(08-05-2009 11:14 AM)At Ease Wrote:  Here is how the Health Care for America Now coalition, an advocacy group for the bill, responds to each of these points. It also contains a link to the bill itself.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/5/104914/7895

(08-05-2009 11:14 AM)At Ease Wrote:  Here is how the Health Care for America Now coalition, an advocacy group for the bill, responds to each of these points. It also contains a link to the bill itself.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/5/104914/7895

Quote:489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage."

TRUTH: Covering marriage and family therapy, as many private insurance plans do, does not mean that the government "intervenes in your marriage." The types of individuals who are recognized as therapists are clearly defined on page 491; in brief, professionals only, not bureaucrats.

(08-05-2009 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2009 11:14 AM)At Ease Wrote:  Here is how the Health Care for America Now coalition, an advocacy group for the bill, responds to each of these points. It also contains a link to the bill itself.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/5/104914/7895

I would describe most of the "responses" as non-responsive to the real issues. To be fair, a couple do seem to allay a couple of concerns I have. But most simply dance around the issues. Too much of this is the mushroom treatment, "Keep them in the dark and feed them b***s***."

If you are wedded to socialized medicine as an absolute imperative, it's easy to read over this and complacently assume that the issues are addressed. But in most cases, they've been glossed over rather than addressed. If you're inherently skeptical, particularly of anything that gives government more power, you've got to set the plow a little deeper.

I'm sorry, but it's going to take better analysis than this to satisfy me.

Quote:We understand that finding the right kind of solution can make all the difference. Your behavioral health benefits include coverage for the following types of services:

• Accute ipatient care
• Residential treatement
• Partial day treatment
• Medication Management
• Halfway facilities
• Alcohol and drug dependency programs
• Family, marital and outpatient therapy
• Individual outpatient therapy
  

(08-05-2009 12:39 PM)texd Wrote:  

(08-05-2009 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2009 11:14 AM)At Ease Wrote:  Here is how the Health Care for America Now coalition, an advocacy group for the bill, responds to each of these points. It also contains a link to the bill itself.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/5/104914/7895

I would describe most of the "responses" as non-responsive to the real issues. To be fair, a couple do seem to allay a couple of concerns I have. But most simply dance around the issues. Too much of this is the mushroom treatment, "Keep them in the dark and feed them b***s***."

If you are wedded to socialized medicine as an absolute imperative, it's easy to read over this and complacently assume that the issues are addressed. But in most cases, they've been glossed over rather than addressed. If you're inherently skeptical, particularly of anything that gives government more power, you've got to set the plow a little deeper.

I'm sorry, but it's going to take better analysis than this to satisfy me.

I'd be curious as to which responses you feel were non-responsive. I'd be happy to elaborate on them where I'm able. Personally I found the responses to be quite on point, and I found the questions raised by the original author to betray a significant lack of understanding of the health care system (the current one).

(08-05-2009 10:43 AM)JOwl Wrote:  I think you're conflating two separate issues here. The first is whether or not the costs of the SPR should be considered an oil subsidy. The second is whether or not the SPR is a good thing.

Quote:I think the answer to the first is yes. The Federal government is spending tax dollars to (partially) insure us against shocks in the world oil market and to protect our oil supplies from manipulation by foreign powers. If we didn't need oil, we wouldn't be stockpiling it, and we wouldn't be paying for it. Clearly, holding the SPR is one of those "costs of doing business" as long as we're dependent on oil.

Quote:The issue, then, is how the costs are borne. Currently this cost of stabilizing our oil supply isn't passed through to the consumers (either civilian or military), but is rather borne by the government.

Quote:This keeps the price of oil below its true costs, distorting the market and economics for oil.

Quote:If this cost were instead passed through to the consumer, better economic decisions with respect to oil would be made.

Quote:And in my personal opinion, if that subsidy were then redirected to subsidize alternative energy then more's the better.

Quote:Agreed, the SPR is certainly nowhere near the top of oil subsidies, but it happened to be part of the analysis at the link I provided.

