Disqus - Latest Comments for ceisenhood

Re: Power Line - How's That Stimulus Bill Doing?

ceisenhood — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:45:51 -0000

You really can't judge the stimulus' efficacy based on the Obama administration's baseline model, which has clearly proven incorrect. But many outside forecasters underestimated the unemployment rise as well. The question becomes: what would the unemployment rate be WITHOUT any stimulus? I don't think we can really answer that.

However, smart economists, including right-of-center ones like Mark Zandi, who served as a McCain senior economics advisor, think that the stimulus is having a strong positive effect on GDP. But, he writes, "It is not feasible to count and identify each job that results from the stimulus; economic impacts are estimated using a macroeconomic model..." (I can't provide link b/c this form doesn't allow pasting - go to economy.com and click on US Fiscal Stimulus Revisited.)

The data coming in thus far show that the stimulus has been effective in accomplishing its goal - filling a lag in demand in the short-term. The aid to state and local governments has been particularly effective - without it, we would have seen far more serious budget cuts, layoffs, and general economic pain.

Re: ABQNews: Health Care Debate: Day 4

ceisenhood — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:07:15 -0000

This is a comment from BillWatson, who accidentally left it on a non-health care related post.

A dual public/private health care reform system has no equals or even a close contender to provide a world class solution for reform.

Using governments “unfair advantages” is the way to bring rapid “game changing” innovations and reforms to health care.

A new public health service could provide:

Free care and medications to everyone choosing to use public care, rich, poor, old, young, everybody that asks for it could have it no insurance or co pays would be required the service would be free period.

Businesses that would choose the public health care service for their employees would no longer be required to pay for or be involved in health care in any way.

Costs to citizens for this new public health care system even after bringing in 50 million people currently outside of any system, paying all costs for seniors who would chose to use this totally free public service instead of the complicated doughnut hole infested Medicare mumbo jumbo, and caring for everyone else who wanted to drop what they are paying for and use free public care, the costs for all of this when delivered efficiently through a new civilian VA style system, proven and fine tuned through years of use, would still be hundreds of billions of dollars cheaper than the $2.5trillion spent last year.

Nobody can collect the money to pay for health care as cheaply as the government can through a national sales tax, as opposed to forcing individuals and businesses to purchase questionable insurance to pay for expensive services in a system that has failed so many, and nobody can deliver high quality care and medications as cost effectively as the VA has for years.

A civilian model of the VA is the best fix in a new dual public/private system.

If private systems work for you keep doing what you’re doing except no government funding should be spent through private systems in order to control costs and outcomes.

Using a dedicated national sales tax funding source in conjunction with the VA's delivery and software records systems means we don’t need to reinvent the wheel.

The system could be jump started by acquiring health delivery systems around the country that would choose to sell to, and be integrated into, the new public National Health Care System.

A national health care system could also take over states and local government’s health care systems to assure VA operating standards and relieve local funding problems while providing total transferability for patients.

Building new public health care facilities will produce capital assets that will continue to serve Americans for generations, and provide millions of construction jobs today and millions of new health care jobs forever.

The private care option would allow individuals or businesses the unlimited choice of doctors, clinics, hospitals, timing, and treatments, Ford Fiesta or Rolls-Royce, but it would require the user to pay privately for their health services, either by self pay, company pay, private insurance, whatever, but government funded programs should only be distributed through the new national system to assure cost control and outcomes.

It is not a level playing field with government competing against private insurance and for profit care providers for patients, nor should it be.

Government needs to become the basic necessities no frills provider of health care and it needs to do its duty in a way that will not force individuals, businesses, and taxpayers to pay their money to private hospitals and insurance companies when government owned and operated hospitals and sales tax funding sources would cost less.

It is time for the President, Legislators, American businesses, unions, AARP, churches, banks, financial institutions, insurance companies and private health care companies to become pragmatic and do a true fix by establishing a dual option public/private health care reform system.

Re: ABQNews: Health Care Debate: Day 3

ceisenhood — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:22:23 -0000

Dr. Perrigo submitted her answer to my question (listed in italics at the top of her post above). Here's her response:

In several comments/blogs this week, the question of monetary incentives to order expensive care has come up. In my experience, there have not been monetary gains to be made by me if I ordered certain labs or scans. A different area in which I believe there have been monetary gains to be made is pharmaceuticals, said gains going to the pharmaceutical companies who try to sell us on using such things as combination drugs, when the components purchased separately would be much less expensive.

The Dartmouth Atlas is a worthy read, brought to my attention by Mr. Eisenhood. It addresses the difference in Medicare reimbursement, per patient, across the United States. In Texas, reimbursement per patient can be as high as $14,000; while in New Mexico, the highest per patient cost $6600. After reading this paper, it’s easy to conclude that the doctors and hospitals in Texas are working the system. Clearly, it would be best, nationally, if the system could not be manipulated in this way. If we implement a new payment system, without changing the underlying problems in the way medical care is delivered (and, I’m sorry, but the consequences of high insurance/high risk), nothing will change. The new system will simply be similarly manipulated.

The overuse of services argument in the New Yorker article can be seen, from my point of view, as defensive medicine at the same time as it is see as wanton money grabbing by the involved physicians. Although this article states health-care costs ultimately arise from the accumulation of individual decisions doctors make about which services and treatments to write an order for, the most expensive piece of medical equipment, as the saying goes, is a doctor’s pen. And, as a rule, hospital executives don’t own the pen caps. Doctors do. I continue to argue that these tests are ordered for several reasons including that the patients want to understand what is wrong with them and the doctors need data both for the patient and for defense if something goes wrong with the treatment program.

Again, if we are allowed to have more primary care doctors who have relationships with their patients, as is discussed in the Dartmouth Atlas, we can work toward using the less technologically advanced options on most patients, and saving the very advanced technology for the most needy patients and possibly restricting their use to central facilities.

Re: ABQNews: Health Care Debate: Day 2

ceisenhood — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:16:57 -0000

Please leave any further comments on the Day 3 post here.

This thread is now closed.

Re: ABQNews: Health Care Reform: An Online Debate

ceisenhood — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:06:15 -0000

The next round of this debate is now posted here. Please leave further comments on that thread.

Re: U.S. guns fueling Mexican drug violence

ceisenhood — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:34:28 -0000

I thought I wouldn't hear from you again because you were so obviously wrong. From the GAO: "While it is impossible to know how many firearms are illegally trafficked into Mexico in a given year, over 20,000, or around 87 percent, of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced over the past 5 years originated in the United States, according to data from DOJ's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)."

Re: U.S. guns fueling Mexican drug violence

ceisenhood — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:10:37 -0000

You, sir, are the poor sap. "In 2008 only about 25 percent of the crime guns confiscated by Mexican authorities were sent to ATF for tracing, GAO reported."

"More than 20,000 firearms confiscated by Mexican authorities and traced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the past five years originated in the United States..."

Re: U.S. guns fueling Mexican drug violence

ceisenhood — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:12:41 -0000

Um, see the third paragraph. "More than 20,000 firearms confiscated by Mexican authorities and traced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the past five years originated in the United States, according to a report released Thursday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress."

Re: Health care is broken, but the government can’t fix it

ceisenhood — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:12:50 -0000

This comment single-handedly shreds Brigette's piece. Bravo, drywall. Facts tend to beat loose rhetoric about the evils of government.

Re: ABQNews: Adjustment To Pension Contributions The Fairest Option

ceisenhood — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:03:50 -0000

@ Tony and cab:

I understand your concerns. Nobody wants to see their pay cut or their co-pays go up, particularly during a recession. And, cab, your frustration felt towards high-salaried appointees is justified. But anger towards legislators is misplaced - they don't even make a salary. And, as far as I know, it won't be as easy for "double-dippers" to double dip.

But here's what I feel you're missing: those working in private industry are feeling the same pain, perhaps even worse. Many companies have been forced to make layoffs, freeze salaries, and raise deductibles. State employees aren't being victimized by these changes.

And, unfortunately, merely getting some top appointees to cut their salary isn't going to make the kind of $40 million dent in the budget gap that the pension changes are.

And health care costs aren't going to be brought down without major reform at the federal level. We can all agree that getting a serious bill passed in Congress is vital.

Re: ABQNews: Adjustment To Pension Contributions The Fairest Option

ceisenhood — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:18:03 -0000

@ Magil: Not at all. I'm not accusing state employees of anything. At the risk of sounding repetitive, let me say once again: a pay cut is better than layoffs or a general tax increase.

Unfortunately, when you work for the government and the government is in the red, that means that you might take an occasional hit. But you get great benefits and super job security. It's a tradeoff.

Re: ABQNews: World's First Slam Poet Laureate Crowned

ceisenhood — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:12:43 -0000

@ Alex: Well it sounds like you just don't like blogs. This and other Journal blogs actually do quite a bit of digging and original reporting. But we also link to other sources, just as others link to us.

In this case of my blog, I do quite a bit of aggregating Albuquerque-related content - that's the point. Many people may have missed the Daily Lobo story, but now they've seen it.

If you just generally think the "U.S.S" Journal isn't thoroughly covering the news and "finding features," I respectfully disagree.

Re: ABQNews: Adjustment To Pension Contributions The Fairest Option

ceisenhood — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:24:55 -0000

@ Jon: I understand that $630/year is non-trivial. However, this is a short-term (2-year) budget measure and I think the clear alternative, layoffs, is less palatable. Also, if the state were to increase income to offset the changes, there would be no budgetary effect, so that wouldn't make sense.

@ Bob: Good comment. You're right - teachers are paid terribly in NM and that's a shame. And, true, the ERA doesn't allow for the same benefits to be reaped after 25 years of service and the multiplier is lower (2.35%), but there is also no maximum, so an educator who works for a long time can earn as much or even more annually after they retire.

Because teachers make less, that means they also give up less of their paycheck. It's a percentage drop, not an absolute cut in pay. I'd like to see teachers getting a big pay increase, but that's a different conversation than this one. And, again, I think this measure is better than layoffs.

Re: ABQNews: World's First Slam Poet Laureate Crowned

ceisenhood — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:38:57 -0000

@Alex: If I'd heard about it beforehand, I likely would have gone. I see no reason for you to be nasty. It's common for blogs to link to other sources.

Re: ABQNews: As Seen In 'Breaking Bad'

ceisenhood — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:41:19 -0000

@ NYC: I totally agree. I'm gonna work on that today. I'll talk to Rachel.

Re: ABQNews: Candid Rio Rancho Bear Photos

ceisenhood — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:22:39 -0000

Corrected. Thanks Jim.

Re: ABQNews: Welcome To City Seeker

ceisenhood — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:52:41 -0000

Welcome!