Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ELECTION: Romney better at reviving economy

Letter by Richard M. Radford, Steilacoom on Sep. 20, 2012 at 11:03 am with 109 Comments »
September 20, 2012 12:27 pm

Mitt Romney apparently raised some hackles with his observation that those not paying income tax probably wouldn’t be moved by the prospect of a tax reduction. This was interpreted, mainly because of some clumsy language on the part of Romney  himself, conflating that cohort with those receiving government benefits, as meaning that he didn’t care about either.

Although he probably does care, it doesn’t really matter because he isn’t talking about extending any new bennies. However, if people care about protecting existing programs, they would be well advised to vote for Romney rather than Barack Obama.

The government depends on the private economy for its income because it doesn’t have any money of its own, so the health of the economy comes before everything else.

Oh, government can borrow money, which it has done, but the lenders are drying up and our children and theirs are being left with a mountain of debt. Or it can print money, which it has done and is now doing, but that makes all the money, ours and the government’s, less valuable.

So the question becomes: Which candidate is better equipped to revive the economy?

Obama has proved, over almost four years, that he isn’t that candidate.

Leave a comment Comments → 109
  1. The problem is the Romney favors raising the economy for other countries rather than raising our economy.

  2. Frankenchrist says:

    Romney offers nothing good for America. But not to worry as the rats are abandoning the foundering Romney ship. Tim Pawlenty bailed to become a lobbyist for the big banks (typical) and multiple GOP candidates in tight races are asking Mittens to have his mouth wired shut until after the election.

  3. LeePHilI says:

    Uh…Richard…..

    47% of Americans are not receiving government benefits.

    You see THAT is the arrogance that got Romney in trouble and is making you look equally ridiculous. Those Americans not paying income tax have to be employed to file for an income tax return. The only exception to the rule would be those who got unemployment compensation and no other income for an entire year. Of course, they had to have worked in recent past to qualify for UI benefits.

    People like you and Romney took a Republican talking point and tried to make it an absolute, and succeeded in nothing other than angering working people.

    Romney has the opportunity and the clout to save 170 American jobs that Bain is trying to outsource to China. He is ignoring the pleas of the workers.

    Talk is cheap.

  4. I don’t know whether to laugh or yawn at the desperation of the hard-left commentary here.

  5. X, Frank, and Larry. Witness the total desperation on the left. Any and all moderates have given up, knowing defending BHO is impossible.

  6. …”if people care about protecting existing programs, they would be well advised to vote for Romney…”

    Really? What desperation the righties have to even suggest this as a reason to vote for Romney. No Republican is talking about maintaining current benefits, or even current programs, certainly not Romney.

    In order to slash the taxes for the rich as much as Romney says he will and increase military spending, as Romney says he will, then something has to give big time.

    There would either be a huge increase in taxes for the middle class or an enormous cut in social programs. Most likely both would have to happen to maintain current budget and not add a lot to the deficit.

  7. Okay I have just one observation. Lately the television has had that tired old windbag Bill Clinton spouting off about how Obama “has a plan” to revive the economy.

    First if all, no one, single person is going to fix the economy, and certainly not one who has no knowledge of business or economics.

    All that aside, if Obama “has a plan” then why hasnt it been put into place sometime in the last nearly four years he’s been at the helm?

    You ask me, that silly good ‘ol boy Clinton is just blathering off to people stupid enough to fall for more of the slick one-liners that got Obama elected in the first place.

  8. Sonofwashington says:

    Mr. Romney wants to return to the disastrous fiscal policies of G.W. Bush that brought us to the brink. President Obama has brought us back from the brink despite the best efforts of Republicans to sabotage any stimulus or job programs that might work to the president’s credit.

    How on earth anyone could conclude that Mr. Romney is the better man to revive the economy is beyond me. Thank goodness, the majority of Americans don’t see it that way either.

  9. Yes, something has to change and cuts to need to be made. Taxing the rich does not cover our trillion dollar debt.

    That said, only BHO has pledges to take $700 bil out of Medicare.

