Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Wrong Direction

Members
  • Content Count

    638
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Wrong Direction

  • Rank
    The Field Goal Team
  • Birthday 09/15/1977

Profile Information

  • Location
    Maryland
  1. One thing not mentioned is the value of compensatory picks. In a nutshell, if you lose more than you gain in free agency, you tend to get extra draft picks. SM's approach of signing modest free agents and drafting at positions for the future (WR, CB, QB this time) will eventually pay off in the form of extra draft picks by allowing expensive free agents to depart. Alas, Norman's signing undermined that a bit this year, but this is a small added benefit to valuing extra draft picks and then drafting BPA. Those BPAs will eventually be replacing guys that will be signed by other teams.
  2. Your score is: 6614 (GRADE: A-) Your Picks: Round 1 Pick 12 (CLE): Danny Shelton, DT, Washington (A+) Round 1 Pick 29 (IND): Andrus Peat, OT, Stanford (A+) Round 2 Pick 6: Laken Tomlinson, OG, Duke (B+) Round 2 Pick 22 (DET): P.J. Williams, CB, Florida State (B+) Round 2 Pick 29 (IND): Paul Dawson, OLB/ILB, TCU ( Round 3 Pick 9 (ATL): Shaq Thompson, OLB/SS, Washington (A+) Round 3 Pick 25 (CAR): Xavier Cooper, DT/DE, Washington St. (A+) Round 4 Pick 6: Alex Carter, CB, Stanford (B+) Round 5 Pick 5: Shaquille Mason, OG/C, Georgia Tech ( Round 5 Pick 12 (N.O.): Ty Montgomery, WR
  3. I'd like to see that trend starting in about 1880. No agenda, just curious of observed pattern.
  4. Actually I think more people than ever are talking about reforms. This is an intellectual discussion amongst politicians and other think tank/industry types and it's a good thing. Many are just confusing the politics (which are intolerable now but will be somewhat reset with a new POTUS in 2017) with what's happening behind the scenes. I actually think both parties are in a better intellectual position on healthcare issues than they were in 2008.
  5. There's a long history hear that's worth knowing about. In the 70's and early 80's, Medicare had a huge problem with hospital payment. They "solved" this payment by creating a bundled payment system (DRGs) for hospitals. The hospital response to this has been predictable. They maximize DRG payment and also any payments associated with outpatient hospital or ER care. Then they discharge people to post acute care settings and, in many cases, generate financial relationships with those entities. The result has been run-away costs in post acute care settings, SNF and Home Health in particular.
  6. re: Jindal - I see your point, but I think it's a matter or more explicit language versus intent. I'm pretty sure this particular bill has chosen the fully refundable version, but given the disagreement within the party, I'm sure that could change. Perhaps that's why the language isn't explicit? re: Hospital payment, it isn't just about readmission and quality. Hospital payments are slated to decline relative to the previous baseline in 2016, I believe. The rationale for this was that more covered patients means less uncompensated care provided by Hospitals, so it was apparently a deal bet
  7. #2. I'm almost certain that the R plan is calling for fully refundable tax credits because it's being compared to Jindal's plan which is not refundable. To Hersh's question, yes, that's basically a direct subsidy. The theory behind a direct subsidy as opposed to just giving eligibility for things like Medicaid OR ACA subsidies is that it gives the poor person more of a choice of plan, which comes with more options for Dr. networks, etc. #3. I'm going by memory here, but I think the R's refer to various scores that CBO has provided on provisions in the past. Those things change over time, b
  8. Re: the Republican plan. 1. Peter refers to Medicare changes. It's actually Medicaid that's being reformed, not Medicare. 2. Re: tax credits versus write-offs...this R plan goes for credits because it accepts the argument that a write-off is regressive. Bobby Jindal is arguing for the alternative, signaling a rift within the party. In terms of judging this plan, I prefer credits. However, the rift means the R's would likely have a problem holding their caucus together. That means this plan would likely only pass if D's were heavily pressured to pass something because the ACA wasn't uph
  9. I'm familiar with that line of thinking, but I think it takes too much credit for comparability and really doesn't compare apples to apples. The best apples to apples comparison I can think of is Medicare Advantage, though even that is highly fragmented and doesn't benefit nearly as much as it could from competition or economies of scale. With pretty simple reforms to MA (which may or may not ever happen), I think you'd see it actually become cheaper than FFS Medicare. Right now, MA base premiums are based off of FFS utilization and most recent estimates are still that MA is about 1% more expe
  10. Medicare is about as bad as it gets in terms of efficiency. There are public reports of double paying hundreds of millions per year just for drugs and just during hospice care. The politics are too messy to fix seemingly anything. It's everything that's wrong with single payer. In any case, some R's did formally present an ObamaCare alternative in the Senate yesterday. It's the same guys as the plan I posted above, but updated. Here's an article on it. Much more at the link. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/02/05/the-impressive-new-obamacare-replace-plan-from-republicans
  11. Medical malpractice reform will be part of a bill, I suspect. That's an old TP that won't be abandoned. It's not a major consideration though, and if it meant passing versus not passing the right bill, they'd drop it in a second. I'm really curious about the idea of a tax credit to everyone, versus the differential tax treatment everyone gets now. In the short run, it gives R's cover because their bill would allow everyone who might lose coverage at the SC this year to buy coverage in the absence of a federal subsidy. However, in concept, it gives much more freedom over the long run for t
  12. http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=e2ba7198-3031-4a62-992c-42caec55f00e
  13. If medical malpractice reform were the basis of the right's arguments, it would be more prominent. It's a minor talking point at this point, meant to make docs happy.
  14. Right. By making this point, I'm trying to differentiate between the substance of healthcare reform (which I think R's are very capable of engaging) and the politics of it (which I think R's are trying to navigate a minefield). The one strategic saving grace that the R's have is that the ACA already exists. In theory, they could put together a set of reforms that is more conservative than what Obama did and declare victory. However, that would have the appearance of validating the rest of what is by any measure a big government program, and that's where politics come in again. However, it
  15. I'll never argue that politicians don't act like politicians, so that last point on the first question is something I can agree with. On the other hand, you're clearly trying to equate the legal fights around the ACA and Part D, while not making the case that they're in any way similarly problematic. Show me the legal case against Part D and maybe I'll engage. Re: the difference between a penalty and a mandate, if you don't understand it, I don't know what to tell you. As a matter of free will, you never pay a dime under Part D unless you want to. Under the ACA, you have to, no matter what
×
×
  • Create New...