< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3324 OF 4476 ·
|Jun-30-12|| ||al wazir: <Softpaw> (if you're around): Here's an article you could have written: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arc...|
|Jun-30-12|| ||HeMateMe: I find it very hard to believe that doctors are "seeing medicaid patients at a loss", as was mentioned above. |
If that were true, how would the system function? <Pinned Piece> thinks it is somehow tyrannical that doctors be required to see medicare/medicaid people, and get less $$ than they would if someone had a nice high quality, expensive health insurance plan.
No one is forcing anyone to be a doctor. You can make more money as an investment banker. At the university dental clinic I have been using for the past 15 years, the future dentists are about 40% women and, on the whole, 50% are non-white. As I listen to them and see how they are dressed, I can see them some of them are muslims from Indonesia, some are well educated Indians (same place Vishy Anand comes from), some are orientals, some sound Russian or Ukrainian. Really, no one is forcing <TPstar> or anyone else to be a doctor. The world is full of emigrants (like my ancestors and those of everyone here) who would like to come to America, experience higher education and perhaps become a doctor.
I think we are seeing a gradual shift towards more M.D.s practicing here who were born outside the USA. Maybe these are the doctors who will take the 1% cut in transfer payments from the government (part of the $500B cuts in medicare promised by Obama) and STILL be happy to be a doctor in the USA.
Those who see it TPstar's way can continue to ignore the Medicaid group. Just so everyone is happy.
Considering that it was our elected Congressmen who voted for this bill, I find it remakable that there are so many negative people here--these are the people YOU voted for. Are chessplayers so wildly wealthy that you have no need for assistance in paying healthcare premiums? are you the guys who never pick up a check at the restaurant, or buy a round at the bar?
My guess is that, deep down, you don't really like the people who you feel most need assistance of this type, and wish they weren't here at all.
|Jun-30-12|| ||valiant: <PP: "If we let Washington tell us when to sow and when to reap, the nation will soon want for bread"|
The quote (the exact one) can be found here, page 66: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...
It seems to be in the context of how much power Supreme Court Judges should be allowed to have ...
<It is not enough that honest men are appointed Judges. All know the influence of interest on the mind of man, and how unconsciously his judgment is warped by that influence.>
|Jun-30-12|| ||Marmot PFL: <al wazir: > Very good article. Offhand I don't know any other writers who make economic ideas so logical and accessible to all readers as Krugman. Around here of course it's falling on deaf ears.|
|Jun-30-12|| ||al wazir: <Marmot PFL>: What struck me was the point, which <Softpaw> previously made at length, that Obama's economic advice is coming mainly from Wall Street insiders, most of them alumni of Goldman Sachs. (But hey, almost every Wall Street big shot works for Goldman some time or other.)|
|Jun-30-12|| ||FSR: <HeMateMe ... I find it remarkable that there are so many negative people here ...|
My guess is that, deep down, you don't really like the people who you feel most need assistance of this type, and wish they weren't here at all.>
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
|Jun-30-12|| ||quantum.conscious: <hemateme :My guess is that, deep down, you don't really like the people who you feel most need assistance of this type, and wish they weren't here at all.>|
well, you could as well talking about me - somewhat (ok, i know i am talking off tangent and out of context , however..). not at the level of intellect but at the level of experience. how many of you cringe at the sight of a homeless or a drug addict and hold them responsible for their 'situation'? i do - kind of automatically. past conditioning. i have transmuted this past conditioning a lot and hopefully i would soon (read a couple of years) be full of compassion for everyone the way a 'true' christian should be (i am secular , however, i just love the teachings of jesus, st francis of assissi...).
|Jun-30-12|| ||kb2ct: |
Vermont's single payer healthcare does not start until 2017.
Even good things take time.
|Jun-30-12|| ||chancho: <I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.|
|Jun-30-12|| ||PinnedPiece: <HMM: My guess is that, deep down, you don't really like the people who you feel most need assistance of this type, and wish they weren't here at all.>|
MY GUESS is that you have no idea what it really takes to make the kind of people you have in mind, fully contributing citizens, healthy wealthy and wise, people that don't need the kind of help YOU think they need.
|Jun-30-12|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: <PP: MY GUESS is that you have no idea what it really takes to make the kind of people you have in mind, fully contributing citizens, healthy wealthy and wise, people that don't need the kind of help YOU think they need.>|
|Jun-30-12|| ||patzer2: <HeMateMe: <TPstar> <I have not taken Medicaid for 12 years. Contrary to your belief, the state government cannot force me to accept Medicaid patients. Period.>|
And that is kind of sad, it really paints you as a sort of elitist type.>
On the contrary, it pictures TPstar as a professional physician whose reputation and quality of care is in great demand. He obviously refuses to compromise his quality of care to meet the lower standard being offered by most Medicaid providers.
Medicaid often provides business for those Doctors and health care providers who could otherwise not find sufficient numbers of patients in a competitive medical market. Indeed, if it weren't for medicare and medicaid being paid by government bureaucrats to doctors and hospitals, instead of patients with their own allotment of personal or government money to spend (e.g. the Ryan plan of say $5,500 per Medicare recipient), such poor medical professionals might be forced to improve their services or be driven out of business.
We'd improve the quality of health care and reduce costs while reducing the amount of government red tape and interference in the lives of Doctors and Patients. Hardly, a "sad" outcome.
Of course for liberals, such an outcome (e.g. less government, better results) is always "sad."
|Jun-30-12|| ||patzer2: <Marmot PFL><I don't know any other writers who make economic ideas so logical and accessible to all readers as Krugman.> Krugman's ideas are "logical" only to those who operate from the premise that bigger government, a bigger welfare state and higher taxes are more important than economic and political freedom and a prosperous private sector. His idea that the only thing better than a big deficit is a bigger deficit is out of touch with the majority of economists. Worse yet, when he's losing the argument, like many less educated liberals, he acts unprofessionally and resorts to ad hominem personal attacks on other economists.|
To get a perspective on just how unprofessional and out of touch Krugman is with the majority of economists and his profession, see the commentary by respected University of Chicago economists, Dr. John Cochrane at http://modeledbehavior.com/2009/09/... and http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2....
|Jun-30-12|| ||cormier: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<Gospel> Mt 8:5-17> When Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion approached him and appealed to him, saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering dreadfully."> He said to him, "I will come and cure him."> The centurion said in reply,
"Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed.> For I too am a man subject to authority,
with soldiers subject to me.>
And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes;
and to another, 'Come here,' and he comes;
and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it."> When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, "Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith.> I say to you, many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
at the banquet in the Kingdom of heaven,
but the children of the Kingdom
will be driven out into the outer darkness,
where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth."> And Jesus said to the centurion,
"You may go; as you have believed, let it be done for you."> And at that very hour his servant was healed.>
Jesus entered the house of Peter,
and saw his mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.> He touched her hand, the fever left her,
and she rose and waited on him.>
When it was evening, they brought him many
who were possessed by demons,
and he drove out the spirits by a word and cured all the sick, to fulfill what had been said by Isaiah the prophet:
He took away our infirmities and bore our diseases.>
|Jun-30-12|| ||quantum.conscious: <Gregor Samsa Mendel: <PP: MY GUESS is that you have no idea what it really takes to make the kind of people you have in mind, fully contributing citizens, healthy wealthy and wise, people that don't need the kind of help YOU think they need.>
well, <GSM>, like you i am also a 'liberal' by instinct. however, i don't think <pinnedpiece> is talking about social darwinism.
<pinnedpiece> is talking something like the following , i think
<One rather minor event helped me push me
from mere disillusionment with socialism to
active reformism. Although I earned a very
modest salary as a special correspondent, I
wanted to start a trust for helping the poor. If
only enough of us did the same, I thought, we
could raise enough to make a difference.
But how exactly should we help the poor?
Just giving away money would be a bad
strategy. It would be charity, not development.
It would create dependency, not prosperity.
No, I thought, a better approach would be to
provide money to the poor which will help to
buy an income-earning assetómaybe a small
machine or repair workshop.
But, of course, money would not be enough.
The poor would need training in skills too.
Otherwise they would fail to compete and go
bust. So, I would have to organise their...>
|Jun-30-12|| ||quantum.conscious: continued from above post :
the above article is by <swaminathan> for
whom i have a lot of respect
<pinnedpiece> also makes a lot of sense to a naive like me however , i feel that he is too far on the right. to backup that 'gut' feeling i need to spend a lot of time mastering economics and presently i am engaged in some other projects which would keep me engaged for a couple of years.
on this page , <al wazir> can kind of match <pipi> but not outsmart him , i feel. <twinlark> is a smart man. he kind of challanged <pipi> "i don't want you to feel that i have capitulated to you" and such. <pinnedpiece> is a smart man and he recognises <twinlark> as a smart man and gives him due respect. so , <pinnedpiece> asked <twinlark> some questions and <twinlark> went away to a chess tournament but could not make it back here to match <pipi>
so... this page desperately needs some person very smart in economics to counter the 'propaganda' of <pipi> :)
|Jun-30-12|| ||Marmot PFL: <To get a perspective on just how unprofessional and out of touch Krugman is with the majority of economists and his profession, see the commentary by respected University of Chicago economists, Dr. John Cochrane >|
What? I didn't read every comment, but the majority of the ones I saw seemed to agree with Krugman (even if, granted, his tone is often too shrill) and pointed out several mistakes or omissions by Cochrane. This isn't really too surprising, as Krugman is a Clark medal winner and Nobel laureate (in economics the Clark is the more prestigious) and one of the 15-20 most cited economists in professional journals.
|Jun-30-12|| ||cormier: nite ...|
|Jun-30-12|| ||al wazir: <patzer2: Krugman's ideas are "logical" only to those who operate from the premise that bigger government, a bigger welfare state and higher taxes are more important than economic and political freedom and a prosperous private sector. His idea that the only thing better than a big deficit is a bigger deficit>> It's not anyone's "premise." Your portrait is a caricature.|
<[S]ee the commentary by respected University of Chicago economists ...> You are back to your old tricks, posting opinion as if it were fact. Don't do that. Also, drop the sneaky underhanded way you refer to the "respected" Dr. John Cochrane, while dismissing Nobellist professor Paul Krugman without his first name or even an honorific, as if Cochrane's name is one that intimidates and Krugman is a nobody. That smells like smear.
Krugman's columns are opinion -- informed opinion, but still opinion. So are Cochrane's. No sophisticated reader can doubt that. There are contending schools of thought in economics, just as there are in religion, in philosophy, in every field. You aren't likely to change any Christian's thinking by quoting from the Koran, and you aren't likely to change mine by quoting someone from the notoriously anti-Keynesian Chicago economics department.
|Jun-30-12|| ||Thanh Phan: <al wazir: ... You aren't likely to change any Christian's thinking by quoting from the Koran, and you aren't likely to change mine by quoting someone from the notoriously anti-Keynesian Chicago economics department.>|
Sometimes the inability to "change an opinion" harbors less worth the the ability to plant "seeds of doubt" which many here would be willing to provide.
Quotes here, often misquoted or changed, provide many basics of their arguments.
|Jun-30-12|| ||patzer2: <al wazir> <Krugman's columns are opinion -- informed opinion, but still opinion. So are Cochrane's. No sophisticated reader can doubt that. There are contending schools of thought in economics, just as there are in religion, in philosophy, in every field.> In your zeal to defend one liberal economist who agrees with your position, you make false statements to misrepresent and distort the facts.|
Those facts being:
(1) Krugman's very left wing views are a minority, discredited, and disrespected opinions outside of the mainstream of his own profession
2. Krugman demonstrates poor professional ethics in using ad hominem personal attacks against respected professional economists who have the courage to point out where he is wrong.
|Jun-30-12|| ||kb2ct: |
Your problem is that you can't use one set of opinions or beliefs to attack another set of opinions or beliefs and expect good results.
I happen to think Krugman is the better writer and very far from being "discredited"
You are free to believe what you want, but your tactics leave a lot to be desired.
Good luck with your market strategy.
|Jun-30-12|| ||galdur: You have got to be kidding me?! Is this the strangest pageant ever? Elderly women compete in Israel to be crowned "Miss Holocaust Survivor". |
|Jun-30-12|| ||quantum.conscious: <kb2ct :I happen to think Krugman is the better writer and very far from being "discredited">|
but <patzer2> is not talking about your opinion (unless you are an economist)
he says - <(1) Krugman's very left wing views are a minority, discredited, and disrespected opinions outside of the mainstream of his own profession>
<marmot> above says that <patzer2>'s own link shows his claim is false. however, <patzer2> has ignored that post of <marmot>
|Jun-30-12|| ||patzer2: <Marmot PFL><What? I didn't read every comment, but the majority of the ones I saw seemed to agree with Krugman...> You might want to reread both articles, because you've obviously missed the main points of Cochrane's articles.|
Cochrane didn't write <...Paul Krugman has absolutely no idea about what caused the crash, what policies might have prevented it, and what policies we should adopt going forward. Furthermore, he seems completely unaware of the large body of work by economists who actually do know something about the banking and financial system, and have been thinking about it productively for a generation.> because he was in agreement with Krugman's opinion.
Nor did Krugman write that <Chochrane> is a "mendacious idiot" or say the University of Chicago had "forgotten basic economics" or that economists there "couldn't think straight" because they were in agreement.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3324 OF 4476 ·