US 3rd quarter GDP revised up to 5% - best in 11 years.

[First]

Not on your level anyways since I haven't really insulted anyone. Feel free to debate any one of the stats, theories or anything I post, but I feel we will just get the usual you popping in once in a while with your usual "herp derp" thinking you are debating at a level well above everyone else.

Everyone debates at a level above you, though. I'm not giving you my opinion; I'm telling you your posts are awful, you make no attempt to change your positions or your mind about any of the topics you post in. You're ideological, partisan, hokum-based positions are boring.

Just giving you an FYI in case you didn't know.

 

[Matt1970]

Everyone debates at a level above you, though. I'm not giving you my opinion; I'm telling you your posts are awful, you make no attempt to change your positions or your mind about any of the topics you post in. You're ideological, partisan, hokum-based positions are boring.

Just giving you an FYI in case you didn't know.

Like I said, feel free to debate, or just insult. Whatever you are capable of.

 

[ElFenix]

Yes, we should reduce the debt, and just think how nice it would be to have a rainy day fund to dip into during bad times. I doubt we will ever see one.

every time we've intentionally reduced the debt it's brought on a recession. it's not good economic policy for the US.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

As for your other questions, the whole point of Keynesian economics is to reduce debt burdens when economic times are good, so yes after the economy recovers enough we should start Reducing our debt. (We will be able to eventually use monetary policy to offset the economic impact).

Lets hope it works better for us better than it is for the Japanese.

The biggest question I still have is why hospitals around the country are in the midst of systemic layoffs. Considering the bulk of the 5% upswing for 3rd quarter GDP was healthcare sector it seems to me that simply affording people healthcare coverage does not automatically increase usage.

 

[ElFenix]

Lets hope it works better for us better than it is for the Japanese.

the japanese haven't engaged in keynesian economics.

 

[Engineer]

Yes, we should reduce the debt, and just think how nice it would be to have a rainy day fund to dip into during bad times. I doubt we will ever see one.

You'll never see one because as soon as there was a 'rainy day fund', you'll have a bunch of people crying like hell over lowering taxes OR raising spending to get rid of the fund. Never happen.

 

[ivwshane]

Lets hope it works better for us better than it is for the Japanese.

The biggest question I still have is why hospitals around the country are in the midst of systemic layoffs. Considering the bulk of the 5% upswing for 3rd quarter GDP was healthcare sector it seems to me that simply affording people healthcare coverage does not automatically increase usage.

I'd have to ask if hospitals are hurt by people who are no longer required to go to emergency rooms for care that would otherwise be taken care of by a physician?

Which makes you wonder what other side affects of the ACA could also be attributing to your claim?

 

[monkeydelmagico]

the japanese haven't engaged in keynesian economics.

Do tell. Core tenant of the philosophy is that government spending can be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity, reducing unemployment and deflation. Granted, I am neither a studied economist nor employed in the financial sector but BOJ ultra low interest rates since the mid eighties seem keynsian like.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

I'd have to ask if hospitals are hurt by people who are no longer required to go to emergency rooms for care that would otherwise be taken care of by a physician?

Which makes you wonder what other side affects of the ACA could also be attributing to your claim?

Good point, but my limited understanding of hospital revenue streams puts med/surg and diagnostics at the top of the profit heap

 

[Spungo]

You'll never see one because as soon as there was a 'rainy day fund', you'll have a bunch of people crying like hell over lowering taxes OR raising spending to get rid of the fund. Never happen.

We can use our magic printing press to build umbrellas when it rains and it has no negative consequences. Today at the grocery store, I saw a roast that cost $35. I can't believe they're so cheap after we've printed so much money. I'm pretty sure roast beef was always that price.

 

[OverVolt]

I'd have to ask if hospitals are hurt by people who are no longer required to go to emergency rooms for care that would otherwise be taken care of by a physician?

Which makes you wonder what other side affects of the ACA could also be attributing to your claim?

Hospitals are in the midst of systemic layoffs, yes.

One part of the ACA that requires electronic health records has been very rough for the hospitals to comply. Its... problematic. Electronic health records do NOTHING that was promised for healthcare much like everything else in the law.

If the insurance companies make too much in 2015, if they don't pay out at least 80% of their revenues for health services I think it must be refunded? But I figure care providers just jack up prices.

 

[fskimospy]

Hospitals are in the midst of systemic layoffs, yes.

One part of the ACA that requires electronic health records has been very rough for the hospitals to comply. Its... problematic. Electronic health records do NOTHING that was promised for healthcare much like everything else in the law.

If the insurance companies make too much in 2015, if they don't pay out at least 80% of their revenues for health services I think it must be refunded? But I figure care providers just jack up prices.

Except of course that hasn't happened.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'd have to ask if hospitals are hurt by people who are no longer required to go to emergency rooms for care that would otherwise be taken care of by a physician?

Which makes you wonder what other side affects of the ACA could also be attributing to your claim?

FYI, ACA has actually increased the number of emergency room visits...not decreased as promised by the snake oil salesmen and their minions.

http://www.pamedsoc.org/MainMenuCategories/Practice-Management/Health-reform/ER-visits-increase.html

 

[ivwshane]

FYI, ACA has actually increased the number of emergency room visits...not decreased as promised by the snake oil salesmen and their minions.

http://www.pamedsoc.org/MainMenuCategories/Practice-Management/Health-reform/ER-visits-increase.html

Your response is to post a poll that A) nearly half of the respondents said ER visits are up (as in less than half B) is about Pennsylvania doctors C) has no data for us to look at D) was conducted before June 2014.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Your response is to post a poll that A) nearly half of the respondents said ER visits are up (as in less than half B) is about Pennsylvania doctors C) has no data for us to look at D) was conducted before June 2014.

