Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
""Politicians set the tone for the type of country that we will get and the voters go along with it. We all have to decide whether we're going to be a red neck, hick country, or we are going to be a country that is very much involved in tolerance," he said."

I don't see the politicians as the cause, I see them as the effect.

The initial condition is the influx of 'the other', which causes people who see their environment as a zero-sum environment, and who feel that their relatively advantaged position might be undermined, to feel threatened. And so they initiate aggression, even if it's 'just' social aggression.

Politicians are like for-profit-media - the vast majority don't have the wit to see something larger, to aim for something better, or to create that vision in others. And they don't have the money to ignore the bottom line. So they often (though not always) aim for the lowest common denominator and pitch to intolerance. And, bottom line, that gets them votes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Well, Magons, I can conceive that she might not have known precisely HOW egregious calling him an ape was, but I still remember teen years, too, and I find it hard to accept she was totally innocent. JMHO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I have never heard of this term and I was considered a champion doorbell ditcher in my time. :o

Salt Lake City is insular. We do have some racism though.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
The initial condition is the influx of 'the other', which causes people who see their environment as a zero-sum environment, and who feel that their relatively advantaged position might be undermined, to feel threatened. And so they initiate aggression, even if it's 'just' social aggression.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
But I see the same thing happening with Geezer. He used to TRY to be somewhat slick with with his various rhetorical manipulations: strawmen, ad hominem, shifting definitions etc ... now he's just a mean and clumsy rabid ideologue.

Little rappy went over the edge a long, looooong time ago, but he's upped the volume. And he and jongsie really need to get a room.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
You mean like this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I've been guilty of positive discrimination against Asian Americans...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
You mean like this?

---

As if I need more proof that you don't understand what racial bias really is.

---

Quote:

---

The aggression toward you is because the way you act and the dumb shit you post. (Reference the above.) It is not because you are part of some group of "Others."

For you it's easy. Start not being a tool, and you won't be treated like one. For non-white people in many areas, they don't have that freedom. Assumptions are made about them no matter how they act.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Slick

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Yep, Kiki covered it, not that I expect slick to get it.

And so the mocking shall continue!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
total medicare/ medicaid costs 2010

$949 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid



total medicare/ medicaid fraud 2010

$65 Billion (6.8%)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-5414390.html

http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=72



total Net US Government Bailout Outlays (after repayments) plus guarantees

$20,200 Billion (3607%) - but who's counting?

http://www.usfederalbailout.com/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"It's not all that difficult to figure out, based on what I posted above. Since you can't, or won't, not much point in explaining to you."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"If estimated fraud is around 7% of current payments ..."

Well see, this is where your failure to read comes into play - AGAIN.

The somewhat under 7% figure (6.8% specifically) was fraud and waste COMBINED. There were no separate figures for fraud. So fraud per se in under 6.8%.

---

Quote:

---

And this <6.8% figure is what you call "QUITE A BIT of fraud in the current Medicare and Medicaid system.."

---

Quote:

---

... which you then blame on "folks" being tempted, though a quick google search indicates that nearly all the fraud is carried out at the business level - by the doctor, group practice, treatment/ outpatient surgery center, diagnostic center, imaging center, pharmacy, medical supply center, and hospital. This is information easily available to you by googling Medicare fraud and Medicaid fraud, which you could have looked up on your own to se if your own case was true - but didn't.

---

Quote:

---

The other way to look at is is in comparison to other government "fraud" - government literally giving money away for nothing in return - not even a good or service being paid for on behalf of the citizens. Like the bailouts. The government spent in total outlays $4,600 billions dollars. After repayments it's *still* $3,300 billions of dollars in the hole. Five years later 72% of the money the government gave to the banks has yet to be repaid - and banks made record profits last year. On top of that the government essentially co-signed loans to the banks to the tune of $16,900 billion. It's not out of pocket YET but it's liable to be at any time.

---

Quote:

---

But even if we were to compare ONLY out of pocket losses, the government is out less than $65 billion to Medicare and Medicaid fraud. Compared to that, it took a $3,300 billion beating with the bailouts.

Aren't you outraged at that large number? Or do you shrug it off on your way to carping about what is comparatively petty?

---

Quote:

---

The third way to look at Medicare/ Medicaid waste and fraud is to compare it to private insurance. Now THAT'S a fun comparison!

In addition to the 6.8% fraud and waste combined, Medicare and Medicaid have about a 1.3% overhead. http://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf That brings the total 'medical loss ratio' MLR to about 8%.

What about private insurance? Those numbers are hard to come by. But one of the few good things about Obamacare is that it requires a minimum of 85% of the premiums cover actual patient care. In other words it sets a maximum MLR of 15%.

That's almost double the badness of Medicare and Medicaid. You should be outraged - OUTRAGED! - that private companies are so non-competitive, and wasteful and for all we know - fraudulent. Yet I see no outrage from you that they're twice as bad as that big, wasteful, do nothing government.


So yeah you silly old man, your lack of brain power, your extreme bias, and your basic dishonesty are showing. Again. As well as your inability to read.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
ONE

"The National Healthcare Anti-fraud Association (NHCAA) cites an average of 3 percent (at the low end) and 10 percent (at the high end) of healthcare spending is lost due to fraud. That’s between $67 Billion and $230 Billion lost each year to FRAUD, ***WASTE*** OR ABUSE."

