« Exhortation | Main | Iranian Imprisoned for Weblogging »

February 09, 2005

Comments

hilzoy, government has been "low balling" the cost of programs, well from the very beginning, see "big dig" for illustration.

the US pharma industry, better life through medication, along with generating well paying jobs. some how price controls would be counter productive to an industry which has been so successful. the history of the government management of medical care is to shift costs or constrain the delivery of services.

Bush might not be the Anti-Christ, but he's certainly the most Anti-American president we've ever had.

the US pharma industry, better life through medication, along with generating well paying jobs

competition and finding lowest price available, good for private sector, for government, not much. yay conservatism.

government has been "low balling" the cost of programs, well from the very beginning, see "big dig" for illustration.

I'm not aware of another case in which a member of the Executive threatened to fire someone (in this case, the Chief Actuary) if he provided Congress with a better cost estimate. That's a function of the level of mediocrity involved in this Administration; if the rules are too complicated for you to understand, and you still want to win, you've got to cheat.

Isn't "constrain the delivery of services" exactly what HMO's do?

It's what they do for me, at least.

Before the rhetoric gets to heated, y'all might want to give the WaPo a day or two to print another retraction like this.

Of course, the retraction didn't actually change the bottom line of the article, which was the existence of the 3% offset. The source of the money being removed to _create_ the offset was corrected; the offset itself, not so much.

I'm not aware of another case in which a member of the Executive threatened to fire someone

So you missed the middle of the 1960s and LBJ's Admin.

Timmy, for the umpteenth time: would you mind coming right out and actually saying what the heck you mean, instead of employing these stupid oblique references to things that you never actually get around to naming? It's a poor method of communication, it's a poor method of _argumentation_, and as far as I can tell, it contributes nothing to the discussion. Frankly, given the number of times you've used these opaque interjections for threadjacks, it's just plain rude. So would you mind cutting it out?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad