Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLetter to the Editor:
Let’s honestly discuss public option’s costs
Friday, Sept. 11, 2009 | 2:04 a.m.
I could support a government-run health care program, although it isn’t my first choice. The system we have has many serious problems, but I’d rather fix those than create a government-run system.
President Barack Obama says the new system would cost $900 billion over 10 years, or $90 billion a year. That’s probably a low estimate, but let’s accept it.
The president says we will pay for the new system with cost savings, but most people know that will never happen. So, let the IRS do a study and tell Americans how much taxes will need to be raised to come up with $90 billion each year for the next 10 years.
Once that number is known, we can ask Americans if they are willing to shoulder that tax burden. If the answer is no, which is likely, ask them which government programs they believe we could do without to save the $90 billion we need.
If those questions were asked honestly and Americans were willing to pay higher taxes or cut other programs so government health care would be fully paid for, I could support it. It’s sad that we never even come close to having that discussion.
The status quo is no good, but replacing it with a plan that isn’t paid for is just a dumb idea. We can do better than this.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
Entering debut at Tryst, Nick Hissom is a model for a rapid rise to prominence (3 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
Your right in your analysis. However, the gov't has never run a program on budget and will not be able to run health care on a budget ( I'm talking both parties here, not one or the other ). We just need to look at the Post Office or Medicare to see examples of how the gov't can't run a business. If there needs to be a tax for health care, lets make it a national sales tax so EVERYONE will pay into the system. There are far too many who do not pay any federal taxes now and a national sales tax would make sure everyone pays their fair share.
What I don't get is why are the nurses for Obama's plan?
If that plans goes into effect it will do two things.
Increase the load on nurses.
Decrease the amount of revenue that the system can pay for nurses' salaries.
It is a lose-lose situation for them.
If money is the problem, we could cover the cost with the billions being spent each month to fund the wars in the mid east.
What has the reason changed to this month for us being over there?
I think the last thing the Obama administration wants anyone to know is how much the taxes will have to be raised to cover this boondoggle. Europe has government healthcare and in many of those countries the people are taxed at over 50% of their income.
Mr. Casler says "We can do better than this".
No we can't.
In fact, Republicans have shown absolutely no interest in attempting even the slightest improvement. Ever. Now, when Democrats are about to make a change, and have the power to do so, they claim they agree change is needed, just not the one the Democrats propose.
Bull#$%t
You guys had your chance, but health care was never an agenda item. You've shown us you've nothing positive to add, so just sit down, shut up and stay out of the way of the working adults. Your silly antics have revealed you to be the spoiled brats you are. You've become a parody, a laughing stock, and no one is taking your tantrums seriously anymore.
BTW, did any of you join Senator Ensign's telephone town hall meeting about a month and a half ago? I did. He told us he was working on his own health care reform bill. I've been out of the state for a while and just got back a few hours ago. I might have missed his announcement. Can someone point me to it? I'd love to read what he's come with.
Mr. Casler, we pay more than twice what other countries pay to cover ALL their citizens. Do you think there aren't savings there?
Are you on Medicare (or plan on being in the future)? That's a "government-run" system that works better than private insurance who will try to cut you off if they can. Are you a veteran who uses the VA? That's true socialized medicine, and its patient cost is half that of privatized medicine.
You seem like a reasonable person. Don't let the smoke get in your eyes. Think about it logically. If we pay twice as much as the Swiss and they cover all their citizens, then wouldn't you think there are lots of savings within our own system if it were more efficient?
keep calling that little maggot joe wilson @ (202) 225-2452...
phone still busy...
web site still down...
what a coward that little maggot is...
and most importantly...
make sure you send a little check to his next opponent...
here is the link to donate to the next representative from that pathetic state known as south carolina...
contribute now!!!
http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraiser......
Birdie - Does the truth hurt that much that you want to rally the troops?? Boy, someone speaks the truth that might de-rail your cause and your all up in arms. Besides, is name calling a bad thing? I refer to "maggot", "coward", etc.in your post. So, based on your statements, your no better than Joe Watson? Come on Birdie, you can do better without calling names, or can't you ????
Contrary to the Obama administration's repeated assurances, millions of Americans who are happy with their current health insurance will not be able to keep it. As many as 89.5 million people may be dumped into a government-run plan.
Some Americans may find themselves forced into a new insurance plan that no longer includes their current doctor.
