[ETWolverine]

You don't get it Elliot, tax doesn't drive the business, that's the second rule of business, the first rule is get as much as you can. so long as tax isn't 100% you are ahead. Look at the stupid ideas you have where employers pay for health care, that can't be good for business, just government abdicating their responsibility. Employers will only add to the payroll if it produces more profit and to do that you have to produce more sales which is determined by the market not the government. For heaven sake put you head in an economics text book for a change. What is needed is to remove all the barriers to employment not just lower taxes

Really?

Can you name a single business in the United States that isn't affected by tax policy?

Can you name a single business that hires MORE people when taxes go up?

Of course businesses are out to make as much as they can for themselves. But they do so by PRODUCING AND SELLING PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. The more product they can sell, the more that they need to produce. The lower the taxes, the more that they can sell, and the more people they hire to produce.

This is simple supply-and-demand economics. The more money people have in their pockets, the more stuff they buy, thus increasing demand. The more the demand, the more that suppliers have the produce to meet the demand. The more they have to produce, the more people they need to hire to meet production demands. The more people they hire, the more people that can afford to buy more stuff... which increases demand all the more. The more that people and businesses earn, the more the government takes in taxes... even when rates are lower, the government ends up making more.

To say that tax policy doesn't drive businesses is foolish. You are quite correct that it won't drive a single business... but tax policy drives the ECONOMY AS A WHOLE, and that economic movement drives individual businesses.

Elliot

[phlanx]

Extract from bbc blog - today Monday

Do we need a new name for the kind of economy we live in today? I ask because it's becoming a bit of an issue.

20th anniversary celebrations of the fall of the Berlin WallWe started the week celebrating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was, everyone agreed, ironic to be marking the fall of communism, when less than a year ago capitalism itself had seemed to be on its knees.

Capitalism has survived. But it's not the capitalism we thought we had. When you consider the scale and scope of government involvement in most of the advanced economies right now, "free market capitalism" seems a bit of a stretch.

Today we had confirmation that the eurozone economy had moved out of recession in the third quarter. But the public sector was almost entirely responsible for the modest growth that the major European countries have achieved since the spring.

The last 20 years were supposed to be about the end of the era of big government. And yet, public borrowing in the leading "free market" economies - Britain and the US - has never been as high as it is today, outside times of war.

You might see that as the statistical counterpart to the intellectual journey that economists have been forced to make as a result of the crisis, which I discussed on my radio programme last week (Analysis: The Economist's New Clothes).

Mainstream economists didn't assume that markets - or their participants - were perfect. But for decades they did assume, in effect, that they were good enough: that markets were competitive enough, and people were rational and well-informed enough, for market-led outcome usually to turn out best. Especially in matters of finance.

Now, it turns out that real-life financial markets were much, much, messier than they thought - and much much worse at self-regulation. The biggest short-term consequence of that mistake is that the government has suddenly become responsible for most of our economic growth.

In the US, economists agree that without the federal stimulus package, the US would still technically be in recession.

We're getting used to this post-crisis landscape. But don't forget to be surprised that decades of the "free market" have ended up here.

John Cassidy tells the story in How Markets Fail: the Logic of Economics Calamities. There have been plenty of books about the crisis landing on my desk in recent weeks, but Cassidy's is the only one I've seen that pulls together the what and the why quite so clearly. He covers some of the same ground as my programme, but in much more depth.

Adam SmithHe reminds us that Adam Smith himself was very sceptical about leaving the financial system to its own devices. So was another fan of free markets, John Stuart Mill.

As Cassidy comments:

"[T]he combination of a Fed that can print money, deposit insurance, and a Congress that can authorize bailouts provides an extensive safety net for big financial firms. In such an environment, pursuing a policy of easy money plus deregulation doesn't amount to free market economics: it's a form of crony capitalism."

The outcome, he says, it's not just unfair - it doesn't work.

John Lanchester, the London Review of Books' chronicler of the crisis, said recently that "bankocracy" might be a better name for the current system.

If you think that sounds inflammatory, remember that Mervyn King, Lord Turner and Martin Wolf of the FT have all made essentially the same point. Unless the rules of the game change fundamentally, it's not really capitalism that we have today. Especially not for banks.

Any other ideas for a new name?

[paraclete]

Really?

Can you name a single business in the United States that isn't affected by tax policy?

Can you name a single business that hires MORE people when taxes go up?

Elliot do you work at being obtruse? It is not a question of whether a business is subject to taxes, but whether they devote themselves to minimising taxes or growing the business. Tax affects the flow of cash to investors but unless you are in a down turn shouldn't affect the business persee, and the business should not devote itsself to managing the tax position to the exclusion of more important considerations

Of course businesses are out to make as much as they can for themselves. But they do so by PRODUCING AND SELLING PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. The more product they can sell, the more that they need to produce. The lower the taxes, the more that they can sell, and the more people they hire to produce.

Do you really believe that if there were no taxes there would be higher sales? I expect that is what comes of living in a consumption mad economy. The reality is that people buy stuff for a reason, not just because it is there, so if tax rates are adjusted you might get a small flush of demand but once demand is satisfied...

To say that tax policy doesn't drive businesses is foolish. You are quite correct that it won't drive a single business... but tax policy drives the ECONOMY AS A WHOLE, and that economic movement drives individual businesses.

Elliot

Yes tax policy drives the economy, it is one of the fiscal measures a government uses to modify demand. Sadly politicians have taken this tool away by capriciously lowering tax rates and limiting the way this tool can be used. Tax policy shouldn't drive business investment decisions but some governments have given incentives for business to invest in assets as part of their stimulus. This is what I mean by tax shouldn't drive the business. The decision to invest should be made for reasons other than there is a tax advantage. It should be made because there is a real need to help the company meet demand and compete.

You have mixed up the considerations of what will drive consumer demand with what impact tax policy will have on an individual business. Tax doesn't create business and neither does lack of tax. In my own economy I have seen politicians claim that implementation of the Goods and Service Tax created more than a million jobs when all it did was replace an inefficient tax system with a simpler and more efficient one. The only jobs it created were for accountants, it didn't create demand.

[inthebox]

Do you really believe that if there were no taxes there would be higher sales? I expect that is what comes of living in a consumption mad economy. The reality is that people buy stuff for a reason, not just because it is there, so if tax rates are adjusted you might get a small flush of demand but once demand is satisfied...

And most people buy something based on price and perceived value. Ideally, producers of goods and services would never have to worry about tax issues, but we do. First, I'm not going to produce something or give a service if there is no demand. Demand is in part created by price, the more expensive the less demand, the less expensive the more the demand. Price is affected by the cost to produce or give a service. If taxes increase the cost to produce or give a service, it will increase the price of that good and service and decrease demand.

I'm no ceo, but what business does not take tax into consideration, or only looks at the tax angle? What of management, production, marketing, financing? Tax is just one part of a whole host of factors to consider. If you ignore it though, you will not be in business, but you can bet your last dollar that your competitors are considering tax issues.

On the consumption side of the equation:
if there were no income tax, no sales tax, I would have 50% more money, and so would a lot of people. Hmmmmm what am I going to do with all that extra money? Consume, save, invest. And so would many others. This alone would increase sales.



G&P

[speechlesstx]

Yes tax policy drives the economy, it is one of the fiscal measures a government uses to modify demand. Sadly politicians have taken this tool away by capriciously lowering tax rates and limiting the way this tool can be used.

The unintended (or perhaps it is intended) consequence of government intervention is generally higher taxes AND higher prices. Drug companies are already raising prices on drugs ahead of Obamacare. Businesses will pass on any tax increase to the consumer, and when the cost of goods increases while our income decreases that leaves us in a huge mess... but it certainly "modifies demand."

[rosemcs]

As of July 1, 2009, Medi Cal (Denti Cal) does not cover dental work to be done on anyone over the age of 21... unless you want a tooth pulled or are pregnant. Have you seen how expensive dental work is? How will a lower paid citizen afford these bills now?

Hmm, oral hygiene is not even an issue for the current governor of CA... they don't have the $$$... and if the federal government doesn't have the $$$ to give CA right now, how will they get it later?

There is only one place for them to get the $$$ for healthcare. Our pockets.

[speechlesstx]

It begins - federal panel recommends reducing mammograms.

Women in their 40s should stop routinely having annual mammograms and older women should cut back to one scheduled exam every other year, an influential federal task force has concluded, challenging the use of one of the most common medical tests.

In its first reevaluation of breast cancer screening since 2002, the independent government-appointed panel recommended the changes, citing evidence that the potential harm to women having annual exams beginning at age 40 outweighs the benefit.

Coming amid a highly charged national debate over health-care reform and simmering suspicions about the possibility of rationing medical services, the recommendations immediately became enveloped in controversy.

"We're not saying women shouldn't get screened. Screening does saves lives," said Diana B. Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which released the recommendations Monday in a paper being published in Tuesday's Annals of Internal Medicine. "But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully."

Several patient advocacy groups and many breast cancer experts welcomed the new guidelines, saying they represent a growing recognition that more testing, exams and treatment are not always beneficial and, in fact, can harm patients. Mammograms produce false-positive results in about 10 percent of cases, causing anxiety and often prompting women to undergo unnecessary follow-up tests, sometimes-disfiguring biopsies and unneeded treatment, including surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.

But the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology and other experts condemned the change, saying the benefits of routine mammography have been clearly demonstrated and play a key role in reducing the number of mastectomies and the death toll from one of the most common cancers.

"Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and these idiots want to do away with it," said Daniel B. Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School. "It's crazy -- unethical, really."

The new guidelines also recommend against teaching women to do regular self-exams and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend that doctors do the exams or to continue routine mammograms beyond age 74...

While annual mammography for all women beginning at age 40 reduced the death rate from breast cancer by at least 15 percent, the modeling studies indicated that the added benefit of starting before age 50 was modest, the researchers concluded.

For every 1,000 women screened beginning at age 40, the modeling suggested that just about 0.7 deaths from breast cancer would be prevented, while about 470 additional women would receive a false-positive result and about 33 more would undergo unnecessary biopsies.

What? I thought we were going to save billions of dollars with preventive medicine under Obamacare, now they don't even want women to bother with self-exams? When a woman reaches 74 does her risk of breast cancer just disappear? Is your grandma or that one in a thousand woman under 50 not worth saving? How does health care 'modeling' work, is it anywhere near as accurate as climate change 'modeling?'

[excon]

It begins - federal panel recommends reducing mammograms....

now they don't even want women to bother with self-exams?

Hello again, Steve:

Hmmm.. I see now how you turned end of life counseling into death panels...

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Steve:

Hmmm.. I see now how you turned end of life counseling into death panels...

excon

No, what you are seeing is how the GOVERNMENT is going to turn life counseling into death panels. Speech just happens to be one of the guys pointing it out.

Keep in mind that these changes in mamograms were determined via computer modeling... brought to you by the same people who brought us computer modeling on global warming. With about the same level of accuracy. Which is to say NONE AT ALL.

So... we now have a health bill that talks about the government determining what procedures, therapies and medicines it will cover based on age, cost, and anything OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL NEEDS OF THE PATIENT.

We have evidence from foreign governments that THEY determine what they will cover based on age, cost and anything other than the actual needs of the patients, ei: NICE in the UK.

We have the words of the architects of the health care bill talking about limiting what the government will cover based on age, cost and anything other than the acutal needs of the patients.

And NOW we have the government actually putting out a study limiting mamograms based on age, cost and anything other than the actual needs of the patients.

In the face of this overwhelming evidence of what the government is doing and what it plans to do, how can anyone argue that these AREN'T DEATH PANELS?

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Hmmm.. I see now how you turned end of life counseling into death panels...

I can't help if it you can't see the logical result of Obamacare.

"The core problem with government-run health care is that it doesn't make decisions in the best interests of patients, but in the best interests of government."

[excon]

Hello again, Righty's:

The point I was trying to make is that words DO count. They actually convey a particular meaning. If I say black, and you say I said white, it wouldn't be correct.

When the report said that mammograms should be conducted every two years instead of one, it DIDN'T say that a woman shouldn't do self exams...

If somebody said that the report says that, they wouldn't be correct.

Now, if you want to MAKE UP what it says, that's cool. I'm used to that. But, you're going to get called on it.

excon

PS> Wouldn't you rather talk about politics instead of 9th grade English?

[speechlesstx]

The point I was trying to make is that words DO count. They actually convey a particular meaning. If I say black, and you say I said white, it wouldn't be correct.

You mean words like "comparative effectiveness," "overseas contingency operations," and the new euphemism for terrorism, “man-caused disasters?” When was the last time Congress passed an unambiguous bill? Thankfully you have us to read between the lines for you.

When the report said that mammograms should be conducted every two years instead of one, it DIDN'T say that a woman shouldn't do self exams...

If somebody said that the report says that, they wouldn't be correct.

"The new guidelines also recommend against teaching women to do regular self-exams "

You now stand corrected.

[ETWolverine]

And that, excon, is why you should try reading what we post. Yes, yes, I know it's so monotonous to have to read this stuff. But when the alternative is being wrong as often as you are...

[inthebox]

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/712473

This is a physician site so I'm not sure if you will see it but I will quote it

The new USPSTF recommendations are in opposition to other existing breast cancer screening guidelines from organizations such as the American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology, which have both criticized the new document. Several agencies and organizations, such as the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, have said they will continue to follow the American Cancer Society guidelines

The USPTF's primary criteria is cost effectiveness. ACS is an organization that specifically deals with cancer and the people with cancer. You can see why their recommendations vary.