  10. XBJ98N, Obama keeps introducing parts of his plan to Congress, but they either get stalled or voted down by Republicans. The latest travesty was the “point of order” in the Senate by Jeff Sessions which kept the Veterans Job Bill introduced by patty Murray from coming to a vote this session of Congress.

    Then 40 Republicans were able to kill the bill, since the point of order required a super majority to overcome.

    The bill was fully paid for by offsets, as required under the agreement, but Republicans do not care about America or its veterans, only about defeating Obama.

  11. CT8, the correct statement is that Obama and Ryan both have plans to extend Medicare by removing 716 billion from a costly and wasteful program that added no benefits, only overhead costs.

    The money was not taken out, but will be used to extend the paid for date no matter whose plan is approved.

  12. CT – wrong again as usual. Moderates, and even conservatives, are giving up on Romney.

    Yet another lie – the $700 billion from Medicare came from reducing the payments to providers – IT DID NOT COME BY REDUCING BEFIFITS OR COVERAGES – and Ryan’s budget makes the same cuts to fund more tax breaks for the rich.

    XBJ – you are correct – Congress (mainly the R’s) destroyed the economy and have blocked every bill that might help grow the economy – all because they have pledged not to raise taxes on the rich, and vowed to prevent Obama having a second term.

    Yesterday GOP Senators blocked a jobs bill for Veterans. Rand Paul says he will continue to block the bill until Pakistan releases the doctor that helped the CIA pin point OBL.

    So the good of one non-American is more important to him then the needs of 20,000 American Veterans.

  13. Sonofwashington says:

    Actually tuddo, there is a very important distinction there.

    The Obama plan does indeed save 716 Billion BUT without cutting benefits.

    The Romney/Ryan plan cuts Medicare by the same amount and DOES reduce benefits (remember the infamous Ryan voucher program?) and the savings that are gained are used to offset more tax cuts for the rich.

    Once again, a wonderful constrast between the two parties.

  14. The reality is most folks have decided already who they are going to vote AGAINST.

    This letter is not very well written, of course that might be due to its intent to defend, deny, obfuscate what Romney actually said.

  15. As another poster has pointed out, if those costs are excess, remove them today! If true that it is just excess, it would an almost unparalleled example of waste (besides the stimulus of course).

    And if it is ‘savings’, we have the other huge problem of trillion dollar deficits.

    6 veteran job programs already out there. Why not focus on a budget, transpo/farm bills? Want to give those vets jobs? Unleash the private sector. Place a hold on any new regulations. Open up our energy industry. Leave defense spending alone.

  16. Pecksbadboy says:

    Oh yes, trickle down and supply side economics has always worked for Reagan and Bush 1 and 2 and the rest of the GOP.

    You do not understand anything other than talking points.

    Very Sad.

  17. Sow, since Romney has been very vocal that he would leave the money in Medicare you are just lying. Sad. Look what you on the left have to fall back on, lies and deception.

  18. royboy361 says:

    Personally I don’t think the President is the problem.
    It’s the do nothing congress that should be blamed.

  19. Peck, let the people have their own money and create demand. Let businesses grow by providing a solid infrastructure and tax/legal system that fosters growth.

    Fake govt demand has failed, always. Save your FDR comments, unless you are banking on another world war (and with BHOs Middle East mess, who knows).

  20. Sonofwashington says:

    Really, CT8? Are you saying Romney has abandoned the Ryan plan?
    If so, how does he manage to leave all that money in Medicare and still provide all those tax cuts while keeping defense spending at current levels?

    Romney\Ryan have been very opaque on which tax loopholes they are going to close to recoup revenues as well. Perhaps you could provide some enlightenment on that too.

    BTW, it was the deregulation and “unleashing” of the private sector that brought us to the fiscal brink. Are you suggesting we should return to that?

  21. Pecksbadboy says:

    CT8 are you saying that $3,000 to $10,000 tax that the middle class pay on their $60,000 in income is comparable to the $10,000 to $100,000 people making 1,000,000 to 5,000,000 a year?

    You need math lessons.

  22. CT8 has no clue, still. Here’s his statement: “Fake govt demand has failed, always.”
    Fake gov. demand as opposed to real gov. demand? How about military Keynesianism? Does that work or not CT8? As I said, clueless!

  23. Do your own research. If you did not know that Romney would keep the money in medicare then you are obviously VERY uninformed.

    How has BHO funded anything?

    But this helps the economy?

    “Based on data from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and regulations published in the Federal Register, the Administration has published more than $488 billion in regulatory costs since January 20, 2009 – $70 billion in 2012 alone

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cost-regulations-under-obama-488-billion_652691.html

    Here is more from Forbes

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2011/07/06/the-cost-of-government-regulation-the-barack-obama-cass-sunstein-urban-legend/

  24. Pecks, who pays the highest EFFECTIVE rates?

  25. Pecksbadboy says:

    CT8 what is you tax bracket????

    I own a small business, I make $32,640.00 a year and pay 12%rate and you???????

  26. Pecks, Here is a fun chart from the NYT.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/18/us/effective-income-tax-rates.html

    Top brackets pay much more then the middle class.

  27. As a renter with no kids I get slammed. Point?

  28. Pecksbadboy says:

    Mr Romney pays no income tax because he has no job.

    Perennially running for President for 10 years is not a job where you pay income tax. His job is to hide income but no really he hires someone to do that.

    Only in America can you get a patent from a US government office to copyright a tax plan to screw the rest of the taxpayers and not pay taxes.

    He is your guy and I am sorry for you.

  29. “Top earners are the target for new tax increases, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all.

    http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

    Know you love Heritage

  30. Pecksbadboy says:

    CT8 and you income is???????

  31. Pecksbadboy says:

    Ewwww the Right Wing Heritage Foundation is soooooo correct.

    Your numbers are pure CRAP.

  32. Pecksbadboy says:

    CT8 you are an idiot if you think paid and declarable income is the same thing.

  33. Sonofwashington says:

    CT8 – re: Romney & Medicare
    The most recent thing I could find (USA Today) stated the following:

    “‘At a rally in Sarasota, Romney blasted Obama for trimming $716 billion from the Medicare Advantage program as part of the Affordable Care Act signed two years ago. “What he has done to Medicare to pay for Obamacare is wrong,” Romney said to cheers. Romney’s plan, akin to one authored by his running mate, Paul Ryan, would convert the entitlement program to one that would give seniors a subsidy to buy coverage.”‘

    But perhaps you could enlighten me with a better source.

    BTW, it might be more useful in considering tax policy to compare the amount of taxes paid by the rich and by corporations from that 3 decades ago. The tax burden has consistently been pushed off onto the middle class as corporations and the rich have woven ever more breaks into the tax code, courtesy of their wholly-owned subsidiary, the Republican Party.

  34. The heritage link shows the progression. Does not include corporate.

  35. CT8, I think you are correct that Romney said he would retain current funding for Medicare (but I can’t find it, either). However, the 716 billion in savings in Ryan’s and Obama’s plans is reached by cutting out the 20%-30% overhead and extra administrative costs that the private plans currently charge for the same services in Medicare Advantage over and above the public plan.

    If Romney uses a voucher system for private insurance and only asks for appropriations at current level, who will end up paying the 20%-30% extra costs that private insurerers tack on for administrative costs?

    It will be reached by charging policy holders fees and payments above what they are paying now or by severely reducing services the program pays for.

    Medicare is currrently a defined benefit program. Romney wants to change it to a defined payment program. To even call it Medicare is a redefinition and a travesty. It is even worse than redefining marriage ;-)

  36. If it is so easy to cut those costs, why haven’t private companies acted? The profit margins are in the low single digits, so let’s not throw some BS out there.

    Either way he is taking Medicare money and diverting it. It is not as if Medicare is flush with cash. He is taking money people pay/have paid in for care in their later years and spending it elsewhere.

  37. CT8, you just don’t pay attention. Using Medicare money to extend the life of the program is not “spending it elsewhere.” It is spending it on Medicare in a more efficient and effective manner.

    Private insurance does not really care much what their costs are. Republicans gave them an exemption from monopoly a while back, and in many states there is only one major insurance company, in many states only two, and in most states there is one dominant one with several minor players.

    They don’t show huge profits because, for the last 20 years, they have used their earnings to buy out other insurance companies and to increase their CEO and other executives’ pay and benefits.

    Learn some facts, and you will quit being the one to keep throwing the BS. Will you believe any nonsense just because corporations said it or because Romney says it? The right in the middle class are just about the most gullible people on earth.

  38. What planet are you on? Shareholders in publicly traded healthcare companies are allowing the boards to hoard profits and hide them from the SEC/IRS?

    Now that is beyond asinine.

    BHO added 30mil more to the govt healthcare rolls. He is using the money to pay for them. If he wanted to use it from Medicare, use it for Medicare!

    Did you see in the news today who the tax/mandate is going to hit? That coveted middle class, by the million.

  39. aislander says:

    The point seems to be that there will be a day of reckoning and sooner rather than later.

    When (not if) the cost of borrowing goes up as the dollar inflates, the government will either not have the money to honor its obligations or the dollars it distributes won’t have much value.

    The only salvation will be a robust, growing economy and Obama won’t be able to deliver that, especially with a sizable segment of the President’s party’s being opposed to economic growth…

    Romney’s the way to go.

  40. CT – ask the GOP Congarats where the Farm Bill is. They are the ones blocking it.

  41. LeePHilI says:

    Clamat0 says:
    Sep. 20, 2012 at 12:48 pm I don’t know whether to laugh or yawn at the desperation of the hard-left commentary here.

    CT8 says:
    Sep. 20, 2012 at 1:13 pm X, Frank, and Larry. Witness the total desperation on the left. Any and all moderates have given up, knowing defending BHO is impossible.

    How about the desperation of those that can’t address the subject matter? The letter is about Romney saving the economy.

    All these claims that Romney can save the country and 170 more jobs are being sent to China by Bain….but Clam and Confused can’t address that issue…..

    CT8 says:
    Sep. 20, 2012 at 4:33 pm As a renter with no kids I get slammed.

    When I read things like thing, I just shake my head. Reminds me of the book “What is the Matter with Kansas?”

    Someone that doesn’t earn enough money to qualify for a home mortgage is waiting for fat cats like Romney to make it all better for them, as if the fat cats care……

  42. LeePHilI says:

    “Romney’s the way to go”

    One more cheerleader that can’t address the issue.

    If Romney is going to save our economy, how about saving 170 good paying jobs instead of making those workers teach the Chinese to do their jobs so that all the revenue heads overseas?

    Is someone saying that Romney wants to run the country but has no pull with the company that he created and holds wealth in?

  43. aislander says:

    Er…does the term “blind trust” ring a bell?

  44. He is so worried about money he took no salary as Gov.

    The only thing holding back the economy is BHO and his proxy Reid. You could replace BHO with a traffic cone and we would be better off.

    The irony of a Hill whining about ‘on topic’ is rich.

  45. Sonofwashington says:

    Really aislander? A “sizable segment” of democrats is against economic growth? Would that mean opposed to further deregulation of Wall Street, banks and mortgage makers, the extension of Bush tax cuts, and ever greater taxpayer-subsidies to super-profitable corporations?

    Did not the 8 years of Bush-Cheney prove that those financial policies can only lead us to financial disaster again?

  46. The dems have extended the Bush tax cuts. Revenue is lower now as a % of GDP under BHO.

    Great job with Dodd Frank, doing nothing but adding tape.

  47. LeePHilI says:

    “CT8 says:
    Sep. 20, 2012 at 7:06 pm He is so worried about money he took no salary as Gov”

    I think the old saying goes….”you get what you pay for”….
    I’d rather have someone leading who is getting paid to do it, as opposed to buying the office.

    It’s not so much the thread drift Convulsive, as it is how you obviously can’t address the subject so you deflect that on others.

    “does the term “blind trust” ring a bell?”

    Yeah…I’ll bet that Mitt never talks to the Bain crew….doesn’t consult them on anything….especially if it has something to do with making money.

    It would appear that “blind trust” also means, “trusting without checking”…..

  48. aislander says:

    I’m talking about the enviro-nazis and crypto-socialists who have virtually taken over the Dems, SoW.

    Honest lefties don’t bother denying it…

  49. LeePHilI says:

    “enviro-nazis and “crypto-socialists”

    If aislander had to make a statement without hyperbole….

    I noted all of them at the Convention. Oh…no…wait….Those are the actors from Hollywood that were brought in for the TV cameras. The enviro-nazis and the crypto-socialists were dining on fetus embryos with Obama, while planning the take over of the country.

  50. LeePHilI says:

    Confused….do you even know what “Dodd-Frank” is, or did you just copy and paste that from your source website and turn in the link to get your 50 cents?

  51. aislander says:

    Which was it: fetus or embryo?

  52. I see you like to make this about me, instead of politics.

  53. Sonofwashington says:

    Yep CT8 – The Dems did extend the Bush tax cuts, and do you know why? Because it was the only way they could get the Republicans to agree to raising the debt ceiling. Of course their obstinance pushed down our credit rating, costing us billions more in taxpayer money for the increased interest rates. But I’m glad to know that you are concerned about the loss in revenues.

    So would you support letting the Bush tax cuts lapse for the upper income folks or would not that stifle the growth than you are accusing the Dems of opposing?

  54. Fibonacci says:

    CT8
    Blah blah blah blah. What are you going to say when Romney loses?

  55. When? LOL, a bit cocky are we Fib? What are you going to say if he wins?

    Probably won’t see you around for awhile.

    Pretty clear Romney’s chances are presently no worse than 50/50. And remember, McCain was up 3 in September ’08.

  56. If you believe that you wanna buy a bridge? You just can’t have the 1st Island

  57. Fibonacci says:

    Clam
    I will be here the day after the election. Unlike righties, if Romney wins I won’t claim it is because voters are ignorant.

  58. Sonofwashington says:

    It will be interesting to see how the “47%” comments by Romney affect the polls, particularly in the swing states. Obama already outpaces Romney 3 to 1 in “connecting to the people”.

  59. Sow, interest rates have not gone up. Example number one of a voter being ignorant.

  60. averageJose says:

    LOL… 30 year mortage interest rate just hit an all time low.

  61. Tuddo says, “XBJ98N, Obama keeps introducing parts of his plan to Congress, but they either get stalled or voted down by Republicans….”

    Thanks tuddo. Frankly I dont have much faith in either one of these two. Come to think of it, I have’nt had much faith in presidential candidates in a couple decades!

    Recently I was a bit miffed to discover that the “lifetime VA medical coverage” PROMISED …as part of the CONTRACT I signed at my enlistment forty years ago, is no longer available to me because..”I am not disabled enough”….

    I discovered this reneging on a promise, was due to changes made during the GW Bush Administration.

  62. Recently I was a bit miffed to discover that the “lifetime VA medical coverage” PROMISED …as part of the CONTRACT I signed at my enlistment forty years ago, is no longer available to me because..”I am not disabled enough”….

    My mom, who served during WWII, was denied coverage on pills to prevent her from getting sicker because she wasn’t sick enough…..

  63. “Let’s be blunt and acknowledge the biggest threat to the world’s biggest economy are the cranks and crazies that have taken over the Republican party,”

    Wayne Swan, Australian Treasurer.

  64. “When (not if) the cost of borrowing goes up as the dollar inflates”

    ROFL – ooooh, the “hyperinflation” boogeyman yet again! The wrong wing has been hyperventilating about hyperinflation ever since 2009. It hasn’t happened yet, and there’s no evidence that it will. Sorry, your scare tactics don’t work with adults.

  65. “Obama won’t be able to deliver that, especially with a sizable segment of the President’s party’s being opposed to economic growth…”

    Let me correct that: “Obama won’t be able to deliver that, especially with the entire Republican party being opposed to economic growth if it happens under a Democratic President, as proven by the 243 filibusters in the Senate.”

    You’re welcome.

  66. “The dems have extended the Bush tax cuts. Revenue is lower now as a % of GDP under BHO.”

    Thanks for disproving the wrong-wing myth that tax cuts lead to increased revenue.

  67. 50/50? Uh huh. Sure. And the check is in the mail. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html#polls

    Even Fox News has Obama comfortably ahead.

  68. averageJose says:

    denied coverage by the Obama administration.

  69. averageJose says:

    Wow erik, such an early start to the wall paper.

  70. LeePHilI says:

    “Recently I was a bit miffed to discover that the “lifetime VA medical coverage” PROMISED …as part of the CONTRACT I signed at my enlistment forty years ago, is no longer available to me because..”I am not disabled enough”….”

    Sounds an awful lot like the contract renegging that takes place with union members.

  71. LeePHilI says:

    “aislander says:
    Sep. 20, 2012 at 7:58 pm Which was it: fetus or embryo?”

    And people say you don’t get jokes…..LMAO

    oh and I was correct. Contorted didn’t know what Dodd-Frank was.

  72. Tuddo wrote: CT8, I think you are correct that Romney said he would retain current funding for Medicare (but I can’t find it, either). However, the 716 billion in savings in Ryan’s and Obama’s plans is reached by cutting out the 20%-30% overhead and extra administrative costs that the private plans currently charge for the same services in Medicare Advantage over and above the public plan.
    ____________________________________________________________

    The BIG difference is what is done with the “savings”. Ryan’s plan keeps the “savings” to extend the life the program which the CBO forecasts will go broke in 2037. Obama’s plan uses the “savings” from a program that is going broke to partially finance another government giveaway program…..what could possibly go wrong with that plan? Would you invest in a business plan based on that type of financing?????

  73. Until we balance the budget we are not “saving” anything.

    Like BHOs plan to spend any peace dividend, this is all borrowed money. Total scam.

  74. averageJose says:

    … and printed.

  75. oldoc, you ask if I would invest in a business plan that takes money spent on waste and inefficiency and use it to expand services and create a better package of services that brings more people into the marketplace?

    Yes I would and have many times.

  76. aislander says:

    Another tuddo straw man. That is NOT the question posed by oldoc…

  77. I see mole.hill still doesn’t get the meaning of “within the margin of error”.

    And if I were he I’d be worried about this:

    http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/09/16/obamas-national-lead-based-entirely-on-over-sampling-democrats/

  78. aislander, but my version is the real effect of Obama’s plan, not the straw man set up by oldoc.

  79. Sonofwashington says:

    How come the folks who defend the “wisdom” of Ryan’s plan for Medicare don’t mention that he would change it to a voucher system, which would really put a whole lot of old folks in a severe bind.

    And BTW, I would like the Romney\Ryan supporters to share their observations on the Medicare Part D legislation that gave over billions in taxpayer dollars to Big Pharma, courtesy of a Republican congress. Any thoughts on cost saving measures there?

  80. “I see mole.hill”

    I see Clammie still calls people names instead of refuting what they way.

    Don’t you just love it when wrong-wingers claim that Fox News polling is biased to the left? ROFLMAO

  81. Sow, because anyone old would not be affected.

  82. Er…does the term “blind trust” ring a bell?

    Yep, and it appears that for you to decide that “Romney is the way to go” it must be based upon “blind trust” in his unspecified plans.

    And yes….I do know what a blind trust is. Just not sure how someone can claim that he had no influence over a company while he was still the CEO and/or on the Board of Directors…..

  83. because anyone old would not be affected.

    If it is such a great plan that will save Medicare/Social Security, why is it that they are exempting most of the Baby Boom from it?

  84. averageJose says:

    I ask the same question about Obamacare… why sooo many exemptions???

  85. Why hasn’t either party done anything about the costs? You know the answer to your question, why be a wisea…

    Math, the enemy of the left.

  86. Sonofwashington says:

    CT8 – The 716 Billion cut in Medicare that is proposed by Obama is from savings in reimbursements and other overhead costs. But if you really want savings in healthcare, get the insurance back out of the profiteers’ hands whose profit motive works against the interest of their policy holders.

    Or, how’s about just letting everyone buy into Medicare where the overhead is around 3% vs. the private companies that are between 25-30%.

    Oh, and then there’s Medicare Part D that the Republicans saddled with a no-negotiation law, giving billions in unnecessary tax dollars to Big Pharma. Maybe we could retract that while we’re at it.

  87. Sow, now it is time for you learn that the admin costs are NOT lower in Medicare. Not only is the stat skewed due to individual costs in Medicare being higher (the admin costs of paying a $50k claim are similar to a $100 claim, elder care issues cost more) but other govt agencies (IRS) take up some costs.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/

    Profits are in the low single digits for insurance companies.

    Be the politican to take away part D. I would support it.

  88. averageJose says:

    The 716 Billion cut in Medicare are projected… as in not real.
    Until they savings are
    realized as in actually happen, they are cuts.

  89. Sonofwashington says:

    Even if Medicare overhead costs were 10% they are still far less than the profit-based health insurance companies, due not only to the administrative load but the added costs of marketing and need to feed profits to the stockholders. But the worst part is that the profit motive means they are incentivized to increase premiums and co-pays, and deny or reduce health services as much as possible. Given that they essentially have a monopolies in their area of operations, the “competitive market” theory has little impact. As a result, Americans pay about twice as much for their health care as other industrialized countries and get a whole lot less for it.

  90. I just threw a bunch of facts and logic at you and come back with garbage.

    Those low profits I just showed are what the shareholders receive.

    There is an argument that if govt operated efficiently some costs found in the private sector would not exist. But govt does not operate with any efficiency.

    I just showed you admin costs are not lower. Show some honesty, click on the links.

  91. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/general-and-administrative-expenses.asp#axzz278xcjEXq

    Marketing costs are already accounted for in admin expenses. You obviously have no clue.

    And those Obamacare ads on TV are not free…

  92. I see Clammie still calls people names…

    Thanks for defining hypocrisy in less than 8 words.

    Don’t you just love it when wrong-wingers claim that Fox News polling is biased to the left?

    Thanks for defining straw man fallacy in less than a paragraph.

  93. “Thanks for defining straw man fallacy”

    LOL- you didn’t bother to read your own link, did you? If you had, you would have seen this graph: http://battlegroundwatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/dem-over-sampling-numbersmuncher-ii.jpg

    Now, please tell us all what network it is that shows Obama with a 5-point lead and has allegedly “oversampled” Democrats?

  94. “According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, administrative costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent of operating expenditures. Defenders of the insurance industry estimate administrative costs as 17 percent of revenue.

    Insurance industry-funded studies exclude private plans’ marketing costs and profits from their calculation of administrative costs. Even so, Medicare’s overhead is dramatically lower.

    Medicare administrative cost figures include the collection of Medicare taxes, fraud and abuse controls, and building costs.”

    http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/

  95. Notice the word play there? “The defenders….” then they just say “dramatically lower”. Why not show both % excluding what they said was excluded???

    Given the admin costs passed on to the rest of govt, as high as 20%, their figures are BS.

    Also, private insurers have to pick up costs for Medicare since they do no pay the full amount for services. Since you and Sow have ignored my previous links it’s up to you to figure that one out.

    As I have said, if not for the Constitution and govt inefficiency, there is a decent argument for single layer or centralized medicine. Only from a cost standpoint.

    Increase competition and limit the lawyers while protecting individual rights. Try that first before you give a bureaucrat power over life and death.

  96. Yeah, I make it a habit to link pages that I haven’t read, just like I claimed “that Fox News polling is biased to the left”.

    That isn’t just a classic example of another one of your famous straw man fallacies. No, you’ve merely called to our attention a fact that contradicts your talking points. It isn’t I who have ever complained that FOX news polls left, but I wonder who it is that tries so hard to discredit them for leaning right? Hmmm, data don’t fit the model again, eh’ mole?

    Try again.

    And speaking of missed points (which will happen when one obsessively focuses like a laser beam on FOX News), with an average 7% over-sampling of democrats in the RCP average, what would it look like if it polls were sampling based on the more likely 2010 turn-out models:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/09/20/romney-finished-update-rcp-average-after-correcting-poll-cooking-has-pre

    Statistical dead heat. And even without a reality check, RCP’s current average of +3.9 advantage for 0bama is well within their stated margin for error.

    molefail. Try again.

