Jarqui
Jarqui's JournalHere's one I came across today that burns me
Under pressure, Clinton Foundation’s Canadian arm reveals 21 donors
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24784342.html
Under pressure to lift the veil of secrecy over who bankrolled his Canadian charity that’s affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, Vancouver-based mining mogul Frank Giustra late Friday released the names of 21 of its largest donors, most with connections to the mining and oil-drilling industries.
....
However, the biggest donors to the Canada partnership were Giustra, who has pledged $100 million to the Clinton Foundation and donated more than $30 million directly so far, and his Radcliffe Foundation, which gave more than $18 million between 2007 and 2013, according to public records.
Others on the list include:
--Pacific Rubiales Energy Corp., a Canadian petroleum firm in which Giustra invested and which pursued drilling interests in Colombia.
--Gran Colombia Gold Corp., a Canadian firm with mining interests in the South American nation.
--Endeavour Mining Corp., a Canadian-based gold mining firm, and its chief executive officer, Neil Woodyer.
--Stephen Dattels, a British-based mining industry financier.
--GMP Securities, LP, a Canadian firm that has been instrumental in underwriting mining ventures.
-- B2Gold Corp., a Canadian gold-mining firm.
--Sam Magid, a former business Giustra business partner.
--The London-based Dragon Group of companies, which deal in silver, copper and diamonds.
Why are a bunch of mining companies wanting to work with Bill & Hillary on philanthropy ... and uranium deals?
doesn't look good:
http://cgepartnership.com/who-we-are/clinton-foundation-partnership/
I hear about what a smart man Bill Clinton is, when he lets the right head do the thinkin'. But how can Bill and Hillary claim to be smart enough to be the first family again and do the above? It's so stupid, it defies reason.
Maybe, there's nothing sinister going on. But public perception of the above stinks like a septic tank burst. Wait til Karl Rove and Co get their mitts on it.
If these folks want to do great philanthropic things, great!!. Give to Save The Children or the United Way or with more than $100 million they're giving the Clintons, they can start their own charity. Just don't mess with the front runner for president of the Democrats Party. It's tough enough as it is.
It's just a potential scandal that was absolutely needless.
It's inevitable
Look at what they did to John Kerry
Look at the stuff they tried to get Obama with (birther, muslim, guilt by association etc - and they made a bunch of that stick because a bunch of Americans think Obama is of Muslim faith born in Kenya).
Look at what they did to Acorn
Look at what they did to Planned Parenthood.
In those cases, they took a few facts and spun them into a fable to damage the candidate or entity. Recently, they've damaged Hillary similarly with Benghazi and emails.
Here's some of what they're up to:
Inside the Republicans’ Opposition Research Machine
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/opinion/inside-the-republicans-opposition-research-machine.html
In this political cycle Republican investigators have been given a rare gift: a clear front-runner with a long and public history.
The Republicans boast that their research shop is bigger and better than the Democratic National Committee’s, but in fact the Republicans’ biggest advantage is Mrs. Clinton herself. While the Democrats have more than a dozen Republican candidates to research, the Republicans can focus their energies entirely on her. The fodder seems endless: over 40 years of public life, she has changed roles, funding mechanisms, policy positions, even regional accents.
Mrs. Clinton “may not like those of us willing to hold her accountable, but she only has herself to blame,” Mr. Shah says. “We’re simply citing her own past words, positions and actions.”
...
The committee shares its work with reporters who cover the presidential campaign. Other times, it seeks federal investigations on issues revealed by news reports, in cases like the discovery by Reuters of errors in the Clinton Health Access Initiative’s tax records and The Times’s reporting on Mrs. Clinton’s private email server.
They're going to to be all over Hillary like a pack of rabid dogs, take that Koch money and spew their negative findings and propaganda all over the media.
Two troubling things about Hillary
a) they have volumes of true stuff to work with (ie lies, flip-flops galore, money innuendo, etc)
b) Republicans and Independents heavily do not trust Hillary according to many polls and find Hillary one of the most unfavorable candidates (in many polls) since they started tracking those polls so the GOP smear machine is more likely to gain traction easily.
I think they'll hit her so hard, it will be a cakewalk for President-elect Rubio and it will cascade down the ballot.
i don't just prefer Sanders' positions, I prefer not having to deal with all the garbage they're going to hammer Hillary with - because some of it, we'll have no comeback as it's either true or they'll have some dandy evidence.
Nope, I disagree. Not accurate.
Again:
Health insurance paperwork wastes $375 billion
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/13/health-insurance-paperwork-wastes-375-billion.html
"The United States health-care system wastes an estimated $375 billion annually in billing and insurance-related paperwork that could be saved if the nation moved from a "multipayer" health coverage system to a "single-payer" system run by the government, a new study says."
and:
NY Times : "Moving to a single-payer system would save about $400 billion annually on paperwork and administration"
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/20/can-the-us-become-denmark/us-health-care-could-be-more-like-denmarks
In the above two independent assessments, this claim of yours is not correct or accurate: "it doesn't matter at that point if we have single payer like Canada or a private insurance mandate" It does matter some.
