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: Alighieri who wrote (615917)	6/13/2011 1:24:14 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580448

To show how radical the GOP has become, moderate Pawlenty is proposing increasing the tax cuts: "Pawlenty proposes to reduce the top individual income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, cut the top corporate rate from 25 percent to 15 percent, and allow pass-through corporations to pay taxes at the corporate rate. He also wants to completely eliminate capital gains taxes, taxes on dividends and interest, and the estate tax. Altogether, according to the Tax Policy Center, it would cost the Treasury over $11 trillion over the course of a decade -- most of which would benefit the wealthiest Americans. It's a recipe for either a catastrophic budget crisis, or a fundamental dismantling of the public sector's role in American life, or both." tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com

To: Alighieri who wrote (615917)	6/13/2011 1:49:53 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580448

>> I shudder to imagine what would happen of paul ryan had his way and medicare was no longer price controlled. The result would, over a period of years, likely resemble the excellent results that have been obtained with Medicare Part D in controlling costs. The simple, indisputable fact is that private insurance companies control costs better than Medicare/Medicaid. They do so with more efficient management and measures to prevent waste, fraud and abuse, which Medicare and Medicaid STILL refuse to adopt. Private enterprise has a profit motive that helps to insure cost-effective results. Government has no such motivation. Don't worry if you don't understand this. It isn't within your range of capabilities. >> It's a zero sum game.. Another ridiculous and baseless claim. There is so much wrong with it I don't even know where to start with you. For openers, you are presuming linearity in cost and revenue functions where we know it doesn't exist. Moreover, by shifting costs without shifting the administrative burden, you lose the benefits of more efficient operations that are present in private insurance companies. Your comment reflects a total misunderstanding of how the reimbursement system works. When Medicare pays 50-70% of what private insurance companies pay, the remaining 50-30% doesn't just "go away". It is manifested in higher negotiated fees (hospitals) and UCR (professsional) rates. Those higher rates do not merely reflect the 30-50% over time, but there is a PERSISTENT upward pressure on fees, made essential by Medicare/Medicaid underpayments. As one who advises physicians on such matters, I routinely suggest about a 15% annual increase in fees. Period. Because you know that UCR is going to come in less. However, that 15% figure goes into computing the UCR for all following years, and will be determinative (by definition, UCR reflects the current billing charges for professionals). The "compounding" effect is substantial and causes disproportionate increases in costs for private insurance companies. Price controls don't work. Never have, never will.