Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 331   Go Down

Author Topic: Trump II  (Read 918329 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1100 on: March 07, 2017, 04:33:48 pm »

...I don't think this is "waiting for a better business environment" but rather waiting until the tax laws are changed to encouraged repatriation of those funds...

Well, changing tax laws is a part of the better business environment, isn't it?

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1101 on: March 07, 2017, 04:38:40 pm »

Really? ...

Really.

Citing struggling brick-and-mortar retailers, caving in to online sales, doesn't change the argument. An economy of the US size is a huge organism, with parts withering away and new ones being created simultaneously. It doesn't change the fact that, overall, companies have had record profits and record cash reserves during Obama years and decided to wait and see.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2017, 05:27:28 pm by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1102 on: March 07, 2017, 04:49:10 pm »

How is changing Obamacare going to take the pressure off of business.  All large firms offer plans to employees who don't care about Obamacare.  You saw what happened when the Republicans talked about eliminated the corporate tax deduction for employee provided health insurance (the only real way they could pay for their changes).  The had to pull back in a hurry.  Regarding regulation, it's really not anything at the national level that is holding things back but at the state and local levels.  Any new building permits and plans are done at that level and are relatively unaffected by Federal regulations (there could be EPA discharge permits for air and water that would have to be followed but those are probably good things unless you want dirty water, particulates in the air, or smog causing emissions floating around).

Obamacare effects smaller firms with 50 employees or more where the insurance mandate or penalty kicks in.  Many companies deliberately stay at 49 employees or less to avoid the penalty.  This puts a crimp on business.  The problems with Obamacare collapsing in many states sows confusion in larger companies.  Health insurance companies like Aetna have stopped providing insurance totally because of the problems with Obamacare.  This aggravates issues with smaller companies who should be spending their time doing real business.  A company appreciates a stable business environment. 

Regarding regulations, while it is true that many of these are state and local, there are still many that are federal.  EPA, FDA, etc delay the start and expansion of many businesses.  With law suits using these regulations to create unwarranted delays, it can take years to get a business started.  Look, everyone is in favor of clean air and water.  But people have to have jobs.  After all, eating is important too.  Many regulations are just too burdensome and could be streamlined to make them more balanced. 

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1103 on: March 07, 2017, 05:22:02 pm »

Health insurance companies like Aetna have stopped providing insurance totally because of the problems with Obamacare.

Yeah, ya know...you might want to catch up. That's what Aetna said last year but they lied (not an unusual event these days.

Aetna Health Insurance Lied About the ACA and Triggers Anti-Trust Claim

Quote
Aetna said that they withdrew because the plans they offered under the ACA were not making them money.  The government argued that they did it as part of strong arm tactic.  They said that Aetna, knowing the impact it would on public perception of the ACA, threatened to leave the program if the merger wasn’t approved

There was a fair bit of evidence that many of the ACA programs were, in fact, making Aetna quite a bit of money.  However, the government struggled to produce evidence showing Aetna’s actual motivations in leaving the ACA programs.  That is, they were having trouble, until they produced an email from Aetna’s Chief Executive to the Department of Justice itself specifically stating that their participation in the ACA hinged on them being allowed to merge with Humana.  From there, they went on to produce conversations with Aetna officers where they heavily suggested, and one time outright stated, that if they weren’t happy with the merger results the government wouldn’t be happy with their involvement in the ACA.  They even found emails where, after a series of emails explaining that the withdrawal was to strengthen their position in their upcoming anti-trust lawsuit, Aetna executives actively mentioned they were trying to avoid leaving a paper trail indicating the reason they withdrew from the ACA and making efforts to shield any such evidence from being produced in a lawsuit.

A few weeks ago, in a 156 page monster of a ruling, the court finally agreed with the government and part of that ruling was based on the fact that Aetna had misled the public–and attempted to mislead the court–as to the motivations behind leaving the ACA program.

Typical lies in this alternative fact environment...seems so many people who thought they hated the ACA hated it because of lies and misunderstandings.