Current evidence is now insufficient to evaluate additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination (CBE) for women aged at least 40 years. This recommendation is a change from the 2002 statement, which endorsed mammography screening, with or without CBE, annually or biennially for women 40 years or older.

Based on "insufficient evidence" they counter prior recommendations? When you think of it a breast self exam is 1] does not cost the patient or the taxpayor anything, so why rrecommend against it? 2] BSE may not be the most sensitive test for breast cancer but the fact that it empowers people to take an active role in their healthcare is a positive. Why discourage this?

Specific Recommendations

Specific recommendations of the USPSTF, and the accompanying strength of recommendations, were as follows:

The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. Based on patient context, including patient values concerning specific benefits and harms, individual decisions should be made regarding starting regular, biennial screening mammography before age 50 years (grade C recommendation).
Women aged 50 to 74 years should undergo biennial screening mammography (grade B recommendation).
Current evidence is insufficient to determine additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older (I statement).
In women 40 years or older, current evidence is insufficient to determine the additional benefits and harms of CBE beyond screening mammography (I statement).
The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women the technique of BSE (grade D recommendation).
Current evidence is insufficient to determine additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or MRI vs film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer (I statement).




. The reviewers found that for women aged 39 to 49 years, mammography screening was associated with a 15% decrease in breast cancer mortality rates(relative risk, 0.85; 95% credible interval, 0.75 - 0.96; 8 trials). However, data are lacking for women 70 years or older.

Radiation exposure from mammography is low, and adverse experiences are common but transient and do not alter screening practices. The estimated rate of overdiagnosis from screening ranges from 1% to 10%. Compared with older women, younger women have more false-positive mammography results and additional imaging but fewer biopsies

[inthebox]

{continued}

So despite acknowledging a 15% decrease in MORTALITY [ less death ] they recommend against it?

CDC - Breast Cancer Rates by Age

1.4% of women that are 40 will have breast cancer in the next 10 years


To put the numbers more succinctly :

Interpreting the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations for the General Population

U.S. Census data demonstrate that there were 22,327,592 women aged 40-49 years in the United States as of July 1, 2008. Based on Surveillance Epidemiology and Results Program (SEER) data, breast cancer deaths expected over 10 years were estimated at 204 deaths per 100,000 women aged 40-49 years (including both screen-detected and nonscreen-detected breast cancer). This 10-year death rate leads to an estimate of 45,492 deaths of U.S. women aged 40-49 years from breast cancer over 10 years. With a relative risk of 0.85 for breast cancer mortality for women in their 40s screened by mammography, an estimated 38,668 deaths would occur in a screened population over 10 years, approximately 6,800 fewer deaths than expected with the 10-year death rate. The fewer deaths expected with screening compared to the predicted deaths demonstrates the significant benefit of screening on mortality in this age group.

USPSTF is stating the "harm" caused by false positive [ positive test, no disease ] mamograms in this age group [ anxiety, repeat mamograms, biopsies ] is more than the DEATHS OF 6800 people? Remember men can get breast cancer also.


So there you have it a "death panel"


Notice how these recommendations are made, for or against, based on percentages and risks and odds. This applies to a population, statistically measured in the tens of thousands or more, but TO THE INDIVIDUAL the percentage is zero [ healthy ] or 100 % [ cancer ].





G&P

[speechlesstx]

Here is the list of task force members. Not one of them is listed as an oncologist.

[speechlesstx]

Check out the winning video for the Obama permanent campaign's ad for Obamacare.



By all means let's not try to get support on the merits, let's exploit children to dramatize fictional scenarios and win on emotion. Pathetic.

[speechlesstx]

As has become the norm (except for when it comes to actual public support for Obamacare itself), the Obama administration has backtracked and distanced itself from their panel's mammogram recommendations... but not before a gratuitous - and misdirected - attack on Fox News. Their "reality check" should have begun at the Washington Post, whose story is the one that generated the heat and the story I cited in this thread.

HHS Sec Sebelius stated that the panel does not "set federal policy and they don’t determine what services are covered by the federal government.“

WaPo disagreed, "under health-care reform legislation pending in Congress, the conclusions of the 16-member task force would set standards for what preventive services insurance plans would be required to cover at little or no cost.”

I agree with WaPo and believe it shows that this administration continues to waffle, obfuscate and otherwise betray the American public just to get their 'signature' policy agendas passed. In other words, they don't care about you. ANY health care reform should have the patient's best interest at heart first, no? What, beyond providing insurance coverage to a few million people is in Obamcare that demonstrates the patient is most important?

The argument for Obamacare seems to me to be it has to be done "just because." Nothing illustrates this better than the Rev. Jesse Jackson who criticized Rep. Artur Davis with, "you can't vote against health care and call yourself a black man."