Quote:For discussion purposes, it does have the allure of being one of the more easily-quantified subsidies after the direct ones listed in the EIA report.

(08-05-2009 01:51 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  "tax based" subsidies to oil that are listed (that make up 2.0 billion of the 2.1 billion) are nothing more than the accelerated depreciation that I readily admit to earlier.

(08-05-2009 03:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-05-2009 01:51 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  "tax based" subsidies to oil that are listed (that make up 2.0 billion of the 2.1 billion) are nothing more than the accelerated depreciation that I readily admit to earlier.

Isn't that amount roughly equal to the subsidy of the US auto industry called "Cash for Clunkers"?

(08-05-2009 01:51 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2009 10:43 AM)JOwl Wrote:  I think you're conflating two separate issues here. The first is whether or not the costs of the SPR should be considered an oil subsidy. The second is whether or not the SPR is a good thing.

The problem is that you attempt to separate the two; you cannot.

SPR *is* a strategic necessity. By buying and obtaining the goods for the reserve, you say "subsidy".

By that logic, all refiners and providers of titanium are provided subsidies due to the sales to the govt for strategic defense purposes.

And, as noted above, "subsidies" are provided to asphalt and concrete manufacturers for the supplies that they deliver to the DOT.

Sorry, when you reduce your contention, it does not make sense.

(08-05-2009 01:51 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  

Quote:I think the answer to the first is yes. The Federal government is spending tax dollars to (partially) insure us against shocks in the world oil market and to protect our oil supplies from manipulation by foreign powers. If we didn't need oil, we wouldn't be stockpiling it, and we wouldn't be paying for it. Clearly, holding the SPR is one of those "costs of doing business" as long as we're dependent on oil.

Actually you tend to leave out the national defense issues involved.

Quote:The issue, then, is how the costs are borne. Currently this cost of stabilizing our oil supply isn't passed through to the consumers (either civilian or military), but is rather borne by the government.

At market rates for that transaction.

Quote:This keeps the price of oil below its true costs, distorting the market and economics for oil.

Wow.... have you checked your numbers? The SPR has a maximal size of 722 million barrels. Daily oil usage is about 18-23 million bbls/day.

So the SPR is about a 30 day supply.

SPR was created in 1975 --- 34 years ago. By my count that is about 12,500 to 12,800 days ago. Much of the initial capacity was filled in the first 5 years of the program.

Much of the purchases now are due to "topping off", as some of the petroleum is released. The purchases on an annual basis probably amount to less than a country-day of usage.

So, do you *really* think that purchases of 1/1000th of the total inflow to the US (not to mention world usage, which would be probably 1/10,000th of the total world yearly flow) really "distorts" the economics of the commodity that much? Cmon, be serious......

Quote:If this cost were instead passed through to the consumer, better economic decisions with respect to oil would be made.

The "cost" to me represents a strategic investment; both economic and military. I don't mind having the SPR, and the nomnal cost is that. Once you agree that the SPR is a "good idea", then the gubbmint simply becomes a market particpant.

(08-05-2009 01:51 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  

Quote:And in my personal opinion, if that subsidy were then redirected to subsidize alternative energy then more's the better.

I think that we as a nation should invest in all means to provide cheap and readily available sources of energy. But your attempt to portray the SPR as a subsidy falls well short of the mark.

Quote:Agreed, the SPR is certainly nowhere near the top of oil subsidies, but it happened to be part of the analysis at the link I provided.

ANd one that you readily highlighted as a somewhat egregious example of a subsidy.

Quote:For discussion purposes, it does have the allure of being one of the more easily-quantified subsidies after the direct ones listed in the EIA report.

And you consistently feel the need to refer to it as a "subsidy"...... lol.

(08-05-2009 01:51 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  Couldnt pull the report you linked to; have to register. But, how much do you want to bet that when I do pull that up that the "tax based" subsidies to oil that are listed (that make up 2.0 billion of the 2.1 billion) are nothing more than the accelerated depreciation that I readily admit to earlier. Next, when that is the case, are you prepared to counter how "sped up" depreciation is a "subsidy"?

(08-05-2009 12:39 PM)texd Wrote:  

(08-05-2009 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2009 11:14 AM)At Ease Wrote:  Here is how the Health Care for America Now coalition, an advocacy group for the bill, responds to each of these points. It also contains a link to the bill itself.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/5/104914/7895

I would describe most of the "responses" as non-responsive to the real issues. To be fair, a couple do seem to allay a couple of concerns I have. But most simply dance around the issues. Too much of this is the mushroom treatment, "Keep them in the dark and feed them b***s***."
If you are wedded to socialized medicine as an absolute imperative, it's easy to read over this and complacently assume that the issues are addressed. But in most cases, they've been glossed over rather than addressed. If you're inherently skeptical, particularly of anything that gives government more power, you've got to set the plow a little deeper.
I'm sorry, but it's going to take better analysis than this to satisfy me.

I'd be curious as to which responses you feel were non-responsive. I'd be happy to elaborate on them where I'm able. Personally I found the responses to be quite on point, and I found the questions raised by the original author to betray a significant lack of understanding of the health care system (the current one).

(08-05-2009 05:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I will agree with you that some of the questions raised are a bit off-the-wall, but you asked about non-responsive answers. Here is one examply (not my favorite, becuase this is hardly a burning issue to me, but it is an easy one to see the evasiveness of the answer):

"95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
"TRUTH: Page 95 makes no mention of ACORN and Americorps; all it says is that the Commissioner can conduct outreach to vulnerable populations, making them aware of their options."

As I see it, there are three possibilities:
Case 1. The government will absolutely pay ACORN, Americorps, and the like.
Case 2. The government may or may not pay them, but likely will.
Case 3. The government will absolutely not pay them.

The case that is problematical is case 2 . . .

... If you are a skeptic like me, particularly when it comes to our government's ability to do anything well, those answers are not sufficient. I gather that Rice Doc is pretty much on that same page.

(08-05-2009 06:21 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(08-05-2009 05:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I will agree with you that some of the questions raised are a bit off-the-wall, but you asked about non-responsive answers. Here is one examply (not my favorite, becuase this is hardly a burning issue to me, but it is an easy one to see the evasiveness of the answer):
"95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
"TRUTH: Page 95 makes no mention of ACORN and Americorps; all it says is that the Commissioner can conduct outreach to vulnerable populations, making them aware of their options."
As I see it, there are three possibilities:
Case 1. The government will absolutely pay ACORN, Americorps, and the like.
Case 2. The government may or may not pay them, but likely will.
Case 3. The government will absolutely not pay them.
The case that is problematical is case 2 . . .
... If you are a skeptic like me, particularly when it comes to our government's ability to do anything well, those answers are not sufficient. I gather that Rice Doc is pretty much on that same page.

You are correct about that. Moreover, I tend to parse legal writing pretty closely. In the stated answer (and it was the one that jumped off the page the most for me too) there is NO denial of the truth of the assertion. All it does do is say that ACORN, et al are not specifically identified. Thus, there is nothing in that answer that denies case 1 or case 2 or affirmatively agrees with case 3. With such carefully crafted responses, I think it is reasonable to read it to be case 2, with a strong likelihood that case 1 will be the "resolution" to the "issue".

(08-05-2009 04:02 PM)JOwl Wrote:  What I'm saying is that the government is subsidizing consumers of oil by mitigating our exposure to risks associated with oil dependence. The entire SPR enterprise is a (minimal) effort at insuring ourselves against those risks. If, for example, the government covered collision insurance for everyone's car (thereby making car ownership less risky), wouldn't you consider that a subsidy for cars?

Note: I don't see DoD use of titanium as analogous. If I were saying that US military usage of oil is an oil subsidy, then I'd see the relationship -- but I'm not. I'm solely talking about US government expenditures related to mitigating threats to our uniterrupted access to oil.
-----------------------------

(08-05-2009 04:02 PM)JOwl Wrote:  As I mentioned before, you're focusing on the little guy among the subsidy estimates in that section of Koplow's report. The SPR is dwarfed by the estimated $10bn - $23bn for defense of oil shipments in the Persian Gulf (estimated as of 1995).

(08-05-2009 01:00 PM)texd Wrote:  RE Marital/family therapy, the last employer based plan my employer offered from United -- basic PPO -- states in their "What works for you" booklet

Quote:We understand that finding the right kind of solution can make all the difference. Your behavioral health benefits include coverage for the following types of services:

• Accute ipatient care
• Residential treatement
• Partial day treatment
• Medication Management
• Halfway facilities
• Alcohol and drug dependency programs
• Family, marital and outpatient therapy
• Individual outpatient therapy
  

The only place that family therapy was covered by exclusions was that they don't pay for court-ordered mental health treatment unless pre-approved by them.

And our carrier before that (yes I'm a pack rat), Humana PPO, had no limitations on therapy except that they only paid for a combined 20 individual or joint sessions a year and that sessions could not last over 60 minutes each.

(08-05-2009 09:01 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(08-05-2009 04:02 PM)JOwl Wrote:  As I mentioned before, you're focusing on the little guy among the subsidy estimates in that section of Koplow's report. The SPR is dwarfed by the estimated $10bn - $23bn for defense of oil shipments in the Persian Gulf (estimated as of 1995).

I thought last night that that figure seemed high to me, and I'm going to call it bunk now. Even the $10B seems too high to me.

The closest I could get was the FY1998 Greenbook from the Office of the Comptroller for the DoD. In it, the oldest budget figures I have are from FY1996. Looking at the breakdown on page 6, total budget authority for DoD in 1996 was $254,417MM. Koplow wants me to believe that it's possible that 10% of the DoD budget was spent on defense of oil shipments (assuming his high number)?

Let's look at the basic breakdown (these are in millions of dollars):

Military Personnel 69,775
Operation & Maintenance 93,658
Procurement 42,420
RDT&E 34,972
Revolving & Mgmt Funds 3,061
Military Construction 6,893
Family Housing 4,260

We can toss out TDT&E and Revolving/Mgmt Funds. What portion of the armed forces were involved in defense of oil? Well, the Army, which has the largest number of personnel, had a minimal presence in the Middle East after the Persian Gulf War. I believe the Army has around 35% of total military headcount, give or take.

The Navy typically had 1 carrier and sometimes 2 carrier groups in the Indian Ocean, sometimes in close proximity to the Gulf (but definitely close enough so it could get there relatively quickly if needed). But never more than 2. Even if they had 2 groups (out of 13 groups at the time, maybe - I'm guessing a bit, because I'm not sure of the decommissioning schedule at the time), each group is not an even 1/13th of total navy personnel. So for ease of estimation, let's just say 10% are involved directly in that mission.

The Air Force had some missions over Iraq, enforcing the No Fly Zone. I'm willing to guess he includes them in his estimates, even though enforcing UN sanctions wasn't about protecting oil supplies, though I'm sure they could have been redirected to that purpose if a conflict arose. But how many were involved? Would it have been even 15% of the Air Force? I doubt it, given the prevalence of other missions they have.

Even if I apply these percentages to the first 2 categories (let's just say 35% army, 35% navy/marines, and 30% air force), and I get:

$136,078MM * (0*.35 + .1*.35 + .15*.3) = $10,886MM

So, I guess his low estimate might be there. But to me, that is his highest possible element. There might be some military construction budget to apply here, but certain not 1,000MM worth. And procurement is hard to estimate.

SIDE NOTE: at this point of writing this, I started scanning through to see if I could find a table listing a breakdown of the procurement categories. And I found on page 13 a listing of the incremental cost for Desert Shield for FY95: $1,048MM. And procurement was actually the biggest component by far. So my estimates on personnel and operations expenses may be too high.