Americans will pay more than $820 billion in additional taxes over the next 10 years, and could see their insurance premiums rise as much as 95 percent.
The current health care bills will increase the budget deficit by at least $239 billion over the next 10 years, and far more in the years beyond that. If the new health care entitlement were subject to the same 75-year actuarial standards as Social Security or Medicare, its unfunded liabilities would exceed $9.2 trillion.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...
If there is so much fraud in Medicare, why are we waiting for a complete overhaul of our medical system?
Do it today. It should have been started back in January. If you can't get the waste out of Medicare, you sure can't run a single payer or public option.
Let's take a look at one of Patrick's claims.
This comes from a publication of the CATO institute, a group which has given grants to Patrick's employer, NPRI. No wonder he's pimping out that data.
"As many as 89.5 million people may be dumped into a government-run plan."
First, "as many as?" and "may" should immediately give you pause. "as many as" is otherwise known as the "worst-case scenario" and not even CATO would put odds or give a level of confidence in that estimate.
Second, the estimate is based on data from Lewin Associates. Here's a quote from the actual paper:
"Estimates of how many people would ultimately be forced out of their current insurance and into the government plan vary widely. At the low end, the Congressional Budget Office suggests that about three million people would be involuntarily shifted to the government plan under the House bill. It bases this estimate on a premise that premiums in the government plan would be about 10 percent lower than private insurance and that the plan would be open only to employers with fewer than 50 employees. On the other hand, the independent actuarial firm Lewin Associates assumes that the government plan premiums would be 20--25 percent below private insurance, and most importantly, that the government plan would be open to all employers. Under that scenario, they suggest, 89.5 million workers would be forced into the government plan."
So, first: the assumptions by Lewin Associates underestimate the price of health care premiums while overestimating the number of employees who could purchase the public plan.
Second, In the CATO release, they go out of their way to say, "the INDEPENDENT actuarial firm Lewin Associates..." when in fact, that's probably the funniest thing I've read this week, and that includes pbim's failed math and Thumper's 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Lewin Associates was purchased by Ingenix, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group in 2007.
That's right, CATO's publications are based on assumptions provided by a subsidiary of one of the largest for-profit health insurance companies in the United States.
Ksand,
Cato Institute is a private think tank. That I know of, it DOES NOT give out grants except to college students to attend conferences.
PS, many health insurance companies are on board with Obama's plan. Now do I need to school you on the use of logical fallacies again, or will you keep to the facts?
Well, "that you know of?" That's rather obvious.
According to CATO's 2006 Form 990 Declaration, they paid NPRI $50,000 as a grant, "to help fund like-minded 501 (C) (3) Orgs."
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/20...
Seems you don't know much about your own employer, or their funding sources.
Second, why would you cherry-pick the worst-case scenario, rather than give the whole view?
Joe Wilson is right. Obama is a liar. That is one his better qualities too.
Patrick, I think you just got what the kiddies call Pwn'd.
jlb101...Got any gum?
That's what these right wing groups do, they pretend they are grassroots or nonprofits, but when you dig deeper, you always find these peculiar connections between them.
I think it is weird that this Patrick guy works for one of them and distorts their funding sources.
I don't know why any one would pay any mind to the pre paid leftist spew that comes out of "99".
This guy can't even follow a simple math problem no more complicated than 2 + 2 = ahhhhhhhh..forget it. It's not my job to teach this guy how to think.
This guy is so full of his own ideas that he can't think straight. Are you telling us that the 47 million (that's a "47" with six zeros behind it) uninsured (your number, not mine) are going to be covered by allowing only businesses with fewer than 50 employees to enroll in the government plan?
Why don't you run go look up the numbers on how many uninsured are working in firms with less than 50 employees, more than 50 and less than 100, more than 100, etc.
Tell us all what you are going to do with all the uninsured who are unemployed, and those working for employers with more than 50 employees (those numbers go by to fast for you, genius?).
Take out your abacus, remove your shoes and socks and start counting. Oh, and you want to talk about funny? Reading your blather is better than re-runs of Seinfeld.
dulledge: Your Messiah is a false messiah. All form and no substance. Do you remember the cry from a campaign long ago, "Where's the beef?"
Oh and "99":
Why don't you head back over to "Using Lies and Scare Tactics no way to Lead". I simplified my math down to the 1st grade level for you. Let me know if you still can't figure it out and I'll try kindergarten (Sorry, that 4 syllable word means: the school year before 1st grade).