First of all, a bunch if not all of those cost reductions they're talking about - both estimates around $400 billion - are from paperwork inefficiencies and admin - not from folks setting cost limits.
For example, when someone sees a doctor in Canada, about 2-3 human beings are involved: the doctor, receptionist (who handles the single payer transactions from swiping the health card) and sometimes a nurse. When someone sees a doctor in the US, about 7-8 people are involved. The same three as Canada plus insurance staff plus other doctor/hospital admin staff, bill collector, etc. Everything else is the same.
Private insurance for all can get you a significant way there. Single payer is the most efficient because the private insurance companies have to make a profit and they're a middle man - introducing inefficiencies - another body - into the transactions because you require oversight by the government. Those that opt for non-profit private insurance - that helps get them closer to single payer.
If single payer gets you $400 billion in annual savings, deviations from that get you many billions of dollars less - depending on how much administration fat/waste/inefficiency is left in your flavor of deviation from single payer.
So what is easier, having to haggle with a bunch of insurance company middle men in determining how to effectively operate an electronic medical records system and have intermediate transactions that take longer OR one single payer who works it out and manages it directly with the hospitals and doctors with one transaction?
http://www.ehealthontario.on.ca/en/ehrs
The insurance companies "we don't want our competitor to know our data ... blah, blah, blah ... We want this data format for Xrays or else we won't play!!" etc, etc Just one more example of how single payer is easier.
All systems, even the current ACA, have areas of cost reduction they can seek independent of the type of system: single payer, two-tier, etc. They can set legal limits to costs - regardless of the system. So we agree on that part. But for reasons that should be obvious, single payer is the most efficient.
Those are not my accurate positions you are responding to.
They're positions you've misunderstood, twisted, cherry picked or you're creating a straw-man.
I'm not talking about cutting 4% of healthcare spending. That's your bogus cherry picked number. Not mine.
You raised Norway, Denmark, Australia and France.
Norway's per capita spending is like the US so I don't think we want to mimic them.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PCAP
Denmark is spending $6,270 per capita. If the US did that, the US would save (ballpark) $943 billion per year on healthcare
Australia is spending $6,110 per capita via a universal system - like single payer with deductible. If the US did that, the US would save (ballpark) $996 billion per year on healthcare
France is spending $4,864 per capita via a universal system - like single payer with deductible. If the US did that, the US would save (ballpark) $1.3 Trillion per year on healthcare
You can pick quite a few countries and mimic what they do and save hundreds of billions of dollars
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/20/can-the-us-become-denmark/us-health-care-could-be-more-like-denmarks
Aetna keeps 19 cents of every premium dollar for overhead and profit, leaving only 81 cents for care. And U.S. hospitals devote 25.3 percent of total revenue to administration, reflecting the high cost of collecting patient copayments and deductibles, and fighting with insurers.
...
In contrast, insurance overhead in single-payer programs (and fee-for-service Medicare) takes only 1 percent to 2 percent. In these programs, hospitals don't need to bill each patient; they're paid a lump sum budget, the way we fund fire departments, sharply cutting hospital administrative costs. Moving to a single-payer system would save about $400 billion annually on paperwork and administration — enough to ensure every American top coverage.
There's that darn $400 billion savings claim again (13.3% of total healthcare spending - not 4%)!!
I've been talking about the trillion dollars private insurance handles and %s related to that
115B or 961B is 12.0 % of those private insurance dollars (without me looking up whether I agree with these figures). And a bunch of that $115 billion can be gotten rid of with single payer - more than all-payer or the ACA.
Further, when you go down through the hospitals and doctors, with single payer, further administration costs disappear at a roughly similar rate because for the most part, they're dealing with the Federal single payer system. They're not dealing nearly as extensively with patients, as many insurance companies as frequently, collection agencies, red tape, etc on administration.
As well, the average US deductible (ballpark) is $1,135. In Canada's single payer, apples to apples, there is no deductible. The above math focused on premiums and payout seems to overlook that but comes out of American's wallets. Studies looking at premiums and payout to providers either ignores the deductible or lowers the medical ratio.
Canada covers ALL of it's citizens with no deductible for 62.5% of the US health costs per capita and Canadians have a longer life expectancy. It's a rough example of what is possible in the US with single payer.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PCAP
Using Canadian single payer rates as a target, the US savings for single payer might roughly be:
US healthcare costs per capita..... $9,146
- CDN healthcare costs per capita - $5,718
============================
US Single payer savings per capita $3, 460
$3,460 savings per capita x 318 million US population = $1.1 Trillion per year
Or we could say the savings from spending 62.5% of the $3 trillion the US currently spends is $1.1 Trillion.
So that's a fair cross check to reinforce that talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in savings for the US to migrate to a single payer system like Canada has is not beyond the realm. That's the order of magnitude. Not the tiny 4% you claim - it's closer to ten times that.
It's massively BIG BIG bucks.
As long as you have significant parties involved in the process (like private insurers)
trying to make major bucks on top of doctors and hospitals trying to make major bucks, you're going to have a cost containment problem.
Even if they get the insurers out of the way, they're still going to have problems with doctors and hospitals, etc wanting their bigger piece of the American dream.
But I think it's fair to say that in general, the insurers have compounded the problem because their take is a % on top of a %.
I've seen 4% as a figure for the single payer admin costs vs 15-20% insurance company margin now. Beyond that gross admin savings, there are further savings to be achieved below that (some are laid out in the ACA)
From the study referenced
" Private insurers contributed the largest share of BIR (Billing and insurance-related administrative) costs, $198 billion; public insurers contributed $35 billion."
You have to use your head a little. The public insurers are closer to single payer in spirit and structure.
I don't care which study or what nitpicking you want to go with. We're not doing an audit here. We're talking policy. I used different sources saying slightly different things to substantiate the overall general message. Private insurers are still making a bundle and costing Americans hundreds of billions needlessly. Single payer is the only path that is going to get US healthcare costs competitive with the rest of the world and solves this problem once and for all by saving Americans hundreds of billions in healthcare costs annually.
Really?
I'm focused on private insurance which is about $1 trillion per year. If you chop 15% off that figure, it's $150 billion per year.
https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/resource-center/affordable-care-act/health-insurance-rebate
One major, yet little known, requirement of the Affordable Care Act (health care reform) was that a major medical health insurance plan be required to spend at least 80-85% of collected premium dollars on member medical care, beginning in 2011. This is the law’s so-called “medical loss ratio” rule.
Now, every year, insurers who don’t meet this medical loss ratio (MLR) requirement have to refund the difference to policyholders. Rebates are due no later than August 1.
and they have paid out:
Health Insurers Set To Give Out More Obamacare Refunds
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/24/health-insurance-rebates_n_5614570.html
UnitedHealth
http://www.wsj.com/articles/unitedhealth-results-top-expectations-on-revenue-growth-1421839458
UnitedHealth said its medical-care ratio, a key industry metric that reflects the portion of insurance premiums used for patient care, fell to 79.8% in the fourth quarter from 81.2% a year earlier and was virtually flat from the 79.7% in the third quarter.
Anthem’s Medical Care Ratio Improves, Boosts Profit Margin
http://marketrealist.com/2015/04/anthems-medical-care-ratio-improves-boosts-profit-margin/
Anthem medical care ratio was 83.1% in 2014
Aetna medical-care ratio 83%
http://marketrealist.com/2015/03/star-ratings-increased-aetnas-government-sponsored-business-4q14/
So I'm not buying your 4% figure. These blood suckers are in this game to make serious money.
Now from that money, the insurers have to pay management mega-millions, salesmen, adjusters who screw consumers, billing staff and collectors, many lawyers, etc. A bunch of those dollars disappear with single payer because those functions are either not needed or needed substantially less or for a substantially more reasonable rate. Federal single payer becomes closer to a health provider verification and payment service who haggle deals to get better prices - no profit, much less administration and overhead. The consumer saves BIG on that.
Health insurance paperwork wastes $375 billion
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/13/health-insurance-paperwork-wastes-375-billion.html
The United States health-care system wastes an estimated $375 billion annually in billing and insurance-related paperwork that could be saved if the nation moved from a "multipayer" health coverage system to a "single-payer" system run by the government, a new study says.
That $375 billion doesn't cure a soul or do anything to improve medical outcomes. It's pure fat that costs each and every single American alive today about $1,179 per year or an American family of four $4,717 per year. It's stupid money down the inefficiency toilet that doesn't do nearly any one any good. It needs to go.
Shooting Suspect Made Comment About 'No More Baby Parts'
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/planned-parenthood-shooting-suspect-made-comment-about-no-more-baby-n470706"In one statement, made after the suspect was taken in for questioning, Dear said "no more baby parts" in reference to Planned Parenthood, according to two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the case.
But the sources stressed that Dear said many things to law enforcement and the extent to which the "baby parts" remark played into any decision to target the Planned Parenthood office was not yet clear. He also mentioned President Barack Obama in statements."
To me, the fact he even raised 'baby parts' provides even less doubt about who has blood of innocents on their hands
There's the problem in a nutshell with Hillary's coronation:
"Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University poll, said Clinton “would get bruised and beaten by all the top GOP opponents, and absolutely crushed” by Rubio or Carson."
That might be a bit of an overstatement but there is ample legitimate cause for concern in these polls.
A lot of folks supporting Hillary don't realize that. A majority may find her unfavorable but they say they'll vote for her because they think she has the best chance to win. At best, I think that's highly debatable and most certainly questionable. Bernie does pretty darn well against GOP opponents.
I'm not talking prediction markets because those folks are placing bets - not really examining what is behind the polls.
I mentioned previously that the Sanders folks needed to get this message out because it can really help pull support away from Clinton - if those folks realize how shaky Hillary is in the general election because of her poor unfavorable/untrustworthy numbers. And those unfavorable/untrustworthy numbers are really tough to turn around. If anything, the GOP will pile on and exploit those feelings in their Koch funded ads.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Aug 23, 2015, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 10,122
