in the private sector.

I see HUGE economies with a universal health care system, unlike the jury-rigged, bloated, inefficient system we have now. Also, profit would be eliminated. Yes, there would be some expansion of staff on the Fed level, but that would be a fraction of the staff out there, now. Yes, taxes would increase, but I maintain the increase in taxes for this purpose would be FAR LESS than the cost of health ins. premiums, now.

Health ins. is one area where it's INEFFICIENT for the private sector to run it. The private sector has its place in our economy, but health ins. is not it. Consolidation is a tenet in any company; companies consolidate operations all the time while preserving effectiveness of objective. It just makes sense to consolidate all health ins. under one agency, and the Federal govt. is the only agency capable of doing that on a consistent, nation-wide basis.

And, Kem, stop this hysterical, "Oh, it's a leftist conspiracy!" That's BS & you know it. Maybe you don't know it & are just another Limbaugh Dittohead.

Name ONE thing the government does efficiently.

Well I am certainly not in favor of some of the parts of the Health Care Reform act. I do applaud some of it and the attempt to try to do something about some of the big holes we currently have. I would point out however that some of the literature I have read actually report that the government is extremely efficienct in providing medicare. It's administrative costs are at about 1%. Most 3rd party adminstrative costs are at 15 to 25%.

Swing and a miss. Try again.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But most important, because Medicare patients are older, they are substantially sicker than the average insured patient — driving up the denominator of such calculations significantly. For example: If two patients cost $30 each to manage, but the first requires $100 of health expenditures and the second, much sicker patient requires $1,000, the first patient’s insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the second’s will have a ratio of only 3%. This hardly means the second patient’s insurance is more efficient — administratively, the patients are identical. Instead, the more favorable figure is produced by the second patient’s more severe illness.

In that scenario, yes. But lets look at a 3rd party insurer that pays 1000 and medicare that pays 1000. What are the administrative costs then? Nice little twist to change the percentage there. That would be a swing and miss also. Again, I am going by what I read in one of my medical journals years ago. If you could find a study that shows what it would be when actually comparing procedures on the same cost, then we can talk. Otherwise, we are both speculating right now.

 

[cclarkblues]

WHOA WHOA WHOA, GRIZOOLA! Hate to stay on this subject in a football board, but in good conscience I can't let you fill this board up with absolute nonsense! Your off the wall story about hospitals needing 1 employee per insurance company is just comical...I say comical because you just made an argument for the opposite side of your full of shit argument...hospitals do not need an employee per insurance company...if theyre using that model, theyre ineffecient morons...What they do need is a glut of employees to comply with government regulations. I have intimate knowledge of this complete waste and over-regulation due to my work and it's a massive pain in everyone's ass that works in a hospital.

We certainly need less insurance involved, with the exception of catastrophic plans, theyre just a middleman and middlemen always increases costs. But insurance is not what requires inefficiency running a hospital, its oppressive regulation from the federal government. Give it a rest with your, "my cousin's brother's uncle's best friend told me", garbage...

So how bout that jordan johnson, huh! Helluva QB! :thumb:

Yes, this is about JJ, a helluva QB. And, I've already said the Missoulian has unfairly headlined a story about cases transferred routinely to the county attorney to be about JJ. Why a TRO is treated this way, I don't know, and neither do any of us. Re: ObamaCare, you get rid of govt regulation by letting the govt do it. It's no accident govts in other countries run their health care systems far cheaper with the same level of service. As to efficiency, just ask your parents, grandparents, etc., if they prefer private plans to Medicare. I'm on Medicare, and I say, NO WAY IN HELL!

So if I understand you correctly, you trust the government to make health decisions in your best interest. I am afraid I disagree. There was once a time when I felt that the government cared for the citizens fo the the country. Now I see it as incompetent, inept, and corrrupt on all sides. I wish I didn't.

As far as Medicare and Social Security, you are living in the golden age. There were 78 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 that are just headed into retirement. There is no way to continue to provide benefits at the present levels. My mom has gotten hundreds of thousand of dollars in operations and services since she retired. She feels she is owed it since she payed in over her abbreviated working life. What she payed into Medicare and Social Security didn't cover one operation, but she cannot understand that.

