Doctodd

10+ Year Member
Jul 4, 2005
3,393
415
281
Miami, FL
Status
Now the current Congress has another "opportunity" due to the GS situation. I have a feeling public sentiment is against "Wall Street" as usual, and the Dems are blowing it up as much as possible with the help of the MSM. Another sweeping reform the country "absolutley needs" before November.

I also try to watch various channels, but im not informed enough to read between all the lines and layers yet. Kinda why i asked ampaphb for his perspective. Im still looking forward to it.

All i get out of this is a lingering question....who is the bigger evil?.......govt? Or corporations? Are they one in the same? I still say i want less govt.
 

hyperalgesia

member
Lifetime Donor
7+ Year Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,880
1,557
181
Status
Attending Physician
Now the current Congress has another "opportunity" due to the GS situation. I have a feeling public sentiment is against "Wall Street" as usual, and the Dems are blowing it up as much as possible with the help of the MSM. Another sweeping reform the country "absolutley needs" before November.

I also try to watch various channels, but im not informed enough to read between all the lines and layers yet. Kinda why i asked ampaphb for his perspective. Im still looking forward to it.

All i get out of this is a lingering question....who is the bigger evil?.......govt? Or corporations? Are they one in the same? I still say i want less govt.
This congress will push through everything it can before it is decimated in November. Expect more damage until then.

Govt is a much bigger threat because it has the power to take your money, assets and everything else without your consent. It can reward or punish you at the whim of whichever special interest has the most influence.
 

SleepIsGood

Support the ASA !
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Apr 16, 2006
1,965
2
0
Status
Fellow [Any Field]
This congress will push through everything it can before it is decimated in November. Expect more damage until then.

Govt is a much bigger threat because it has the power to take your money, assets and everything else without your consent. It can reward or punish you at the whim of whichever special interest has the most influence.
I really hope EACH person who reads this forum is trying to increase awareness of this situation to their patients and colleagues. I've definitely being doing just that. I've been able to convince a handful of die hard residents taht are democrats to finally 'see the light'. Yah, it's not many people, but imagine if each one of us could do that. We would definitely be able to have a new regime installed by November that can repeal all the mess.

Guys, seriously support either with your votes or your $$$ this guy running for Senate in Illinois--> Mark Kirk. His platform is to REPEAL the healthcare act passed by the present adminstration.
 

ampaphb

Interventional Spine
10+ Year Member
May 13, 2007
4,352
723
331
New Orleans, LA
Status
Attending Physician
I really hope EACH person who reads this forum is trying to increase awareness of this situation to their patients and colleagues. I've definitely being doing just that. I've been able to convince a handful of die hard residents taht are democrats to finally 'see the light'. Yah, it's not many people, but imagine if each one of us could do that. We would definitely be able to have a new regime installed by November that can repeal all the mess.

Guys, seriously support either with your votes or your $$$ this guy running for Senate in Illinois--> Mark Kirk. His platform is to REPEAL the healthcare act passed by the present adminstration.
Repeal would require the signature of the President, which is not going to happen.

Most candidates for office are using that position to raise money - vote for whoever you feel will represent your interests, but recognize that anyone who is running under the banner of repealing health care reform are taking your money without a chance in hell of accomplishing that particular goal.
 

hyperalgesia

member
Lifetime Donor
7+ Year Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,880
1,557
181
Status
Attending Physician
Repeal would require the signature of the President, which is not going to happen.

Most candidates for office are using that position to raise money - vote for whoever you feel will represent your interests, but recognize that anyone who is running under the banner of repealing health care reform are taking your money without a chance in hell of accomplishing that particular goal.
I agree. The bill is law now and it will be politically impossible to completely repeal - ever. More layers of complexity will be added to hide the taxes and amplify the benefits, all part of the continued effort by Politicians to play the part that everyone loves, Santa Claus.
 

Mister Mxyzptlk

10+ Year Member
May 16, 2006
4,932
1,052
281
Yewston, TX
Status
Attending Physician
Not any more. Buffet has lost $1B on his GS options since this story broke.
 

SleepIsGood

Support the ASA !
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Apr 16, 2006
1,965
2
0
Status
Fellow [Any Field]
Repeal would require the signature of the President, which is not going to happen.

Most candidates for office are using that position to raise money - vote for whoever you feel will represent your interests, but recognize that anyone who is running under the banner of repealing health care reform are taking your money without a chance in hell of accomplishing that particular goal.
I still think guys like Kirk are better than the current option... Iguess we will have to see.
 

Doctodd

10+ Year Member
Jul 4, 2005
3,393
415
281
Miami, FL
Status
i guess we will now have a new subject to debate in immigration reform. But it might be the "shiney little object" to distract us from the VAT tax which is how to pay for all the drunken spending. Like i said before, the people who are royally getting screwed will be the poor and middle class who cant adapt and are forced to pay more for less.

Ampaphb....im still waiting for an answer to my question about your perspective of GS. Silence does send a message however.....especially with your past vocal opinions being supportive of our current federal admin.
 