And it gets better. Page 22 has a breakdown of operations & maintenance costs by line of service and department. Procurement breakdown by service is on page 24. And honestly, even with my aggressive allocations with this greater detail, I can barely get $10,000MM. And that's if you assume everyone in theater is there only to protect oil shipments, as opposed to other missions.

So no, I don't buy Koplow's other figures, either. But I don't have access to his detailed analysis.

(08-05-2009 06:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2009 06:21 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(08-05-2009 05:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I will agree with you that some of the questions raised are a bit off-the-wall, but you asked about non-responsive answers. Here is one examply (not my favorite, becuase this is hardly a burning issue to me, but it is an easy one to see the evasiveness of the answer):
"95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
"TRUTH: Page 95 makes no mention of ACORN and Americorps; all it says is that the Commissioner can conduct outreach to vulnerable populations, making them aware of their options."
As I see it, there are three possibilities:
Case 1. The government will absolutely pay ACORN, Americorps, and the like.
Case 2. The government may or may not pay them, but likely will.
Case 3. The government will absolutely not pay them.
The case that is problematical is case 2 . . .
... If you are a skeptic like me, particularly when it comes to our government's ability to do anything well, those answers are not sufficient. I gather that Rice Doc is pretty much on that same page.

You are correct about that. Moreover, I tend to parse legal writing pretty closely. In the stated answer (and it was the one that jumped off the page the most for me too) there is NO denial of the truth of the assertion. All it does do is say that ACORN, et al are not specifically identified. Thus, there is nothing in that answer that denies case 1 or case 2 or affirmatively agrees with case 3. With such carefully crafted responses, I think it is reasonable to read it to be case 2, with a strong likelihood that case 1 will be the "resolution" to the "issue".

Nothing screws up a deal like having a couple of lawyers who actually read the documents, right?
Particularly when we use our legal training to take what it says word-for-word and translate that into what that means in real-world situations.

I suppose it comes down to a matter of trust.
If you trust government, then you have no problem with anything that is in this bill.
So, how much do I trust government? Zero, zip, nada.
I trust Exxon, or in this context an insurance company, far more than I trust the government. Why? Simple, if Exxon screws me, I can go to Shell, a whole lot easier than I can go to another government.

(08-05-2009 09:13 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(08-05-2009 01:00 PM)texd Wrote:  RE Marital/family therapy, the last employer based plan my employer offered from United -- basic PPO -- states in their "What works for you" booklet

Quote:We understand that finding the right kind of solution can make all the difference. Your behavioral health benefits include coverage for the following types of services:

• Accute ipatient care
• Residential treatement
• Partial day treatment
• Medication Management
• Halfway facilities
• Alcohol and drug dependency programs
• Family, marital and outpatient therapy
• Individual outpatient therapy
  

The only place that family therapy was covered by exclusions was that they don't pay for court-ordered mental health treatment unless pre-approved by them.

And our carrier before that (yes I'm a pack rat), Humana PPO, had no limitations on therapy except that they only paid for a combined 20 individual or joint sessions a year and that sessions could not last over 60 minutes each.

You're lucky, then. The behavioral coverage on my wife's policy (which we use) specifically excludes marital and family counseling, among a whole bunch of other stuff. And my wife works for the state government, which I'm sure lots of people assume get gold-plated benefits. Alas, it ain't always so. (Though the vacation schedule is nice. Nothing like a 4-day weekend involving MLK Day - because Lee-Jackson Day is celebrated on the preceding Friday.)

(08-07-2009 03:09 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  that's fine if you get some mediocre gas or the price is too high on this corner. not much of a good analogy for health care access for anyone in real need. just a for instance --if you're insurer gives you a royal screw job and you don't get access to care you have to have to live, you aren't going anywhere good, mister.
i'm not saying we should all be yipee i love and trust the government, but it would be silly to suggest that insurance companies are better.