Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (492681)	7/4/2009 1:11:41 AM
From: bentway	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1574480

You always come in with the comic relief Dave!

To: i-node who wrote (492681)	7/4/2009 12:57:13 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574480

Obama, Obama, Obama............

To: i-node who wrote (492681)	7/6/2009 11:29:44 AM
From: Road Walker	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574480

61% - Presidential Approval Mon Jul 6, 1:00 am ET Roughly half-way through his first year in office, President Barack Obama continues to hold high marks from the American people; 61% approve of the job he is doing as president. Three-in-ten disapprove of his job performance. While Obama’s approval on the economy has declined from 60% in April to 52% currently, Americans are still optimistic about his administration. Fully 65% say Obama’s policies will improve the economy and 55% are optimistic his policies will reduce the budget deficit over the long-term. But in contrast to much of the campaign, Obama receives higher marks on foreign policy than economic; 57% approve of his handling of international affairs. While 45% of registered voters said Obama would not be tough enough on foreign policy last September, 38% now hold that view while about half of Americans (51%) now say he has the right approach. Only 21% say the U.S. is less safe under Obama than under Bush, while 28% believe his administration has made the nation safer.

To: i-node who wrote (492681)	7/6/2009 6:48:06 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1574480

To: i-node who wrote (492681)	7/6/2009 8:16:13 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574480

July 6, 2009, 8:24 am Administrative costs Whenever you encounter “research” from the Heritage Foundation, you always have to bear in mind that Heritage isn’t really a think tank; it’s a propaganda shop. Everything it says is automatically suspect. Greg Mankiw forgets this rule, and approvingly (yes, it’s obvious he approves -no wiggling out) links to a recent Heritage attempt to explain away Medicare’s low administrative costs: Naturally, Medicare beneficiaries need, on average, more health care services than those who are privately insured. Yet the bulk of administrative costs are incurred on a fixed program-level or a per-beneficiary basis. Expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs makes Medicare’s administrative costs appear lower not because Medicare is necessarily more efficient but merely because its administrative costs are spread over a larger base of actual health care costs. When administrative costs are compared on a per-person basis, the picture changes. In 2005, Medicare’s administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453. Well, whaddya know — this is an old argument, and has been thoroughly refuted. Jacob Hacker: These administrative spending numbers have been challenged on the grounds that they exclude some aspects of Medicare’s administrative costs, such as the expenses of collecting Medicare premiums and payroll taxes, and because Medicare’s larger average claims because of its older enrollees make its administrative costs look smaller relative to private plan costs than they really are. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage. This is a near perfect “apples to apples” comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population. (And even these numbers may unduly favor private plans: A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006 Medicare Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share.) The CBO study suggests that even in the context of basic insurance reforms, such as guaranteed issue and renewability, private plans’ administrative costs are higher than the administrative costs of public insurance. The experience of private plans within FEHBP carries the same conclusion. Under FEHBP, the administrative costs of Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs) average 7 percent, not counting the costs of federal agencies to administer enrollment of employees. Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) participating in FEHBP have administrative costs of 10 to 12 percent. In international perspective, the United States spends nearly six times as much per capita on health care administration as the average for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. Nearly all of this discrepancy is due to the sales, marketing, and underwriting activities of our highly fragmented framework of private insurance, with its diverse billing and review practices You should always remember: 1. Don’t believe anything Heritage says. 2. If you find what Heritage is saying plausible, remember rule 1. krugman.blogs.nytimes.com