Ksand, Gmag, Edge,
So basically everyone is supposed to know funding sources from 3 years before? Does a high school history teacher have to know the school district got a federal grant for standardized test evaluations? Is your point that any organization which receives a grant is a pawn of the granting organization? Or that they don't have independent thoughts of their own?
Do you really want to start playing who funds who? Do you really want to start digging into Horsford and Buckley's organizations? How about PLAN?
You do realize, as I have schooled you all so many times before, that such arguments can be thrown back at you and organizations you like or back at yourself?
But I guess if you don't have a factual argument to make the best you can do is fallaciously attack the source.
And if Cato is using the worst case scenarios, what on earth do you think Obama is doing? He's using the best case scenarios, or, outright ignoring the projections from the governments own economists. He could be outright lying about the costs, we don't know. The only thing we do know is that the government almost always underestimates the cost of the projects. So I wouldn't be surprised if $900 billion turns into $3 trillion (remember back in June the estimate was $1.5 trillion...what happened to that number?)
Medicare for all Americans -- open enrollement with a "Real ID". Drop the Medicare payroll tax in favor of a flat rate individual income tax surcharge, a fatty tax, and increased sin taxes. Specifically prohibit abortion, "end of life counseling", and most cosmetic surgery. Tort reform -- no punitive damage awards unless found criminally liable (not just civil). Deductible, waived for minors, with free annual checkups & immunizations. Dental included. Relegate private insurance to covering the deductible and procedures not covered by Medicare. To legally practice in the US, you have to accept Medicare patients (no two tier system -- one for the wealthy & Congress, one for the rest of us).
If I was hired to spread propaganda, I'd surely know where my paycheck was coming from!
"Your Messiah is a false messiah. All form and no substance. Do you remember the cry from a campaign long ago, "Where's the beef?"
From a campaign? You mean a Wendy's commercial! Now you guys are attacking Obama with Wendy's commercials? That's desperate.
But that completely contradicts all the whining and moaning that Obama's turning us into a Socialist nation! Now he's not accomplishing anything? You just contradicted the entire playbook of the Republican party!
Patrick, what happened to, "[Cato] DOES NOT give out grants except to college students to attend conferences?" Whoops! Guess you schooled me!
Sorta like when you assumed you knew the square footage of the Greenspun building at UNLV and came up with two different answers? Oh, schooled me again!
"So basically everyone is supposed to know funding sources from 3 years before? "
Guess the "think tank" doesn't teach you to know your source? Due dilligence? Not for Patrick! A simple Google search and Sourcewatch has that info. But, like we've seen with some of your other data, it's not thoroughly researched.
"Do you really want to start playing who funds who? "
See, unlike you, I guess, I think DISCLOSURE is a great thing, not something to fear.
"Is your point that any organization which receives a grant is a pawn of the granting organization? Or that they don't have independent thoughts of their own?"
My point has been laid out before, and you're well aware of it. You began posting here under a pseudonym (kdr81) while promoting NPRI and their "research," an organization that employs you. After being called out, you changed your screen name, ostensibly to be more "open," a validation of my concerns. Although to this day I don't think you've ever admitted that you work for NPRI... funny, huh?
You may find no ethical questions in your actions. I think it's odd that your organization receives funding from Cato and then you come here, during a normal work day, promoting Cato's "studies" and cherrypicking the worst-case scenario from their findings while ignoring/failing to disclose findings to the contrary. That's pretty much the definition of cherrypicking, and I think your failure to disclose the ties between your organization and Cato is... well, it's completely what I expect from you, your organization, and its Cheney cheerleading founder.
"But I guess if you don't have a factual argument to make the best you can do is fallaciously attack the source."
No, I made a factual argument, which is that Cato's numbers don't square with the CBO's numbers, and that Cato's numbers assume coverage that is not outlined in ANY current legislation being considered. H.R. 3200 has restrictions on granting large corporations the ability to purchase the public option and Baucus' plan, the two leading plans for reform ALSO has restrictions, which Cato ignored in its assumptions.
That's my factual argument you've failed to address, actually.
"remember back in June the estimate was $1.5 trillion...what happened to that number?"
The plan changed, thus the CBO estimate changed. It isn't new news, either... the CBO announced that at the end of July. Really, this isn't rocket science. Sorry, I thought you knew that legislation can change/be amended/etc. I learned that in civics class.
