Those Dumb Democrats

[legoboyvdlp]

Since we're sharing:

I'm waiting for my dealer to drop by with a new batch of cocaine. Once I've snorted about 65% of it I'll make the determination of whether to read the above posts or just go through Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings and spend the net saved time browsing hobo-porn......

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope that is a joke?

[SkyBoat]

@JWocky--

Item 1: I I stand corrected at when you arrived in the United States. I apologize for the error. I also apologize that as I went through the post, I did not differentiate well between speaking to you and to KL-666. That was my error and I am sorry for the confusion it caused you.

Item 2: I will respectfully place the math of the Congressional Budget Office and economists such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz against that of JWocky's and contend that the ACA will in fact succeed, and that the CBO is reporting the ACA is already performing at better than expected rates and projections. http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/01/27/right-wing-media-wont-tell-you-that-the-cbos-ne/202280

Item 3. In my post to KL-666 I was responding to his comments about morality not morale so I am not sure if you are talking about another post in which that idea came up.

Item 4. This was also in reference to KL-666's perception of your being the less religious person (I think he meant by religious practice, not belief or biblical knowledge) opposing abortion and my being the more religious person by practice supporting it. My explanation was how the pro-life/pro-choice forces are generally aligned by religious affiliation here in the U.S.

Item 5. I respectfully disagree with JWocky's disagreement with me regarding how the ACA was initially structured. I am quite well read on the history of the law's formation and the people and the organizations that were involved, as well as the process they went through to draft the initial legislation, the negotiations with the various stakeholders, and the final form the law took. My contention is, that because his understanding of these critical formation issues are not historically correct, the assumptions behind his mathematical model, ceteris paribus, are flawed. That is why I trust the models and projection published by the Congressional Budget Office. For one thing, the Republicans never tell you what the cost of repealing the ACA will be to the American economy. Fortunately, the CBO has those numbers:

For many reasons, the budgetary and economic effects
of repealing the ACA could differ substantially in
either direction from the central estimates presented in
this report. The uncertainty is sufficiently great that
repealing the ACA could reduce deficits over the
2016–2025 period—or could increase deficits by a
substantially larger margin than the agencies have
estimated. However, CBO and JCT’s best estimate is
that repealing the ACA would increase federal budget
deficits by $137 billion over that 10-year period.

2

Repealing the ACA would cause federal budget deficits
to increase by growing amounts after 2025, whether or
not the budgetary effects of macroeconomic feedback
are included. That would occur because the net savings
attributable to a repeal of the law’s insurance coverage
provisions would grow more slowly than would the
estimated costs of repealing the ACA’s other
provisions—in particular, those provisions that reduce
updates to Medicare’s payments. The estimated effects
on deficits of repealing the ACA are so large in the
decade after 2025 as to make
it unlikely that a repeal
would reduce deficits during that period, even after
considering the great uncertainties involved.

Repealing the ACA also would affect the number of
people with health insurance and their sources of
coverage. CBO and JCT estimate that the number of
nonelderly people who are uninsured would increase by
about 19 million in 2016; by 22 million or 23 million
in 2017, 2018, and 2019; and by about 24 million in
all subsequent years through 2025, compared with
the number who are projected to be uninsured under
the ACA. In most of those years, the number of people
with employment-based coverage would increase by
about 8 million, and the number with coverage
purchased individually or obtained through Medicaid
would decrease by between 30 million and 32 million.

The debate goes on.

To JWocky, again, I apologize for the errors in my post.

[Lydiot]

Since we're sharing:

I'm waiting for my dealer to drop by with a new batch of cocaine. Once I've snorted about 65% of it I'll make the determination of whether to read the above posts or just go through Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings and spend the net saved time browsing hobo-porn......

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope that is a joke?

Of course. I'll save at least 50% of the coke for later.

[jwocky]

SkyBoat,

1.) You still have to apologize for your patriarchal style with which you tried ot paint me as someone who doesn't know a thing. From my point of view, you should have shown a little bit less arrogance and have realized, that, if you demand respect, you have also to show it.

2.) I have never discussed the costs of repealing ACA because I never called for repealing it. Please send your complaints to people who did and don't try to link an article that doesn't even include the CBO report but only some demagogic venting from the left without actually show the mathematical models on which you allegedly rely.