2win

10+ Year Member
Apr 25, 2008
1,177
32
261
Status
Attending Physician
Now the current Congress has another "opportunity" due to the GS situation. I have a feeling public sentiment is against "Wall Street" as usual, and the Dems are blowing it up as much as possible with the help of the MSM. Another sweeping reform the country "absolutley needs" before November.

I also try to watch various channels, but im not informed enough to read between all the lines and layers yet. Kinda why i asked ampaphb for his perspective. Im still looking forward to it.

All i get out of this is a lingering question....who is the bigger evil?.......govt? Or corporations? Are they one in the same? I still say i want less govt.
The new reform ...a joke ...means nothing more than a larger line of credit for financial institutions.
The only one that will loose are the middle class people.
The derivative business will remain strong and prosperous - give it a google to the last derivative conference...
 

knoxdoc

New Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 27, 2006
622
53
271
Status
Attending Physician
Anyone hear about the recent HHS report indicating that the health care law will not save money (surprise) and will place "up to 15% of seniors at risk of not finding adequate health care" because the looming 20% cuts will place many providers and hospitals into the red?

Glad we did these calculations AFTER the fact. I hope the AARP saw the report.
 

Mister Mxyzptlk

10+ Year Member
May 16, 2006
4,932
1,052
281
Yewston, TX
Status
Attending Physician
knoxdoc, remember what Pelosi told us - we had to pass it so we could find out what's in it.

As for who's worse -Washington or Wall Street - the two are hopelessly commingled:

* Goldman Sachs' campaign contribution of $975k.

* Mark Patterson, former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, is chief of staff to Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner.

* Adam Storch, after spending five years working in Goldman Sachs's business intelligence unit was named to become the first chief operating officer in the Securities and Exchange Commission's Enforcement Division.

* Obama appointed Robert Hormat, previous Goldman Sachs Vice Chairman, to be Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs.

* Bill Clinton recently disclosed that Robert Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton for both terms, advised Clinton that it was not necessary to regulate derivatives because they were so sophisticated that only a very few people would be trading them. This was also when they repealed Glass-Steagal. Chairman of Citigroup in 2007. Robert Rubin spent 26 years at Goldman Sachs.
 

Mister Mxyzptlk

10+ Year Member
May 16, 2006
4,932
1,052
281
Yewston, TX
Status
Attending Physician
BTW, the list only mentions democrat administrations by coincidence. I wanted to list the current perps in the government and give a shining example of the perfidy of GS alumni going back decades a la Robert Rubin (who made $17M from his Citi tenure - not bad for 2 years). There was plenty of this going on for many, many years. It's just only now are we getting a good peek behind the curtain.

There's an old joke on Wall Street:

A visitor takes a tour of Manhattan with his New York City friend. The two arrive at the harbor, where the city dweller points to a line of elegant vessels.

"There are the bankers' yachts," he says grandly. "And there are the brokers' yachts."

The visitor looks at the magnificent fleet and asks, "Where are the customers' yachts?"

"Where are the customers' yachts?" became a book title. After 65 years the book is still relevant.
 

Doctodd

10+ Year Member
Jul 4, 2005
3,393
415
281
Miami, FL
Status
there might be another way to survive......lets watch the stock prices of the major health insurance companies after today. We might be able to work for the love of medicine, and no money.

Aetna 34.46
Cigna 37.08
Wellpoint(BCBS) 65.07
Humana 50.00
United Health group 34.39
Coventry 26.24
Just taking a flash from the past from March 2010 i posted the above.....if u bought those stocks, you wouldnt be doing too bad. I wish i did....but ethically i couldnt.

Aetna 50.49
Cigna 51.01
Wellpoint(BCBS) 69.88
Humana 76.70
UHG 50.49
Coventry 35.06
 

stim4u

Member
Removed
10+ Year Member
Dec 12, 2005
786
9
251
Status
Just taking a flash from the past from March 2010 i posted the above.....if u bought those stocks, you wouldnt be doing too bad. I wish i did....but ethically i couldnt.

Aetna 50.49
Cigna 51.01
Wellpoint(BCBS) 69.88
Humana 76.70
UHG 50.49
Coventry 35.06
i did not buy these stocks but i did buy a lot of Fairholme MF, and it wants nuts.....
 

Doctodd

10+ Year Member
Jul 4, 2005
3,393
415
281
Miami, FL
Status
what does that mean?..."it wants nuts"...in March of 2010 MF was at $7....today it is at $7.25 :shrug:
 

hyperalgesia

member
Lifetime Donor
7+ Year Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,880
1,557
181
Status
Attending Physician
Just taking a flash from the past from March 2010 i posted the above.....if u bought those stocks, you wouldnt be doing too bad. I wish i did....but ethically i couldnt.

Aetna 50.49
Cigna 51.01
Wellpoint(BCBS) 69.88
Humana 76.70
UHG 50.49
Coventry 35.06
The real reason these stocks went up is because I did NOT buy them. If I bought them, they would have tanked...
 

