Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Critical Condition

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,493
    Thanks
    711
    Thanked 520 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 46 Times in 43 Posts

    Default Critical Condition

    The obamacare boondoggle unraveling before our eyes!
    __________________________________________________ ________
    McKinsey Rebuts Critics of Its Health Insurance Survey
    June 21, 2011 10:39 A.M.
    By Avik Roy


    Obamacare’s defenders have worked themselves into a tizzy, attacking the recent study published by McKinsey & Co., the world’s leading management consulting firm. The study indicated that 30 percent of surveyed employers were “definitely or probably” planning on discontinuing employer-sponsored health insurance after 2014.

    Because McKinsey had refused to release details of the methodology used in their work, Democrats and left-of-center writers accused the company of having something to hide. A “keyed-in source says McKinsey is unlikely to release the survey materials because ‘it would be damaging to them,’” asserted Brian Beutler in Talking Points Memo. Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) wrote a letter to McKinsey demanding they release the survey’s methodology, with three House committees intending to follow suit.

    Well, lo and behold, McKinsey decided to release the details: the full questionnaire used in their survey, along with a 206-page report detailing the survey’s complete results. Accompanying these details was a thoughtful discussion of the survey’s methodology, one that pops the balloon of those who tried to tar McKinsey as some sort of careless, partisan outfit. Despite reporting which implied that McKinsey wanted to distance itself from its own work, the company declared, “We stand by the integrity and methodology of the survey.”

    The survey was funded by McKinsey

    One of the silliest criticisms of the McKinsey study was that the company didn’t declare its funding source. It’s a silly criticism because the funding source doesn’t tell you anything about the truth value of the study. If ExxonMobil declares that 2 plus 2 equals 4, is arithmetic suddenly corrupt? At any rate, the company put the speculation to rest by making the entirely unsurprising disclosure that “the opinion survey was paid for entirely by McKinsey as part of its routine, proprietary research.”

    Read more

  2. #2 | Top
    Guns Guns Guns Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ice Dancer View Post
    The obamacare boondoggle unraveling before our eyes!
    __________________________________________________ ________
    McKinsey Rebuts Critics of Its Health Insurance Survey
    June 21, 2011 10:39 A.M.
    By Avik Roy


    Obamacare’s defenders have worked themselves into a tizzy, attacking the recent study published by McKinsey & Co., the world’s leading management consulting firm. The study indicated that 30 percent of surveyed employers were “definitely or probably” planning on discontinuing employer-sponsored health insurance after 2014.

    Because McKinsey had refused to release details of the methodology used in their work, Democrats and left-of-center writers accused the company of having something to hide. A “keyed-in source says McKinsey is unlikely to release the survey materials because ‘it would be damaging to them,’” asserted Brian Beutler in Talking Points Memo. Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) wrote a letter to McKinsey demanding they release the survey’s methodology, with three House committees intending to follow suit.

    Well, lo and behold, McKinsey decided to release the details: the full questionnaire used in their survey, along with a 206-page report detailing the survey’s complete results. Accompanying these details was a thoughtful discussion of the survey’s methodology, one that pops the balloon of those who tried to tar McKinsey as some sort of careless, partisan outfit. Despite reporting which implied that McKinsey wanted to distance itself from its own work, the company declared, “We stand by the integrity and methodology of the survey.”

    The survey was funded by McKinsey

    One of the silliest criticisms of the McKinsey study was that the company didn’t declare its funding source. It’s a silly criticism because the funding source doesn’t tell you anything about the truth value of the study. If ExxonMobil declares that 2 plus 2 equals 4, is arithmetic suddenly corrupt? At any rate, the company put the speculation to rest by making the entirely unsurprising disclosure that “the opinion survey was paid for entirely by McKinsey as part of its routine, proprietary research.”

    Read more





    Poor Ice Dancer (AKA Ms Damn Stankee).


    Here's the truth about the McKinsey study.






    The survey "was not intended as a predictive economic analysis of the impact of the Affordable Care Act. Rather, it captured the attitudes of employers and provided an understanding of the factors that could influence decision-making related to employee health benefits."




    The company also said that its results weren't comparable to those of the CBO or other surveys.




    "Comparing the McKinsey survey to economic estimates, such as the CBO's, is comparing apples to oranges ... We understand how the language in the article could lead the reader to think the research was a prediction, but it is not," the company statement read.









    http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Reform/27190

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    61,320
    Thanks
    7,144
    Thanked 8,821 Times in 6,166 Posts
    Groans
    5,805
    Groaned 1,532 Times in 1,444 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Does the thought of every death your side will cause bring a smile to your face?
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

  4. The Following User Groans At FUCK THE POLICE For This Awful Post:

    Canceled2 (06-23-2011)

  5. #4 | Top
    Guns Guns Guns Guest

    Default

    Here's what Ice Dancer (AKA Ms Damn Stankee) wants to steal from you:




    • Insurance companies will be prohibited from placing lifetime caps – limits on the amount of money that can eventually be paid out – on their policies. They’ll face new restrictions on setting annual caps, as well.
    • Insurance companies also will be prohibited from pulling your coverage, except in case of fraud or intentional misrepresentation.
    • Children won’t be excluded from coverage due to pre-existing health conditions. Plus, children will be able to stay on their parents’ policy until age 26.
    • Small businesses that offer health coverage to employees will be eligible for tax credits of up to 50 percent of premium costs.
    • Seniors who fall into the coverage gap, or “doughnut hole”, in the middle of the Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage plan will get $250 to help them pay their bills.
    • People with pre-existing health conditions will be able to enroll in a new, but temporary, national high-risk insurance plan.