"If I was hired to spread propaganda, I'd surely know where my paycheck was coming from!"
Huzzah!
The LV Sun said today "Obama made an impressive case for reform, offering a detailed and achievable plan that represents a stark contrast to the empty scare tactics and lies... There won't be any death panels for seniors, coverage for illegal immigrants, communistic government takeovers, federally funded abortions or runaway deficit spending"
LOL
I cannot remember anything that Obama said about healthcare last night. What I remember is his snarling smack down of his opposition.
Obama in his address to the nation call opposition positions (Harry called them evilmonger and Nancy called them un-American) on 5 issues "a lie, plain and simple"
He also used the address to very publicly rebuke those who do not trust him or believe him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con......
After declining for months to identify himself with the details of emerging legislation, the president for the first time embraced a set of ideas as "my plan." But the White House released scant specifics on legislation advertised as done. There is no plan.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/......
Republicans have drawn up 35 different health care proposals including HR 3400 this year, undermining President Obama's statements in recent weeks that opponents of his health care plan have no solutions.
------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/......
Health care policy researchers are contradicting President Obama's claim that a government-run health insurance program would be self-sufficient and could rely on premiums, saying it's not possible to insure up to 30 million people with better coverage and reduce costs at the same time.
In his case to the joint session of Congress Wednesday night, Obama cited the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to contend that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up for a so-called public option.
Since we are talking cost today I will re-post something I wrote yesterday that deals with just one small but important aspect of the potential "costs" of what Obama said the other night. When I posted this I think one missing comma caused 99 (bottles of beer in his body) to practically crap his pants. I'll try to do better.
A guy who posts here is the manager of a group of restaurants that have 300 employees. He charges them 50% of their insurance premiums and so only about 20% of the 10-15$/hour employees elect/can afford this deal. So, 80% of his employees have no insurance.
He advocates for universal Medicare so that he can get out of the $215,000.00/year he spends on health insurance for the 20% who sign up for health insurance from him. Obama said that he is going to charge an 8% tax on payroll for businesses that don't offer insurance to pay for the public option.
If only 20% of your 300 employees (not exactly what I would call a "small" business) do not have health insurance I would think that puts you in the class of businesses that "don't offer" insurance, wouldn't you?
The approximate payroll for a business with 300 employees making about $15/hour who work about 40 hours/week, 52 weeks a year is"9.36 million a year (again, not a "small" business). 8% of 9.36 million is $748,000.00.
So, if Obama gets what he said he wants then this guy's health insurance cost is going to go up $533,000.00 per year.
If he has the money then you Libs probably think this greedy Capitalist deserves what he gets for hoarding this money instead of giving it to his employees so they can get insurance. If he doesn't, they may be out of work and out of insurance. Call me all the names you want but this is neither fear mongering, pandering for insurance companies or the pharmaceutical industry. It's a real possibility.
Sorry:
I wrote, "If only 20% of your 300 employees (not exactly what I would call a "small" business) do not have health insurance I would think that puts you in the class of businesses that "don't offer" insurance, wouldn't you?"
That sould say, "If only 20% of your employees HAVE (not, DO NOT HAVE)health insurance....
Oh pbim72. You can't even get the basic stuff right.
"He charges them 50% of their insurance premiums"
No, he charges them $400 out of the $750 the insurance company charges them in premiums. That's 53.3%.
"only about 20% of the 10-15$/hour employees elect/can afford this deal"
"The approximate payroll for a business with 300 employees making about $15/hour who work about 40 hours/week, 52 weeks a year is"9.36 million a year (again, not a "small" business). 8% of 9.36 million is $748,000.00."
First, JohnF said 45/300 employees. That's 15%, not 20%. Second, the $15/hr JohnF was talking about was for cooks. He never said anything about a wage range of $10-15/hr. Third, we're talking about restaraunts. How many restaraunts employ people full-time? You assume that all 300 employees are full-time. Furthermore, in the restaraunt business, cooks are at the top end of the pay scale. Then you have all the other workers. The hosts, the servers, the dishwashers, etc. None of them earn $15/hr, on average. Probably far beneath that. Finally, JohnF also mentioned that some of his employees chose not to take insurance, as they are covered by a spouse.
You left all that out in your "example."
Like before, your example is based on lies, misrepresentations and BAD MATH.
Pbim thinks 45 out of 300 is 20%.