Doctodd

10+ Year Member
Jul 4, 2005
3,393
415
281
Miami, FL
Status
If my math is right, Aetna increased by 32%, Cigna by 28%, Humana by 35%, and Coventry by 26%. BCBS did the worst with a measly 7% increase.
 

stim4u

Member
Removed
10+ Year Member
Dec 12, 2005
786
9
251
Status
If my math is right, Aetna increased by 32%, Cigna by 28%, Humana by 35%, and Coventry by 26%. BCBS did the worst with a measly 7% increase.
iPad typo. Sorry.
Fairholme was a healthcare heavy mutual fund. If u invested at the right time u would have enjoyed those 30percent values u mentioned.
 

hyperalgesia

member
Lifetime Donor
7+ Year Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,880
1,557
181
Status
Attending Physician
"The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit gave a thumbs-down to the so-called individual mandate of the Affordable Health Care Act, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law."

If the Affordable Care Act's "individual mandate" is judged unconstitutional, doesn't that mean states that impose their own mandates will also have stop enforcing? If it is an individual's constitutional right to NOT purchase insurance, that should trump any state law. At least that's how I see it...
 

ampaphb

Interventional Spine
10+ Year Member
May 13, 2007
4,352
723
331
New Orleans, LA
Status
Attending Physician
Friday’s opinion is the second handed down — and the first to strike down the individual mandate – at the appellate level ... A ruling from the 6th Circuit in late June upheld the law.

A split in the Circuits is what many experts expected. It leads this case up the food chain, to the Supreme Court for review
 

Doctodd

10+ Year Member
Jul 4, 2005
3,393
415
281
Miami, FL
Status
I keep hearing that there is a way Obama/Govt will mandate it anyway if the Supreme Court strikes it down.
 

mid|ine

Interventional Spine
10+ Year Member
Aug 2, 2006
702
20
251
Cincinnati, OH
Status
Attending Physician
There are many things I disagree with, however, the mandate is NOT one of them.

We have 2 options.

1. No mandate AND no entitlement. If you don't have insurance and can't pay out of pocket (and actually pay), then you don't get care. MI? No insurance? No cash? Bye Bye.

2. Mandate that everyone carries health insurance (bonus, we can get rid of pre-existing condition clauses, etc)


The US doesn't have the stomach for option #1. So it really only leaves one option IMHO.
 

Ligament

Interventional Pain Management
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Jan 8, 2002
4,991
1,377
381
Status
Attending Physician
There are many things I disagree with, however, the mandate is NOT one of them.

We have 2 options.

1. No mandate AND no entitlement. If you don't have insurance and can't pay out of pocket (and actually pay), then you don't get care. MI? No insurance? No cash? Bye Bye.

2. Mandate that everyone carries health insurance (bonus, we can get rid of pre-existing condition clauses, etc)


The US doesn't have the stomach for option #1. So it really only leaves one option IMHO.
I'm all for option 1. Combine this with massive tort reform, and health care costs will go down 85%. People can then afford to pay cash for care.
 

hyperalgesia

member
Lifetime Donor
7+ Year Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,880
1,557
181
Status
Attending Physician
I think I choose #1 also.

I would rather make health insurance illegal than make it mandatory. If you want to decrease costs, you should not ADD middlemen to the picture, you should take them away. These profiteers have convinced people that they are necessary for civilized life. The term "health care" is even used synonymously with "for-profit health care insurance". As in "Do you have 'health care?'" Even the term "health insurance" is misleading. Insurance policies have nothing to do with your health!

Anyway, it's gonna be very interesting to see what the SCOTUS says about the mandate. I predict they will side with other conservative-leaning courts and say nay. Then what?
 

lonelobo

PAIN DOC
10+ Year Member
Jun 1, 2005
2,691
715
281
Southwest
Status
Attending Physician
I'm all for option 1. Combine this with massive tort reform, and health care costs will go down 85%. People can then afford to pay cash for care.
I for one( and suppose many others) would go out of business with this option, I have very few he will pay cash for elective procedures.
 

Tenesma

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jun 11, 2002
5,332
127
281
Visit site
Status
Attending Physician
everybody should have health insurance coverage

however, that health insurance coverage should be primarily preventitive and catastrophic care.... it shouldn't cover a screening colonoscopy on an 87 year old, it shouldn't cover 3 months of ICU stay for a 92 yo w/ critical AS in renal failure followed by, it shouldn't cover most elective procedures/surgeries, it should only cover generic medications.

this way every body gets access to care, and the care would be much cheaper...
 

lonelobo

PAIN DOC
10+ Year Member
Jun 1, 2005
2,691
715
281
Southwest
Status
Attending Physician
everybody should have health insurance coverage

however, that health insurance coverage should be primarily preventitive and catastrophic care.... it shouldn't cover a screening colonoscopy on an 87 year old, it shouldn't cover 3 months of ICU stay for a 92 yo w/ critical AS in renal failure followed by, it shouldn't cover most elective procedures/surgeries, it should only cover generic medications.

this way every body gets access to care, and the care would be much cheaper...
Agree, but who will make these decisions?
And as a Pain physician who does not provide either preventive or catasrtophic care my practice would be screwed.

So I best take the advice of our resident Forum Financial Sage ...and BUY GOLD BITCHEZ!