President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1164

On November 03 2012 18:42 Defacer wrote:


Moderate Romney could have won this year. Flip-Flopping Romney or Severe Conservative 47% Romney ... no dice.

On November 03 2012 05:38 BluePanther wrote:


The lack of government management is not the only thing unique to our system.

Our legal system handles medical malpractice much differently, and is a big part of the waste in our system.

[About "ESAW", the report says "Estimated Spending
According to Wealth (ESAW). This measure adjusts health care spending according
to GDP per capita and is anchored in the fact that countries spend more on
health care (or any good or service) as their prosperity increases."]

AN INTRINSICALLY MORE EXPENSIVE SYSTEM

Our analysis shows that across five of the seven health care categories used by
the OECD—hospital care, outpatient care, drugs, administration and insurance,
and public investment in health—the United States spends above its ESAW. In
only two categories—long-term care and durable medical equipment—does it
spend below the ESAW (Exhibit 2).

Of the $477 billion that the United States spends above ESAW, we calculate
that $224 billion are found in hospital care and $178 billion in outpatient care.
Together, these account for more than 80 percent of US spending above the
level its ESAW would predict. Further analysis allows us to map, in hospital and
outpatient care, $147 billion of the additional costs to operational expenses
and support functions, $100 billion in medical labor, $75 billion in the profits
made and taxes paid by private payors and providers, and $49 billion in supplies
(Exhibit 3).

Within the other categories in which the United States spends above ESAW,
together amounting to $174 billion, $98 billion is incurred in administration and
insurance, $57 billion in outpatient drugs, and $19 billion in public investment.
In long-term and home care the United States spent $85 billion less than ESAW,
and in therapeutic and durable medical equipment, $14 billion less than ESAW.
This report examines in detail the level of spending in each category.

ACCOUNTING FOR THE HIGHER SPENDING
We analyzed the three main components of the US health care system: the inputs
consumed (both the volumes and unit costs), the operational processes that are
in place, and the intermediation processes. This approach yields a clear picture
of the sources of higher spend. Input costs—including doctors’ and nurses’

salaries, drugs, devices, and other medical supplies, and the profits of private
participants in the system—explain the largest portion of high additional spending,
accounting for $281 billion of spending above US ESAW. Inefficiencies and
complexity in the system’s operational processes and structure account for the
second largest spend above ESAW of $147 billion. Finally, administration, regulation,
and intermediation of the system cost another $98 billion in additional
spending. Together, these three account for $526 billion of US spending above
ESAW. Other miscellaneous expenditures in outpatient care (including durable
medical equipment), as well as in public investment, account for $36 billion. If
we then include the spending below ESAW in long-term care, we reach our net
figure of $477 billion spending above ESAW (Exhibit 4).

[...]

ADMINISTRATION
The United States spent $412 per capita on health care administration and
insurance in 2003—nearly six times as much as the OECD average. This is
because of its unique multiple-payor system, differences in insurance regulation
across states, and the complexities of administering Medicare, Medicaid, and
private-insurance products. This total does not include the additional administrative
burden of the multi-payor structure and insurance products on hospitals and
outpatient centers, which is accounted for under providers’ operational costs.
Nor does it include the extra costs incurred by employers because of the need for
robust human resources departments to administer health care benefits.

On November 03 2012 21:48 Danglars wrote:

Sorta. Yes, if he had played the moderate card similar to how McCain did it, he wouldn't have a chance right now. His base would abandon him, the Tea Party wouldn't be a huge campaigning base (would begrudgingly cast a vote against Obama, less active campaigning), and the blogosphere would whine even as the beltway Republicans would rejoice.

If only we could work out a deal with a majority of spending cuts and a minority of tax increases (and whatever loophole closures you can find congressional support for). Let me tell you why conservatives are all sour on it. We see time and time again the compromise being 0% of what we want and 50% of what they wanted. Period. They'll free some budget increases, call it a spending cut, and the moderates go home with smiles on their face. Spending continues to increase while most everybody on Capitol Hill feels pretty good about themselves. Spending got us into this mess and the only thing that will eventually check it is the threat of default in spending more than what we take in. Give Washington another million in revenue and they'll spend another billion.

Try to understand that it isn't a buncha dumb conservatives pushing the party to the far right in a stupid crusade. The goal is a drastically reduced size of government, both in its purvey and in its bulk spending. Spending bandaids with punitive taxation is not part of the agenda, and is seen as a step backward. Caving on a firm line on tax increases (Read My Lips: No New Taxes got one recent Republican in the White House, but see how long that lasted) invites repeated tax and spend in American politics. Call it a pipe dream or bad policy, but understand the perspective of the other side, the purportedly far right, which might've been centrists in the days of Kennedy and Nixon. Yank the center left, label your ideological opponents the "far right," and see how many will fall in line.

--
Obama clings to slight leads in battleground states that he needs to win. He has a better chance at victory statistically right now. But it's still anyone's ballgame, no handful of swing states hold a comfortable lead for him to count on. Plenty of hope still left.

On November 03 2012 18:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Romney = mediocre.

Obama = left wing nut (going off of senator voting record here) who stood up to the challenge as best a nut could.

Whatever, the best of us survive no matter what.

On November 03 2012 22:11 Rassy wrote:
Have not found one objective news site for the usa elections unfortunatly.
Cnn international is pretty decent and my main source, they always have both a republican as well as a democrat present when discussing political isues,but they still leaning slightly towards supporting obama, i get the impression.

On November 04 2012 01:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I need to go dig up that post where I predicted about two years ago Romney winning primary and Obama winning election so that I can say "told you so." But I guess I won't count chickens before they hatch.

Regarding CNN, the funny thing about that is they used to be the most biased news source there was. Then Fox came out, and MSNBC decided they wanted a partisan war with Fox, and now CNN are actually the least biased news source in the bunch.

On November 04 2012 01:52 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
I want a vial of xDaunt's tears on the 7th.

On November 04 2012 01:56 Velocirapture wrote:


I am generally a big fan of xdaunt, even as a liberal, but he has time and time again predicted a HUGE blowout for Romney which would more than surprise me at this point. I am really interested in what he will be posing on election night.

On November 04 2012 01:52 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
I want a vial of xDaunt's tears on the 7th.

On November 04 2012 02:04 HardlyNever wrote:


I think you'll get a lot of reason's why Romney lost and how the system is "broken." Virtual tears, at least.