Are you trying to argue the ER visits have not increased due to ACA?

 

[fskimospy]

Are you trying to argue the ER visits have not increased due to ACA?

I think he's trying to say that a local poll conducted by a physician's advocacy group with that kind of result is not sufficient evidence to make the claim you are making for the overall national effects of the ACA. He is correct in that evaluation.

So speaking of snake oil peddling...gotta be better at evaluating sources. Don't just take the first thing that tells you what you want to hear.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think he's trying to say that a local poll conducted by a physician's advocacy group with that kind of result is not sufficient evidence to make the claim you are making for the overall national effects of the ACA. He is correct in that evaluation.

So speaking of snake oil peddling...gotta be better at evaluating sources. Don't just take the first thing that tells you what you want to hear.

ACEP polling of emergency room doctors throughout the U.S. is not a "local poll".


http://newsroom.acep.org/2014-11-20...96-percent-needed-medical-care-within-2-hours

ER Visits at Record High, 96 Percent Needed Medical Care within 2 Hours
Nov 20, 2014

...

Even though these newly-released figures from the CDC pre-date the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there is already evidence that emergency visits are on the rise now. Nearly half of emergency physicians responding to an ACEP poll in April reported a rise in emergency visits since January 1 when expanded coverage under the ACA began to take effect. Nearly 90 percent expected emergency visits to increase over the next three years, and more than three-fourths (77 percent) said their ERs are not adequately prepared for significant increases.

...

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/da...-expansion-may-increase-emergency-room-visits

Data Deep Dive: GOP, Dems Both Wrong on Obamacare
Studies have shown increased health insurance coverage has resulted in more, not less, use of the ER.

 

[fskimospy]

ACEP polling of emergency room doctors throughout the U.S. is not a "local poll".


http://newsroom.acep.org/2014-11-20...96-percent-needed-medical-care-within-2-hours

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/da...-expansion-may-increase-emergency-room-visits

Data Deep Dive: GOP, Dems Both Wrong on Obamacare
Studies have shown increased health insurance coverage has resulted in more, not less, use of the ER.

I would strongly suggest you actually read the thing you are linking to.

Polls done by advocacy groups are not reliable sources. You need to do a better job of evaluating sources.

Your second link says that the data is muddy and inconclusive and we don't know what the impact of the ACA will be on ER usage. Additionally, that article uncritically used the findings of a study on oregon's Medicaid expansion. I think we discussed that study's shortcomings before. (It was functionally impossible for them to achieve statistically significant results given their research design)

By the way, it seems reasonably likely to me that the ACA will not decrease ER visits in the short term, but I think it is quite likely it will do so in the long term. Regardless, you have presented some pretty poor support for your position and you're once again relying on dubious sources.

 

[theeedude]

People seeing a doctor when sick or injured, a bad thing according to the right.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

People seeing a doctor when sick or injured, a bad thing according to the right.

I can only hope that you're joking and that NOBODY'S that fucking stupid.

 

[jackstar7]

I can only hope that you're joking and that NOBODY'S that fucking stupid.

Thank goodness you had something to respond to that wasn't the reasoned response to your previous posts...

PHEW!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Thank goodness you had something to respond to that wasn't the reasoned response to your previous posts...

PHEW!

And how do you suggest I respond to his opinions and unfounded/inconsequential criticisms? He's provided zero evidence that the ACEP poll is not reliable, and then ironically, tells me that I need to do a better job of evaluating my sources after calling the ACEP poll of nationwide emergency room doctors a "local poll". In the second link he questioned one of the many studies cited by the article subtitled "Studies have shown increased health insurance coverage has resulted in more, not less, use of the ER." as if some questions about one particular study somehow disproves the article and various other studies cited. And lastly, he offered an unsubstantiated opinion based on zero evidence that emergency room visits would not decrease in the short term, but will do so in the long term...and he does this while criticizing me for offering an opinion based on such "dubious sources" as an ACEP poll of 1845 emergency room doctors and an in-depth US News analysis of several studies on the subject.

I have limited time to play stupid games with eskimospy, or with you for that matter.

 

[fskimospy]

And how do you suggest I respond to his opinions and unfounded/inconsequential criticisms? He's provided zero evidence that the ACEP poll is not reliable, and then ironically, tells me that I need to do a better job of evaluating my sources after calling the ACEP poll of nationwide emergency room doctors a "local poll". In the second link he questioned one of the many studies cited by the article subtitled "Studies have shown increased health insurance coverage has resulted in more, not less, use of the ER." as if some questions about one particular study somehow disproves the article and various other studies cited. And lastly, he offered an unsubstantiated opinion based on zero evidence that emergency room visits would not decrease in the short term, but will do so in the long term...and he does this while criticizing me for offering an opinion based on such "dubious sources" as an ACEP poll of 1845 emergency room doctors and an in-depth US News analysis of several studies on the subject.

I have limited time to play stupid games with eskimospy, or with you for that matter.

I shouldn't have to explain to you why polls conducted by advocacy groups are inherently unreliable.

As for your US news article, this is why I suggested you actually read what you linked to. The article was quite clear that the data on this behavior is messy and incomplete, and studies about it are quite vulnerable to confounds, as well as attempting to extrapolate these results to a national level.

As I mentioned before I think short term ER usage is likely to increase, but as your own article mentions this may very well be transient. Regardless of all that though you haven't done yourself any favors by posting advocacy polls and articles you appear not to have read.

 

[OverVolt]

..