The House's plan doesn't even need Democrats to criticize it, the GOP Senate is doing a fine job eviscerating it all by themselves...

So, you see Alan, in this day and age, ya might wanna be REAL careful believing what you THINK you believe if your opinions are based on lies. And as a Trump supported, the lies will just keep coming at ya...until you say ENOUGH!
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1104 on: March 07, 2017, 05:39:13 pm »

Profits brought back from overseas will be taxed reducing government debt and deficits, always a good thing.  Some of it will be used for investments by the corporations who own the profits.  Even the money used for stock buybacks go to the stock sellers who will have money they can put back into the economy with purchases of goods, services,  stocks, bonds, real estate and other business investments.
If it's anything like 2002 they were brought back at a much reduced rate compared to the nominal corporate tax rate.  The analysis done post 2002 is very little was reinvested.  Yes, money that goes into stock repurchasing does benefit the investor class but you don't get nearly the multiplier effect that would be achieved by reinvesting in the business.   Very little of it trickles down to the the working class.  Most companies that engage in stock repurchases also are well known for laying off portions of the work force because of a lack of reinvestment. 
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1105 on: March 07, 2017, 05:40:01 pm »

Well, changing tax laws is a part of the better business environment, isn't it?
If it is done right, absolutely.
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1106 on: March 07, 2017, 05:48:26 pm »

Health insurance companies like Aetna have stopped providing insurance totally because of the problems with Obamacare.  This aggravates issues with smaller companies who should be spending their time doing real business.  A company appreciates a stable business environment. 
My daughter had an Aetna policy when she lived in Philadelphia.  Aetna was exiting the individual policy market even before Obamacare was enacted.  They stopped offering individual policies in California in 2013 which is where my daughter moved to.

Quote
Regarding regulations, while it is true that many of these are state and local, there are still many that are federal.  EPA, FDA, etc delay the start and expansion of many businesses.  With law suits using these regulations to create unwarranted delays, it can take years to get a business started.  Look, everyone is in favor of clean air and water.  But people have to have jobs.  After all, eating is important too.  Many regulations are just too burdensome and could be streamlined to make them more balanced.
Pretty sure you don't mean FDA as I don't know what regulations they enforce other than those dealing with product quality.  almost all lawsuits are local in nature and fall into the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) category.  Real estate developers are constantly facing these lawsuits and have pushed for more communities to use eminent domain to counter such lawsuits.  When I was called for jury duty several years ago they noted that 3/4 of the trials concerned real estate or building issues.  I stand by my statement that local permitting issues are the biggest issue that is faced.
Logged

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2035
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1107 on: March 07, 2017, 05:53:11 pm »

The House's plan doesn't even need Democrats to criticize it, the GOP Senate is doing a fine job eviscerating it all by themselves...

Actually, it's not clear it can even pass the House of Representatives.  Between the conservative Republicans who oppose the proposal on ideological grounds and the moderate ones who are concerned that it will deprive their constituents of benefits they depend on, the House leadership may not be able to command a majority in favor of this bill.

If by some chance it does make it through the House, Rand Paul (libertarian-conservative) has already predicted—probably accurately—that it will be "dead on arrival" in the Senate.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2017, 07:07:42 pm by Chris Kern »
Logged

enduser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 610
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1108 on: March 07, 2017, 07:53:07 pm »

Approximate cover for medical cover in Australia is for an average salary of AU$76,000 about $1,400 per year. (It's called Medicare)  It covers doctor and hospital costs.
You can insure privately, (this doesn't cancel your Medicare) for about the same as in the USA.
I'll never forget my brother-in-law's surprise when he had some hospital treatment and asked how to pay. (He's a US citizen).  They said just show us your wife's Medicare card - that was it.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1109 on: March 07, 2017, 11:15:09 pm »

Yeah, ya know...you might want to catch up. That's what Aetna said last year but they lied (not an unusual event these days.

Aetna Health Insurance Lied About the ACA and Triggers Anti-Trust Claim

Typical lies in this alternative fact environment...seems so many people who thought they hated the ACA hated it because of lies and misunderstandings.