3.) And a little bit more math ... and that is just a continuation of the previous.
be nh the average amount of cost increase for medical treatments per year over the next twenty years.
be nc1 the average amount of cost increase on the administrative side in the health system itself
be nc2 the average amount of cost increase on the go0vernment administration side for it
and be tmax again, the maximum of money available for a health care system
be year just a year-counter for the years of ACA then

tmax(year) >= h+nh*year+c1+nc1*year+c2+nc2*year

Since year can only be positive and the cost increase can only be positive. the limes goes against infinite. Even if it is true what you claim, the CBO report says (I can't check you linked instead of a report only a propaganda site) and we redefine to bring in this cost saving of allegedly 20% by introducing a 0.8 factor all over the board for all the cost increases ...
be nh the average projected amount of cost increase for medical treatments per year over the next twenty years.
be nc1 the average projected amount of cost increase on the administrative side in the health system itself
be nc2 the average projected amount of cost increase on the go0vernment administration side for it
and be tmax again, the maximum of money available for a health care system
be year just a year-counter for the years of ACA then

tmax(year) >= h+nh*0.8*year+c1+nc1*0.8*year+c2+nc2*0.8*year

You see, all the factors remain still positive. And if you have only positive factors to multiply then they grow. The 20% savings, if it is correct (I can't check it you linked only a propaganda site without the model), delay only the inevitable. However, this CBO report was written long before the Obama administration raised the minimum wage for public employees and thus, at least for the C2 part, those savings are already more than compensated for.
So since the limes is still infinite while tmax is not, we can determine the point at which the system breaks down latest as

(tmax(year) >= h+nh*0.8*year+c1+nc1*0.8*year+c2+nc2*0.8*year) = false
or as
h+nh*0.8*year+c1+nc1*0.8*year+c2+nc2*0.8*year) = tmax(year) if you like it as break point formula

Now, since you pointed out correctly, people with preconditions can have health insurance now, we know, those costs are also in the system. Which means, h is already bigger. We know also, ACA led to the creation of thousands of jobs in public administration. So C2 grew. C2 grew also by the higher minimum wage which also applies to public employees working in the government part of health care administration. So there were already factors rising the costs and the 20% under projection means this growth of costs was 20% lower, it doesn't mean, there was really money saved. The propaganda site, you linked doesn't even claim there was money saved. All they actually state is, they have to spend only 80% of the more they projected. Now, since you linked a propaganda site (why are liberals so prone to link statistics they didn't entirely get and propaganda sites about mathematical models they didn't get entirely?), I can't check on the model itself, but under the unproven assumption, the propaganda site actually said the truth in what it says, then there is actually no discrepancy between my model and the claims of the CBO. Which means, you baseless accusation that my math is flawed would also extend to all models saying the same thing. For example the propaganda site you linked and for example also on Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz. So, the simple fact that you didn't understand what the math said and only claimed it has to be wrong because it comes from a political opponent has led to the situation that you declared two of the probably best economics scholars of our times wrong. So, next time, you complain, I allegedly say liberals are stupid, you may want to help me out by not posting bringing yourself in a situation in which you look so math challenged that you shoot yourself in your foot.

4.) There are two points in the abortion debate, I consider as important in the long term. Notice that "I". It's just what I think, nobody is forced to think the same. The first aspect is of course the ethical corundum. We say, we want to have women to have a right on their own body, which sounds entirely like a good thing. Till there is a second body involved which they definitively not own, the foetus or baby (depends on the time in pregnancy and when you want to make this distinction). But since ethics is not carved in stone and the same for everyone, some tend to be more on the women's side others think more about the baby. Any attempt to find a compromise at least here in our little corner of the world in that matter by discussing when a baby in the mother'S womb reacts to outside sensoric triggers is already successfully buried by propaganda and sidetracking. So, all that remains is the question why someone who worked himself for 19 years along medical professionals wants to avoid this discussion at any price. Maybe you can tell me, SkyBoat?
The second point, the always overlooked point in the abortion debate is, how does the outcome change society. Most western countries have due to the high availability of contraceptives and abortions an inverted age pyramid. Which means, in consideration of health care systems like ACA and similiar, always fewer people pay for always more people or in mathematical terms tmax(year) declines from year to year more. But the US aren't like other countries. We get a lot more immigrants and those fill the gap. Sure, some people cry all the time, that America is black in 50 years or that it is brown (hey people make up your mind), but honestly, I am 51 this year, I won't be around anyway and from my ethical point of view, the number of people happily making their life at any given time is far more important than their skin colour.
No, the problem is, the shift of the size ethnic groups in a mixed population like the US one will also cause a shift in political powers and tensions and those tensions will cause especially more friction between minorities. We can see this effect already in the increasing numbers of racial motivated hate crimes between Hispanics and Blacks in some big city downtown areas. We also saw the political implications already when the Democrats started to burn their traditionally black voters in favour of more Hispanic votes. Of course, seeing the current lineup of hopefuls on the Republican side is similar lets say mentally limited. Nope, lets call it what it is, outright stupid. Trump ... well, I admit, I lack the words ... Cruz mixing up legal and illegal immigration to catch votes fromt he outer right which he will not get because well, his name is Cruz ... Carson ... well, at least, he tries to be integrative, but then, he still has to learn to keep his mouth shut when he doesn't know. If you think, you have seen me ranting at liberals, you haven't seen me yet fighting my current candidate nausea!
And while politicians try to figure out how to get the most votes out of it, we had alone in Chicago since beginning of October (because some statistics count in quarters of a year) more than 100 gang related shootings and the majority of them were between Black and Hispanic gangs. That special segment is up about 40% in the last five years and it is expected to climb on. Luckily most of those gangsters are not especially good shoots, so most of the time, people are injured but not killed. However, there is the danger for bystanders. As an example: Last Wednesday in East Garfield Park in Chicago, two guys in a dark sedan drove by and opened fire on a 25 year old known gangbanger in brightest daylight (3pm local time). That guy was alone at the time. Now, the primary target, the gangbanger was brought to the hospital with minor injuries. But two teenage boys were also injured because the shooters basically sprayed the area of their target with bullets. Result: A 14 year old lost the mobility of his left knee probably forever and a 17 year old got a bullet pulled out of his thigh. And things like that happen in America in big cities almost daily everywhere on the borders between Black and Hispanic gang turfs and we can expect more of that, the more the Hispanic and Black population shares become equal in size. So population distribution shift has an impact on a total different problem and abortion has an impact on population distribution shift. Just some food for thought and the probably not too popular idea, that whatever we as a society decide in the abortion question will have impacts on future generations not only on a pure ethical but also on an economical and social level.

So bottom line, I would rather discuss the real problems and think about solutions than to deal with more propaganda sites. In my personal opinion, who has to search refuge in mere propaganda and in twisting sentences to hide the truth has already proven how wrong he is.

[SkyBoat]

@JWocky--

Please explain in your formula where the cost reduction regulations in the ACA and CMS (Medicare and Medicaid) are factored in. For example, if a patient is discharged and within a certain time period readmitted for the same condition, the hospital cannot charge for that admission. This regulation is designed to reduce recidivism. And it is one of thousands that have been implemented in the past three years. These regulations apply to all hospitals nationally regardless of whether or not their states have opted into the Exchange. Also, does your formula account for the billions saved annually because of those states that have refused to join the Exchange and therefore have not gotten their allotment?

Also, please explain where in your formula the wellness goals of the ACA are factored in? Since more people are insured (regardless of goals, but in sheer numbers) there will be a positive curve in the overall health of the populace over the next generation. Patients are already seeking medical aid at the primary care level in greater numbers. That was true in my hospital's clinics and in Oregon which is an Exchange state. Public health officials are clear that this trend will reduce the number of persons entering the system much more ill, often needing intermediate to intensive care upon admission, significantly reducing the health care costs overall. So any formula, now, that calculates costs also has to factor in the real-life health care benefits the many programs the ACA provides to generate an accurate picture of its real impact on the economy over time.

As of now, I have made the points I think needed to be made.

[jwocky]

As pointed out only two times, but for SkyBoat in special once more

be h the costs of actual treatment
be c1 the costs of administration on the health system side

so ... if a patient is re-admitted and the hospital can't bill him for this, bu they can bill the insurance for actual medical measures like for example another ultrasound, ACA obviously limited only the growth of c1.
Obviously, despite spelling it out for you two times already and now a third time, even the most simplified form of math is too far away from your field of expertise which is theology. Well, we all chose to do different things in life, do we?

However, to argue, some changes haven't participated and therefore ACA saved a lot of money is an argument you really shouldn't use because it proves, the fewer states and people participate the lesser are the costs. Which is by the way not entirely true, because if people wouldn't participate at all, we would still have ten-thousands of additional public employees to do the paper-pushing for ACA and then, without any profit from it as society because people would have the exact same health insurances as before or none at all, we would only pay more taxes for the additional ACA costs. Which, before you have to ask because I spelled it out only twice for you, is c2 ...

So, here we are, obviously you didn't read what which variable stands for but you are certain, everything is wrong ... so, let me ask a theological question, just as a thought experiment. Imagine a person who can neither prove the existence of God nor the non-existence but claims, he knows exactly and for sure, God doesn't exist. How would you call such a person?

[D-ECHO]

Removed out of this toxic forum.