---

Quote:

---

Those all fall under the rubric of IMPROPER PAYMENTS...

---

Quote:

---

color=#0000ff>TWO

"So since both your cites don't mention "waste" ..."

See above.

---

Quote:

---

THREE

It wasn't "folks" within these organizations that decided to defraud Medicare/Medicaid?

It was folks - and especially groups of business folks - who got together to make this a business practice.

---

Quote:

---

FOUR

"So where are your figures on how much of the bailout money went to fraud? "

So you're not concerned about government losing taxpayer money by whatever term?

---

Quote:

---

FIVE

"Can you show that increases in Medicare/Medicaid payments due to ACA will not result in an increase in the amount of money paid to meet fraudulent claims? I proposed that it will ..."

Actually you claimed more than that. You claimed it was QUITE A LOT of FRAUD. What is 'quite a lot'? What is your yardstick?

---

Quote:

---

Is it a yardstick you apply across the board; say to bailout losses or private insurance waste; fraud, profit, salaries benefits, perks; or one you only specifically apply to this instance?

---

Quote:

---

Does it matter how it's lost before you become concerned with how big the number is?

---

Quote:

---

And is it a percentage or an actual number?

---

Quote:

---

And how reliable is your 'fraud' definition? Because the way it's defined - and therefore calculated - and the way you use it, your category is NOT reliable at all (see above).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Hmm ... have I mentioned before that there are NO figures for fraud specifically? Well, yes come to think of it, right here: "There were no separate figures for fraud. So fraud per se in under 6.8%."

Now why did I mention that earlier? Because I looked it up. ALL contractors who monitor Medicare and Medicaid ONLY monitor for 'improper payments' as per this report http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10844t.pdf&a
mp;sa=U&ei=i6arUaXoH43aigL6p4G4Cg&ved=0CD4QFjAI&usg=AFQjCNESk3eEWSXF1L7y-MDDxkWg0uMyRg Even the GAO notes it when it comes to Medicare http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/125646.pdf&a
mp;sa=U&ei=cayrUc2NCsLtiwLpyYHgBA&ved=0CBgQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGFRjkdO8vZnzylCwpchAVqaGNQlQ And that since there are NO figures for fraud specifically, singling out one subcategory out of 'improper payments' and then calling the entire 'improper payments' category fraud is - well, fraud. That's why I specifically said it was LESS THAN the 6.8% total figure. How much less?? Anyone’s guess, but less. So to hang your argument on a figure which is bogus is rather silly - don't you think?

I think most people would agree.

And any 'numbers' argument you make based on a bad number is also faulty.

So, the contractors that monitor Medicare 'improper payments' don't monitor for fraud and provide no fraud figures. The GAO also notes that reality. A website WITH AN AX TO GRIND either fails to read, misreads, or misrepresents a report which in its very second line mentions 'waste' and considers ALL 'improper payments' to be fraud (even underpayments apparently). And you are really flogging that dead horse very, very hard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"estimated losses"

Nope.

---

Quote:

---

Improper payments. Improper payments are:

* federal funds go to the wrong recipient,

* the recipient receives the incorrect amount of funds (either an underpayment or overpayment),

* documentation is not available to support a payment, or

* the recipient uses federal funds in an improper manner

Please note: improper payments include overpayments, payments where the paperwork got lost, UNDERPAYMENTS and other miscellaneous irregularities and ERRORS.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yes, I see you failed to support your post. And I see you failed to read and/ or understand my links. Now I realize you're an old fart, and you need better glasses and your mind is kinda' shot, but if you take it one word at a time you might get through it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Ahem

I realize you're old and senile, but - to refresh your memory - your point by which you opened this whole discussion was this:

"So apparently both you and KIKI are proud to not know that there is quite a bit of fraud in the current Medicare and Medicaid system..."


You have failed to show how MUCH of the total "improper payments" are specifically fraud, despite having attached the label 'fraud' to descriptors (quite a bit) and various numbers.

You made the claim, and have failed to back it up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
You failed to prove your point. It was a stupid point, b/c it wasn't supported by facts. Nevertheless you picked it, and posted it. And then you abandoned it when I challenged it with facts. Now want to pretend like you didn't make that point, and shift the argument to some other point you didn't make.

But that's OK. You look silly doing it. So I'll keep posting just enough to keep you coming back.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
This was your argument:

... there is quite a bit of fraud in the current Medicare and Medicaid system ... the ACA will greatly expand Medicaid ... more money available in the Medicaid coffers will be temptation to folks who will commit fraud ... there'll probably be more when the ACA is implemented.

You failed to define 'quite a bit' by percentage of money spent, absolute dollar amount, fraction of GDP, or any any measure. When challenged to define 'quite a bit' you sailed past tens of trillions of government funds lost on bank bailouts, but stuck on a few billions of potential fraud.

---

Quote:

---

You failed to show indisputable figures for fraud, since different sources ascribe different categories to the same dollar amounts.

---

Quote:

---

You failed to show that Medicaid will operate in substantially the same way it has in the past, leading to your predicted result.

---

Quote:

---

You failed to correctly designate the vast percentage of fraud to 'businesses' instead of 'folks'. Unless of course you want to go the Mitt Romney route and claim corporations are people, er, businesses are folks, an argument which doesn't hold water.

---

Quote:

---

You simply haven't made any of your case. Which is why I like to laugh at you.

---