The House's plan doesn't even need Democrats to criticize it, the GOP Senate is doing a fine job eviscerating it all by themselves...

So, you see Alan, in this day and age, ya might wanna be REAL careful believing what you THINK you believe if your opinions are based on lies. And as a Trump supported, the lies will just keep coming at ya...until you say ENOUGH!

You're right about Aetna.  I pulled their name out of memory and wasn't aware of the recent history.  But you didn't quote my main point that the Obamacare is creating big problems in getting insurance and the 50 employee rule is effecting many businesses stopping their growth.  I just Googled the issue and this popped up.  It shows how 17 insurance coops have failed.  The structure of Obamacare is failing.   So something has to be done.   http://www.atr.org/new-jersey-obamacare-co-op-becomes-17th-collapse-1

However, I really believe that the Republicans who want to replace it are barking up the wrong tree.  So in that sense I agree with you.  I don't see how they can change Obamacare fundamentally.  Basically the government has to eventually pay for a lot of health care if they want everyone covered as Trump has promised.    It will be done with credits instead of grants or whatever.   A distinction without a difference.  I think Obama won 7 years ago.  He established health care for all and that won't be rejected.  The methods used will just play around the edges.   Obamacare Lite some call it.    Unfortunately, without a real competitive situation and the government paying for so much of it directly or with tax credits, the costs will keep going up. 

A related story.  I just made an appointment for an annual physical.  I'm on Medicare.  Prior to the doctor's appointment, he mailed me a two page questionnaire that asked questions like Do you think about death?  How do you feel about your health?  How is sex working for you?  All kinds of social and psychological questions, mainly with a few real medical stuff thrown in.  I thought it strange and I really couldn't care about telling him this info but I did and sent the form back, less the question about sex.  None of his business.   Usually, they ask questions regarding past operations and medication you take.  Then it hit me.  Medicare I believe pays doctors for going over these things with their patients.  So now doctors have an easy way to pick up extra money with the cost of a postage stamp and form.  Another doctor rip-off thanks to the government.  If I was buying insurance, I wouldn't pay for this kind of stuff in my coverage.  So when you have the government involved, all sorts of stupid costs are added.  Another government boondoggle. 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1110 on: March 07, 2017, 11:19:59 pm »

If it's anything like 2002 they were brought back at a much reduced rate compared to the nominal corporate tax rate.  The analysis done post 2002 is very little was reinvested.  Yes, money that goes into stock repurchasing does benefit the investor class but you don't get nearly the multiplier effect that would be achieved by reinvesting in the business.   Very little of it trickles down to the the working class.  Most companies that engage in stock repurchases also are well known for laying off portions of the work force because of a lack of reinvestment. 

Regardless, if a trillion dollars comes home, that's a trilling dollars that will end up in the economy unless the corporations are sticking it under their pillows.  Better than leaving it overseas to be invested there and creating foreign jobs,  isn't it? 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1111 on: March 07, 2017, 11:41:29 pm »

...  I stand by my statement that local permitting issues are the biggest issue that is faced.

Federal regulations cost America 2 trillion dollars in 2012.  For comparison our GDP for 2012 is around 16 trillion. http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/Federal-Regulation-Executive-Summary.pdf

Could you find a link for state and local regulation costs so we can see what it is for comparisons? 

Regarding codes, NYC recently re-wrote their building codes to streamline them and get rid of many archaic rules that cost a lot but did little to improve safety or construction.  Private as well as government saved a lot of money. (Government has to follow the same codes when building as private and the city had to cut costs.)  They still have stupid and costly rules that serve no purpose.  I once installed a small 1/4 horsepower exhaust fan in a window that we bought for around $150.  Code requires that  the manufacturer's name and model number be on the engineer's plans that were already filed with the Dept of Building's.  So we had to re-hire the engineer at around $700 to update his plans that showed the fan at 1/4 hp but with out the model info.  You don't know that at the time of design. Putting that additional info on the plans serves no real purpose.  So $750 was spent for no purpose.  That doesn't even include the costs for soft labor of arranging an inspection to show the plans match the installation fan nameplate.  We're taking about a tiny fan like you would install in your window.  It's these kind of regulations that that should be expunge fro local and federal rules.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1112 on: March 07, 2017, 11:49:15 pm »

Approximate cover for medical cover in Australia is for an average salary of AU$76,000 about $1,400 per year. (It's called Medicare)  It covers doctor and hospital costs.
You can insure privately, (this doesn't cancel your Medicare) for about the same as in the USA.
I'll never forget my brother-in-law's surprise when he had some hospital treatment and asked how to pay. (He's a US citizen).  They said just show us your wife's Medicare card - that was it.
How much additional over the $1400 that you pay is in hidden taxes, VAT, sales taxes, income taxes etc that goes for medical care?  What are the actual costs for medical care?  Cover isn't costs.  This reminds me when European photographers report here how a Nikon camera that costs $1000 in B & H in NYC costs $1400 in Europe due to VAT and import duties.  Then they tell us how they have free health costs, unlike America.  Where do you think the extra $400 is going? 
« Last Edit: March 07, 2017, 11:53:13 pm by Alan Klein »
Logged

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 952
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1113 on: March 08, 2017, 12:56:25 am »

How much additional over the $1400 that you pay is in hidden taxes, VAT, sales taxes, income taxes etc that goes for medical care?  What are the actual costs for medical care?  Cover isn't costs.  This reminds me when European photographers report here how a Nikon camera that costs $1000 in B & H in NYC costs $1400 in Europe due to VAT and import duties.  Then they tell us how they have free health costs, unlike America.  Where do you think the extra $400 is going?

We do have high income taxes and VAT, but (practically) free medical care and education. During the past 6 years I have had two hernia operations and two hip joint replacements, total cost to me about 800€. I have put 3 kids through college (dentist, music teacher, registered nurse) and 3 more are still studying (2 engineers and one engineer/medical student) which has so far cost me, or them, 0€ in tuition fees. They have even spent a total of 4 years in student exchange in Poland, Italy and Belgium. How much would all this have cost us in the States?

I never complain about taxes. Life here is practically stress free.
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1114 on: March 08, 2017, 01:08:03 am »

How much additional over the $1400 that you pay is in hidden taxes, VAT, sales taxes, income taxes etc that goes for medical care?  What are the actual costs for medical care?  Cover isn't costs.  This reminds me when European photographers report here how a Nikon camera that costs $1000 in B & H in NYC costs $1400 in Europe due to VAT and import duties.  Then they tell us how they have free health costs, unlike America.  Where do you think the extra $400 is going?

In Australia, Medicare (government universal healthcare) is funded by a 1.5% income tax levy (so you only pay it if you have a taxable income and it's a flat 1.5% of that taxable income) so it's roughly $1,200 p.a. for the average wage.

As for taxes, as individuals, we basically have income tax, GST (a VAT) at 10%, and stamp duty on property purchases.  Stamp duty is state, the other two are federal. 
Logged
Phil Brown

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1115 on: March 08, 2017, 06:54:57 am »

And more things are developing, although so far no formal White House decision is made, yet...

Watchdog to ask U.S. lawmakers to probe Icahn's role with Trump:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biofuels-icahn-idUSKBN16F0GR

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5024
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1116 on: March 08, 2017, 09:28:22 am »

Federal regulations cost America 2 trillion dollars in 2012.  For comparison our GDP for 2012 is around 16 trillion. http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/Federal-Regulation-Executive-Summary.pdf

Could you find a link for state and local regulation costs so we can see what it is for comparisons? 