Read JohnF's post yourself and decide: how clueless and dishonest is pbim72?
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/sep...
"No, he charges them $400 out of the $750 the insurance company charges them in premiums. That's 53.3%."
Actually, he charges them $350 out of $750, which is 46%.
Still not 50%.
See, I'm honest enough to fess up when I've made a mistake.
After the reforms are in place, his business might be able to afford to pay for health care for his employees... so comparing today's premiums to premiums in the future is a pretty silly thing to do.
I'd like to know the name of this restaraunt where everyone works full time and makes $15 per hour! I'd like a second job!
Ksand,
What happened to that is that I don't work in grant writing so I don't know what Cato gives out. As far as I am aware the only grants they did give out was for college students. From personal experience, I recieved a scholarship from the Cato Institute as a graduate student to attend a conference on property rights.
Nevertheless your point is illogical.
I'll wait when you're read to debate the facts.
Ksand,
I would prefer to post anonymously on the grounds that people, like yourself, are so fallacious that you get hung up on associations and motives rather than the facts at hand. Even with my out in the open screen name (unlike yourself and most everyone else that complains) people, like yourself, are still hung up on associations instead of facts. You only continue to prove my point. You aren't interested at all in openness or disclosure, that is a load of bull, you only care about partisan demagoguery.
While you are fishing for more red herrings please look up the definition for irony.
Look you two Ding Dongs,
15% of the employees have insurance not 20%! Even worse. Part time, full time who cares! You two parasites won't be footing the bills so I can't expect you to address the bigger issue of what this is going to cost. The simple point is that any small or medium or even large business that doesn't provide adequate coverage (according to Obama) will be paying 8% tax on payroll if Obama has his way. It came out of his mouth.
You two, I am sure, have never made a payroll in your lives. You want to debate whether cooks make more than waitresses or whether bus people make more than hostesses. What the hell is the point of that?
Pick any stupid numbers you want, "99", you're such a genius, and compute for yourself what a business with 300 employees who insures 15% of them is looking at under Obama (use a calculator so you don't get a headache). You don't and won't do that because you know that they are screwed (one way or another) under Obama's plan (they will be paying out the a** compared to what they pay now).
Hell, send JohnF a email (available on this site) and ask him his opinion on this issue with this possibility.
But what do you care? All you care about is your socialist, progressive agenda being pushed forward so that your dream of utopia can be realized on the financial backs of the productive class.
I got news for you, pal. I pay 10% of my payroll for my employees insurance. Wait till you see what I do with my 2% savings. Can you say "Rolex"?
Technically, any insurance policy an employer buys his employees comes out of that employees paycheck. And sine we have a 3rd party payer system, which naturally increases prices faster than inflation, we actually lose more of our income to "benefits" like health insurance.
This is why taxes on health insurance and income used to buy health insurance needs to stop. It shouldn't be employer based but individual based.
"What happened to that is that I don't work in grant writing so I don't know what Cato gives out."
So when presented with the question of whether your employer accepted money from an organization you are promoting, you don't do a quick Google search, you deny. That doesn't seem very open to me.
"I would prefer to post anonymously on the grounds that people, like yourself, are so fallacious that you get hung up on associations and motives rather than the facts at hand. Even with my out in the open screen name (unlike yourself and most everyone else that complains) people, like yourself, are still hung up on associations instead of facts. You only continue to prove my point. You aren't interested at all in openness or disclosure, that is a load of bull, you only care about partisan demagoguery."
Yes, your penchant for anonymity extended to the fact that you edited the wikipedia entry for NPRI... anonymously.
My point, which stands, is that NPRI is a right-wing organization that cherry picks and celebrates data that supports their assertions, but casually ignores and buries data which does not support their assumptions.
As an employee and representative of NPRI, you further this endeavor by posting misleading data on public websites (such as this one), furthering NPRI's goal. (as seen today with my points about Cato's numbers assuming laws and regulations which do not exist in current legislation)
As for my identity, I've revealed my name probably a dozen times or so, and will continue to do so whenever I please, so your charge of partisan demagoguery is laughable at face value.
Cato's numbers don't square with the CBO's numbers, because Cato's numbers assume coverage that is not outlined in ANY current legislation being considered. H.R. 3200 has restrictions on granting large corporations the ability to purchase the public option and Baucus' plan, the two leading plans for reform ALSO has restrictions, which Cato ignored in its assumptions.