    Oh, and you might want to read this too:

    http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-winning-301-electoral-votes-as-projected-by-polling-data-1

    it shows what happens to the electoral count when all of the weighted polls are removed from the RCP average.

    Lots of readin’ for ‘ya, mole. Sorry you won’t be able to pull a FOX angle out of your…, er, out of it.

    Bon champs.

  97. Clam, they will not click on the link. Too scared. After the tax info he just released, the left has nothing.

    Romney is just a better person.

  98. Clammie,

    Your entire argument is based on the false premise that voters identify more with the GOP.

    http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/08/8-23-12-1.png

    Read it and weep. More people identify as Democrats than identify as Republicans. The polls showing Obama ahead aren’t based on any “oversampling,” they’re based on reality.

  99. Your entire argument is based on the false premise that voters identify more with the GOP.

    More straw man fallacy. Nothing I’ve said or linked even remotely implies such a conclusion.

    I’m changing your nickname to Alfalfa.

  100. “More straw man fallacy. Nothing I’ve said or linked even remotely implies such a conclusion.”

    Pardon me, but your trousers appear to be on fire.

    “an average 7% over-sampling of democrats in the RCP average”

  101. Your extrapolation is a straw man. Your denial of the fact there is an average 7% oversampling of democrats is hilarious. Your ignorance of the fact that a majority of the RCP polls are using turn-out data from the 2008 as their base model, rather than the more relevant results from 2010, is… ignorant. The fact that FOX is one of those polls is irrelevant… other than the fact it flies in the face your claims of bias by their news arm.

    Keep trying.

  102. Clicked on that link. They got their results by cherry-picking different polls for each state. A lot of contested states (like Iowa) – guess which poll they used…….Rassmussen.

    Real Clear Politics has the electoral vote at
    Obama/Biden 247
    Toss Ups 100
    Romney/Ryan 191

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

    And, from your same source at Examiner (but different author):
    New polls reinforce Obama’s lead on the Electoral College map
    September 19, 2012

    Over the last few days a slew of new polls have been released from the states of Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Kentucky. As seen above, and in the polls listed below, the numbers currently paint a picture of Electoral College victory for President Obama. Obama currently leads with 303 projected electoral votes compared to 235 for Mitt Romney, and that projection includes giving Mitt Romney Florida even though Romney is trailing the Real Clear Politics average of polls from that state.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/new-polls-reinforce-obama-s-lead-on-the-electoral-college-map

  103. Romney needs to win almost all of the swing states to get to 270, but Obama only needs to win one or two big swing states to get to 270. As the polls below show, Romney is currently losing most of the swing states, an opposite result of what he needs.
    http://www.examiner.com/article/new-polls-reinforce-obama-s-lead-on-the-electoral-college-map

    Golly……

  104. …guess which poll they used…….Rassmussen.

    Uhhm… not exactly.

    You may have clicked on the link, bB, but apparently you missed the second paragraph wherein they state they used an average consisting of Rasmussen Reports Presidential Daily Tracking poll, the Gallup Tracking poll, the QStarNews Daily Tracking Poll, and the Associated Press/GfK poll.

    For reasons I’ve stated ad-naseum here, they went on to state:

    These are the most accurate and least skewed polls among those currently included in the Real Clear Politics average of presidential polls. The average of these four polls would put the race at 48.3 Romney and 46.3 Obama. That is within the margin of error or a tie. Leaving out the QstarNews poll, the average of the other three is a tie.

    HTH

  105. Clamat0 – I read several paragraphs below the 2nd paragraph where they did their state by state analysis in order to come up with their bizarre Electoral College numbers. Did you?

  106. averageJose says:

    beerBoy says:
    September 10, 2010 at 7:55 am
    It’s interesting how polls are always most significant when they support one’s own views and rather unimportant when they don’t.

  107. “the fact there is an average 7% oversampling of democrats”

    As the link I cited proves, your claim is false.

  108. “Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly” — http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0