Government benefits were never designed to be all things to all people, they were designed as a safety net for the indigent. Add in the increased lifespans of people and it compounds the disaster especially since we currently have to borrow around 43 cents for every dollar we spend . About all the goverment will be able to do is to continue to rev up the printing presses. If you have received any Social Security cost of living increases in the last several years, they are tied to an index that doesn't include food or energy inflations. If you buy your own groceries, you know that the prices are increasing a lot faster than your retirement income.

I agree that there are a few good things in Obama care. However those could have been clearly stated in about 3 pages, the other 2000+ is a opressive bureaucratic nightmare whose effects won't be fully seen for a few more years.

 

[kemajic]

Name ONE thing the government does efficiently.

Exactly.

 

[sdgriz_24]

Name ONE thing the government does efficiently.

Exactly.

Get people killed. Get money for being criminals. Control the masses etc..

 

[AZGrizFan]

Name ONE thing the government does efficiently.

Well I am certainly not in favor of some of the parts of the Health Care Reform act. I do applaud some of it and the attempt to try to do something about some of the big holes we currently have. I would point out however that some of the literature I have read actually report that the government is extremely efficienct in providing medicare. It's administrative costs are at about 1%. Most 3rd party adminstrative costs are at 15 to 25%.

Swing and a miss. Try again.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But most important, because Medicare patients are older, they are substantially sicker than the average insured patient — driving up the denominator of such calculations significantly. For example: If two patients cost $30 each to manage, but the first requires $100 of health expenditures and the second, much sicker patient requires $1,000, the first patient’s insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the second’s will have a ratio of only 3%. This hardly means the second patient’s insurance is more efficient — administratively, the patients are identical. Instead, the more favorable figure is produced by the second patient’s more severe illness.

In that scenario, yes. But lets look at a 3rd party insurer that pays 1000 and medicare that pays 1000. What are the administrative costs then? Nice little twist to change the percentage there. That would be a swing and miss also. Again, I am going by what I read in one of my medical journals years ago. If you could find a study that shows what it would be when actually comparing procedures on the same cost, then we can talk. Otherwise, we are both speculating right now.

From the same article:

First, other government agencies help administer the Medicare program. The Internal Revenue Service collects the taxes that fund the program; the Social Security Administration helps collect some of the premiums paid by beneficiaries (which are deducted from Social Security checks); the Department of Health and Human Services helps to manage accounting, auditing, and fraud issues and pays for marketing costs, building costs, and more. Private insurers obviously don’t have this kind of outside or off-budget help. Medicare’s administration is also tax-exempt, whereas insurers must pay state excise taxes on the premiums they charge; the tax is counted as an administrative cost.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

[grizatwork]

Az, I am comparing apples to oranges. But so are you. That was my point. I am not a big fan of government doing things better than anyone else. I work in the medical field as a physical therapist, so I can give you first hand knowledge of some crazy rules. Case in point. If a patient comes to me in my private practice for physical therapy, there is an $1,880 dollar cap on them receiving outpatient physical therapy. If that same patient goes to a hospital based physical therapy clinic, then there is no cap. Do they provide better therapy? Are they more efficient? No and no. They have better lobbyists than I do.

I also do some part time work at a nursing home. Medicare has cut back significantly on what it pays for and how it pays for it. I have been doing this for almost 20 years and can honeslty say they are actually saving some money by closing some really stupid loopholes that allowed for waste and borderline fraud.

Some of rules are stupid, Some are good. I am not willing to through the baby out with the bathwater, I just want special interest groups to stay out of it and let rules get applied evenly.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Az, I am comparing apples to oranges. But so are you. That was my point. I am not a big fan of government doing things better than anyone else. I work in the medical field as a physical therapist, so I can give you first hand knowledge of some crazy rules. Case in point. If a patient comes to me in my private practice for physical therapy, there is an $1,880 dollar cap on them receiving outpatient physical therapy. If that same patient goes to a hospital based physical therapy clinic, then there is no cap. Do they provide better therapy? Are they more efficient? No and no. They have better lobbyists than I do.

I also do some part time work at a nursing home. Medicare has cut back significantly on what it pays for and how it pays for it. I have been doing this for almost 20 years and can honeslty say they are actually saving some money by closing some really stupid loopholes that allowed for waste and borderline fraud.

Some of rules are stupid, Some are good. I am not willing to through the baby out with the bathwater, I just want special interest groups to stay out of it and let rules get applied evenly.

I agree with all that. I just have no faith that it'll happen with government "supervision". You have way more faith in the government than I do to act in the best interests of Americans.