Ksand,
1) You aren't interested in openness you only care about partisan fighting and demagoguery. The openness argument is brought out to get more hacks like yourself rallied around a red herring rather than debating the facts at hand. Hence, your infatuation with political associations.
2) You still have a fake name and you don't identify your employer (irony here).
3) If NPRI cherry picks data, prove it.
4) CATO's numbers don't square with CBO's numbers for multiple reasons. 1) They are using more realistic economic indicators and accounting practices (remember the government routinely misses the mark) and 2) They are looking long term.
You want the 300 employees to have insurance don't you? It doesn't matter if they are part time, full time, waitress or bus boys, right? Smart guy, the cost is the cost no matter their employemnt status.
He spends $750.00/employee on insurance. If all 300 employees got insurance from the government and the government plan cost 10% less than private insurance (as you said "99") then the total cost of the insurance for the 300 employees is 2,430,000.00/year (that's million wth an "M", ladies). Want me to walk you through that, geniuses?
So you don't start splitting hairs over the numbers in order to divert the conversation, let's assume it only cost $500.00/employee. The cost then is 1,800,000.00/year. A little more than the $215,000.00 he is paying now. Who is going to pay that? You "99"? You 'edge". You guys can't debate this with me on this issue because you know the numbers have you by the ba*#s.
By bury, do you mean like how Obama buried the study on how the DC Opportunity Scholarship program improved reading scores of students who used the voucher?
Or bury like how the legislature only discusses the $6.2 billion in the general fund rather than the $17 billion in the total funds? http://npri.org/publications/the-impendi...
As for cherry picking, how when you take the total k-12 budget and divide it by the total number of students you come up with $13,000 per pupil? Or how, even when I subtract out the things USDE takes out I still come out to $11,500 per pupil, far more than what the state reports. http://npri.org/publications/funding-fan...
Or maybe how a school district ignores state law http://npri.org/publications/when-govern...
Or how the states financial problem stems from spending over budget and ramping up spending far above sustainable levels http://npri.org/publications/legislature....
Or perhaps when one professor claimed we spent too little money on government and offered bureaucratic size and economy of scale as proof and I disproved that http://npri.org/publications/government-...
Any time, any place
Or maybe its cherry-picking and burying when NPRI uncovers potentially illegal activity with the LVCVA and its $90 million contract partner R&R Partners.
http://npri.org/publications/npris-trans...
Dogmatic partisan guys like you get hung up on associations so much you scream "right wing" and "Sheldon" only to fail to realize that breaking the law and transparency aren't partisan issues. In fact the guy who did the report for NPRI is a DEMOCRAT. But maybe you, like several hack reporters in this state don't care about news stories like that and only care about the demagoguery which is why you focus on some made up partisan fight between right and left instead of a fight between right and wrong.
Or maybe its when NPRI cherry picks government employee data on Transparent Nevada http://transparentnevada.com/
"1) You aren't interested in openness you only care about partisan fighting and demagoguery. The openness argument is brought out to get more hacks like yourself rallied around a red herring rather than debating the facts at hand. Hence, your infatuation with political associations."
If I'm not interested in openness, why would I bother exposing the innerworkings of your organization? If you're so interested in openness, why post under a pseudonym while promoting the organization that employs you? Why would you edit the wikipedia entry of NPRI to be more favorable?
"2) You still have a fake name and you don't identify your employer (irony here)."
That's my email account alias, which is a combination of the first initial of my first name (Kevin), a portion of my second name (Sandoval) and the year my daughter was born (1999.) I've identifiied my employer before on the Sun's website, maybe you weren't paying attention. I'm self-employed and mostly do contract work coding computer software. There's no irony here, just your inattention.
"3) If NPRI cherry picks data, prove it."
Must we go back to the Greenspun building and your comical inattention to detail? NPRI chose the smaller square footage because it exploded the cost/sq ft. Further, you criticized it as costing too much without acknowledging that a significant portion of the cost of the building came from private funds.
"4) CATO's numbers don't square with CBO's numbers for multiple reasons. 1) They are using more realistic economic indicators and accounting practices (remember the government routinely misses the mark) and 2) They are looking long term."
Wrong again. I've explained it before. Look up. Cato's assumptions aren't based in reality.
As for the rest of your screed, it's a desperate ploy for clicks and attention. Look, we wrote about this and no one paid attention! Look, we wrote about that and, still, no one paid attention!
It's really desperate, Patrick, and further supports my original assumption about you: you're here as a publicist.
"You want the 300 employees to have insurance don't you? It doesn't matter if they are part time, full time, waitress or bus boys, right? Smart guy, the cost is the cost no matter their employemnt status."
It matters because you were the one estimating the total amount John's business would pay in payroll taxes.
You see, payroll taxes are based upon the total capital outlay on... payroll. So if your workforce works 40 hours a week, your payroll will be DOUBLE THAT if your employees only worked 20 hours a week.
It's relevant because you ASSUMED John's employees all worked 40 hour weeks, a stupid assumption, especially considering John identified some of his employees as chefs. When you look at the average restaraunt, how many full time servers, hosts, busboys, dishwashers does the average restaraunt have? Not many. How many of those positions pay $15/hr? Um, probably 1 in 100.
Your assumptions were all wrong, again pbim.
"Smart guy, the cost is the cost no matter their employemnt [sic] status."
NO, it isn't. Just as an example, if 50% of the 300 workforce were full-time at 40 hours/week and 50% were part time, working 20 hours/week, even with an average wage of 15/hr, then your assumption of a total payroll of 9.36 million is overestimated by 25%.
Similarly, your estimated payroll tax would also be overestimated by 25%.
So, "the cost is the cost no matter their status?" That's just boneheadedly wrong.
Sorry, for someone who criticizes me about my math, I can't believe you don't understand that you're MASSIVELY OVERESTIMATING the payroll here. It's clearly a matter of being lazy.
Look, Computer Nerd,
This is getting exhausting trying to make this point with you. Your such an ideologue that you cannot even see more than one side of an issue. It's a waste of time. Your ridiculous analysis of how many are bus boys and how many are part time is just smoke and mirrors. At the end of the day, JohnF's bill is going up and the bill for America is going to go up.
If my estimates, and that is just what they are, estimates, are off by 25% then his expense for your government overhaul of health care is going to cost him $561,000.00 (more than double what he pays now). Why don't you ask him if he feels any better now that you have broken it down for him to the penny.
Just see if you can answer this one question. If 300 people need health insurance and it cost $500/month and they get it for the whole year (that's 12 months) then where do you think the $1.8 million is going to come from? From me? From you there in your one man operation typing away on your computer all day? From JohnF?
See the point is a person's a person no matter how uninsured (and someone, unlikely to be you, is going to have to pay that bill).
Oh and I almost forgot: cookie monster does not teach counting on Sesame Street, genius. That is taught by".wait for it"The Count.
You see, Cookie just basically stuffs himself with cookies. The Count, on the other hand, well".he counts. That's why he's called Count (plus he is like"a Dracula figure. Hence the name Count. Sort of a play on words). End of discussion.
I just saw a TV ad for ObamaCare.
It was promising a ton of things.
I wished that I wrote them down.
Here are just 3 of them.
1) Caps on deductibles and co-apps
2) No limits on insurance coverage...if you have $12 million in claims then no problem
3) People can free-loaf and then sign up for insurance after they get sick (that is brillant!!...I think I go that route)
I am sure all that will bring everybody's insurance premiums down.
Perhaps...just perhaps...just the 3 things above will cause premiums to go up.
You think?
"If my estimates, and that is just what they are, estimates, are off by 25% then his expense for your government overhaul of health care is going to cost him $561,000.00 (more than double what he pays now). Why don't you ask him if he feels any better now that you have broken it down for him to the penny."
Oh, NOW they're estimates? Now that they've been debunked, right? Funny, you didn't identify it as an estimate before. In fact, judging from the language you used, you didn't MEAN them as estimates, either.
Face it, your faulty assumptions were wrong because you didn't understand the big picture. You say it doesn't matter whether the staff is full-time or part-time, but it clearly does, as it affects the final figures for payroll.
I guess that payroll difference of more than 2 million doesn't matter, right? Oh, you republicans and your fiscal irresponsibility!
In fact, this entire charade was meant to prove that JohnF's business would suffer under the health care plans being considered and you've yet to show how it will.
And, let's face it, you've been plenty DESTRUCTIVE, but not CONSTRUCTIVE. It's this type of nattering, faux-IBD editorializing that corrodes American values.
Oh, and you're totally right about the Count vs. Cookie Monster. Your mastery of children's television is UNMATCHED! Congratulations, that the first argument you've won. How much you want to wager it'll be your last, as well?