    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...ll-reform-take

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I might be movin to Montana
    Posts
    24,947
    Thanks
    7,072
    Thanked 10,611 Times in 7,328 Posts
    Groans
    68
    Groaned 1,966 Times in 1,782 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watermark View Post
    Does the thought of every death your side will cause bring a smile to your face?
    Of course it does...

    Every death is one less person out there trying to earn their own little piece of the pie...

    Less people means more out there for the greedy and selfish to claim as their own.

  7. The Following User Groans At ZappasGuitar For This Awful Post:

    Cancel 2018. 3 (06-23-2011)

  8. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZappasGuitar View Post
    Of course it does...

    Every death is one less person out there trying to earn their own little piece of the pie...

    Less people means more out there for the greedy and selfish to claim as their own.
    Doesn't that assume that it is a zero sum pie? One could just as easily assume more people equals a larger pie allowing an individual an opportunity at a larger share.

  9. #7 | Top
    Guns Guns Guns Guest

    Default

    The fact that they're lying doesn't seem to phase Conservatatus Retardus. Their putative figurehead continues to lie.

    Quoth Mittzie the Mass Mormon: "When I ask people what they dislike most about the president’s plan, what I typically hear is they say, ‘Obamacare represents a government takeover of health care, and I don’t like it.’ And I think they’re right."



    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...overnment-tak/

  10. #8 | Top
    Guns Guns Guns Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Doesn't that assume that it is a zero sum pie? One could just as easily assume more people equals a larger pie allowing an individual an opportunity at a larger share.


    That would be Ice Dancer AKA Ms Damn Stankee's assumption, wouldn't it, Cawack-off?

  11. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,593
    Thanks
    361
    Thanked 987 Times in 659 Posts
    Groans
    66
    Groaned 344 Times in 322 Posts

    Default

    Debating Whether Businesses Will Continue to Offer Health Insurance

    Two weeks ago, the international consulting firm McKinsey & Company threw itself into the rancorous partisan debate over the 2010 health care overhaul by publishing research that appeared to predict that many employers would dump their health insurance plans when the new law fully took effect in 2014. The new law offers subsidies to help low-income people purchase health insurance from state-run exchanges, and it also penalizes companies with more than 50 employees when they fail to offer those employees affordable coverage. As McKinsey notes, paying the penalty will cost less than providing the insurance, so companies could profit by socializing that cost.

    Nonetheless, the finding was surprising, and controversial, because, as The Agenda reported in April 2010 (and also in 2009), most economists say they believe that a mix of market pressures, a tax incentive and the penalty will deter all but a relative handful of employers from casting off their health insurance plans. The Obama administration slammed McKinsey’s apparent prediction, and Senate Democrats demanded that the consultants release the proprietary methodology behind it. For several days, McKinsey refused.

    I say “appeared to predict” because on Monday, when McKinsey finally released the methodology, it came with a statement insisting that the survey had done no such thing. Rather, “it captured the attitudes of employers and provided an understanding of the factors that could influence decision-making related to employee health benefits.” Two paragraphs later, the statement continued, “We understand how the language in the article could lead the reader to think the research was a prediction, but it is not.”

    The Agenda understands, too: The original article was titled “How U.S. Health Care Reform Will Affect Employee Benefits.” Its second sentence declared, “While the pace and timing are difficult to predict, McKinsey research points to a radical restructuring of employer-sponsored health benefits following the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act.” One word that appears frequently throughout the article is the future-tense “will,” not the conditional “could” — as in, “30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering E.S.I.” — employer-sponsored insurance — “in the years after 2014.” (The Times reported Tuesday that Democrats were not impressed by McKinsey’s explanation.)

    Still, the distinction between making predictions and capturing present attitudes — or, really, aspirations — is important. It should come as no surprise that employers, given their choice, would rather focus on their business than go through the administrative hassle of arranging health insurance for their work force. Companies probably wouldn’t offer it now if their employees didn’t demand it and weren’t willing to trade away a portion of their wages to have it. (Economists say that, contrary to broad public perception, employers don’t pay more to offer health insurance. Instead, insurance is merely a component of total pay — and employers that stopped offering it would have to provide some other, well, compensating compensation.)
    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
    John Kenneth Galbraith

  12. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    39,053
    Thanks
    3,463
    Thanked 1,324 Times in 1,188 Posts
    Groans
    1,184
    Groaned 693 Times in 631 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watermark View Post
    Does the thought of every death your side will cause bring a smile to your face?
    How ironic.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-27-2010, 01:01 PM
  2. In America, Crazy Is a Preexisting Condition
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-27-2009, 01:31 PM
  3. 5 critical dixie mistakes
    By uscitizen in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 07:24 AM
  4. 5 Critical Obama Mistakes
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-06-2008, 07:26 PM
  5. http://www.condition.org/
    By Hermes Thoth in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-02-2007, 08:17 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •