Obama to Cave to GOP and Cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security

Man, you are so much friendlier to me than I am to you. Don't think it's not appreciated.

 

Three years ago people argued vociferously, here and frankly everywhere, about whether or not the country was "ready" for a black president. Many, including many posters of all stripes here, predicted America definitely was not. I was very proud to be an American when that was proven wrong.

Not seeing the color of a person's skin is the goal. Of course it is. But if you think that has happened or is happening or is near happening, you are deluding yourself. You sound like Michael Scott on "The Office" when he says he doesn't see skin color. Naive.

 

I know its not the only reason, and I hope it wasn't the primary reason, but it shouldn't be a factor at all. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your country for electing a minority, and I wouldn't complain about someone being proud to have been part of that election (unless of course the President is a shady one). Just don't let it influence your vote. Vote on the issues and your trust in that person.

 

Don't make the mistake of believing I would ever consider voting for Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann. It had to be the right candidate and he would have been my preferred candidate if he were white (and if Hillary were a man - no jokes on this please, they are tired), but I am in no way ashamed to say that race influenced my vote and the enthusiasm of that vote tremendously. It said something about our country, which has not come close yet to atoning for the sins of slavery or of genocide of Native Americans, and that something was critically important. I don't understand how it could not influence a person's vote. It influenced racists negatively; it ought to have influenced all others positively.

 

I felt the country was ready for a black president, but had my doubts about a female president. I'm not sure if Sarah Palin set women forwards or backwards in that regard. I think she has helped energize women, but has turned off some voters towards women.

I won't disagree with you that we aren't close to being there, and in honesty I doubt we will ever get there completely.

 

Cool. I don't think Palin set back the cause for women in any way, especially after Hilary had so meaningfully advanced it; I think she just set back the cause for idiots. And Palin's energizing of women was limited at best and lasted all of five minutes. Any half-smart woman knew Palin was interested only in legislating against women's interests. And I think most women are smarter than most men.

 

It shouldn't influence either. I wish it didn't.

I don't think we can atone for the sins of those that came before us.

 

In energizing women, I mean that in 2 ways:

1) Women saw how they could succeed politically. (Yes, other women have come before her, but she was a nobody from a small town that made the ticket). I think Bachmann's rise is partially due to Palin.
2) Women want to provide a better image than the one Palin has casted upon them.

 

Speaking for myself I was Richardson supporter and then a Hillary Clinton supporter and then an Obama supporter. Each of those candidates had something unique racial and gender wise in their makeup and while race and gender weren't near the primary reasons I supported them I didn't ignore that either. As much as we would like to believe we are beyond racism and sexism those things exist and we can't just pretend that the race or gender of a candidate doesn't matter. So while we shouldn't judge by skin color or genitalia those thing are part of what makes a person.

So would I ever consider voting against someone because of their race or gender? I wouldn't but I certainly would consider how their race and gender added to what type of leader they would be.

Besides just looking at race and / or gender as a factor in evaluating a candidate we have to consider the vast symbolic value of the US Presidency. Its a cliche that we tell kids that any American can be President. That actually isn't true and up until Obama the 43 people that occupied that office had two things glaringly obvious in common. Having a black president though takes us a step closer to the ideal by shattering that barrier and providing an example that someone who isn't white can actually become President.

 

But speaking to many doctors I know, medicare/medicaid pays the lowest amount for medical procedures in the industry. Most doctors barely break even on it and use it only to maintain their volume.

 

They could have been President. Their chances were just increased by having something in common with the majority (now plurality) and money. Obama didn't need somebody to prove that to him. He just went out and did it.

The Republican party has made a move to show how diverse they are and have strongly pushed minorities/women like Palin/Bachmann/Jindal/Cain/Steele. It is annoying. For the most part, they have crumbled under the national spotlight.

I think I have derailed this thread enough. Its fun when we actually have peaceful debate and discussion in here. Doesn't happen enough.

 

Doctors exaggerate. Doctors don't do it to maintain volume, since that gives them less time to deal with the more profitable patients.

 

Good. I will go further and state that him being black has been the best part of his presidency so far.

Taken out of context that sounds ridiculous and I left it vague for that reason - to see how people responded and whether they got what I was trying to convey.

For me I was not going to get excited about his policies or his hope and change rhetoric because I didn't and won't ever believe it. What I want will not happen in any elections of the near future and I understand this and understand how flawed our political system is. As I said before, McCain was never an option because he had an at least equally or perhaps more misleading and absurd persona that I not only didn't believe but just didn't want what I knew about him to be the symbolic leader of the country.

So Obama being black was a factor to get me to vote for him because at the least we would now have a current generation of children and all future generations who can grow up knowing that it is possible for a black person to be president. It is not just a pipe dream or some "we will never be part of the system" oppressive mental state. I don't care if he is half black or didn't grow up urban or whatever - his election had an impact on a large group's psyche and group history for generations to come.

BJ referenced it but I was one of the ones who didn't think the country would elect a black (or female) president in 2008. I was proven wrong. I think that a huge amount of racism has erupted as a result but I am also in favor of getting that more out in the open, anyway. So another win for a black man being elected.

I agree with BJ that white men have had their turn but I am also more pessimistic so I don't think that a black man or a white woman or whatever minority having their turn will do too much else policy wise. The system will roll along as it wants regardless of who is the symbol. Changes, certainly, and I don't feel they are "all the same" but grand scheme directional changes require more fundamental shifts than changing a president.

 

I don't claim to know their books. I do know doctors have to maintain a certain volume to maintain staff and pay for insurance, so its not they can give up 25-50 percent of their business.

Does anyone here know how much Medicare pays versus the insurance industry on a per procedure basis? I can't find any real numbers. Any doctors in the house?

 

It's definitely less than private care - but if they were just breaking even, it wouldn't help them cover their fixed expenses like staff or insurance.

The reality is that if we're going to cut health care expenditures, everyone from doctors to hospitals to pharma to insurers will have to make at least a bit less money. There's not really any way around that fact. You can make some improvements through increased efficiency, but that can only do so much - at least some part has to come from cuts in profits.

 

When I say break even, I mean it pays just enough to cover their fixed costs. The doctor breaks even and makes no profit.

 

Yeah. I'd also point out that a great deal of the issue is not with the paychecks of people working in the industry, but with the massive amount of profit that the healthcare system generates. The paychecks for doctors, for insurance agents, for pharmaceutical reps, don't count as part of the "profit" of a business - they're part of the expenses. Doctors and other employees could take a rather insignificant pay cut, or no pay cut at all, and the entire system could be improved if it wasn't so geared toward generating a profit that, in the final tally, only benefits a small percentage of individuals.

The smalltown independently-employed doctor is pretty much a thing of the past at this point. Most medical staff work in massive hospitals that are, collectively, only owned by a handful of groups.

 

"This is exactly what the study does not find. Indeed, it pretty much confirms what has come to be my view of the evidence on the impact of insurance: you see a very clear impact on utilization, including a handful of recommended preventative screenings, as well as hospitalizations and other treatments. You see a moderately strong effect on both patient and provider finances: fewer medical bills sent to collections, and lower self-reported financial strain from medical costs. And people like being insured, so various self-reported measures rise. The rest is more ambiguous.

For example, the strongest impact on health that they find is that self-reported health status rises by a modest-but-still-significant 0.2 standard deviations: reported depression goes down, while the people who won the lottery were more likely to say that they were in good, very good, or excellent health. This rules out the theory that people who have more contact with the health system might feel less healthy because their doctor gives them more things to be paranoid about, but as Finkelstein et. al note, it doesn't quite show that they're actually healthier. Indeed, about 2/3 of the improvement in self-reported physical health comes almost immediately, before people had a chance to consume much in the way of health services; this suggests that the effect may be psychological rather than the result of any improvement in their physical well being. As the authors say "Overall, the evidence suggests that people feel better off due to insurance, but with the current data it is difficult to determine the fundamental drivers of this improvement."

Meanwhile, while the measures of utilization are strong, the sort of "quality" measures that people often want Medicare to use for reimbursements are considerably less promising:"

More.

 

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BOVaPb2nVys?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BOVaPb2nVys?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

 

Coincidence in your name and the subtitles?