Regarding codes, NYC recently re-wrote their building codes to streamline them and get rid of many archaic rules that cost a lot but did little to improve safety or construction.  Private as well as government saved a lot of money. (Government has to follow the same codes when building as private and the city had to cut costs.)  They still have stupid and costly rules that serve no purpose.  I once installed a small 1/4 horsepower exhaust fan in a window that we bought for around $150.  Code requires that  the manufacturer's name and model number be on the engineer's plans that were already filed with the Dept of Building's.  So we had to re-hire the engineer at around $700 to update his plans that showed the fan at 1/4 hp but with out the model info.  You don't know that at the time of design. Putting that additional info on the plans serves no real purpose.  So $750 was spent for no purpose.  That doesn't even include the costs for soft labor of arranging an inspection to show the plans match the installation fan nameplate.  We're taking about a tiny fan like you would install in your window.  It's these kind of regulations that that should be expunge fro local and federal rules.

I work a lot with architects and they always complain about codes and regulations being too damn burdensome.  I could call every single client of mine today and ask if they had a project fall through because of the regulations in the past year, and every single one would say yes go off on a tangent about it. 

Some of them make sense, but many do not. 

A great example was a client of mine designed a multi-family residential project.  Any multi-family with 4 or more units must be ADA compliant.  One regulation in the ADA is that the top of all water heaters can be no more then 48 inches off the ground.  They drew the plans based on the current specs of the product, however it takes time to get a project going.  The following year, when they ordered the heaters, the manufacture increased the height of the heaters by 1/2 inch.  They got hit with an ADA non-compliance over a half inch and had to fix it.  Fixing it not only meant fixing it on site, but in the plans too; you know how many pages a building plan is for a new construction project?  At least a hundred, with separate plans for all the subs.  All of those had to be adjusted.

Another client of mine had a really nice office building renovation project with a budget of about $450K.  The building was an old two story building with no elevator but built before the ADA.  ADA regs now state that all public and work buildings need an elevator.  The cost of installing an elevator in this building was $150K, then you through in the yearly maintenance and inspection fees and not to mention the amount of usable space lost.  The project died before anything was even drawn.

I remember a few years ago PA was going to make it law that all new single family residential projects (so any house) needed to have a sprinkler system.  Eventually PA realized how stupid this was and how much it would slow down single family construction they decided not to pass the bill, but only after probably half of the architects licensed in the state called Harrisburg. 

I could go on and on with how regulations killed jobs, and if you ever sit down with an architect, just ask them.  I guarantee the conversation won't be short. 

So to say regulations don't kill projects is ludicrous. 
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 10:53:23 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5024
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1117 on: March 08, 2017, 09:36:39 am »

On another note, I love how CNN is now covering Wikileaks agains, but, from about July to November of last year, it was not a credible news source. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

bassman51

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1118 on: March 08, 2017, 10:49:32 am »

If you haven't heard about #TheIdesOfTrump, you can read about it here:

https://thebassmanblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/08/the-ides-of-trump/

Briefly, it's a letter and postcard writing campaign for next week. 
Logged
Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1119 on: March 08, 2017, 10:49:47 am »

You're right about Aetna.  I pulled their name out of memory and wasn't aware of the recent history.  But you didn't quote my main point that the Obamacare is creating big problems in getting insurance and the 50 employee rule is effecting many businesses stopping their growth.  I just Googled the issue and this popped up.  It shows how 17 insurance coops have failed.  The structure of Obamacare is failing.   So something has to be done.   http://www.atr.org/new-jersey-obamacare-co-op-becomes-17th-collapse-1
The Co-ops were under capitalized and claims outran premiums.  Not any more complicated than that.  I'm not sure that the structure is failing.  the states that took the Medicaid expansion money have done well.  Kentucky, Alaska, Colorado, and Ohio all have Republican governors (the Kentucky expansion was initially done under a Democrat) and they told President Trump that things were working in their state.  The states that didn't take the money are where most of the problems are.  I was not a big fan of Obamacare when it was passed.  I was still working in the pharmaceutical industry at the time and saw that it was basically put together as a kludge to be able to deliver insurance.  It was probably the only thing that was feasible at the time given the Republicans didn't want to participate. 

Quote
However, I really believe that the Republicans who want to replace it are barking up the wrong tree.  So in that sense I agree with you.  I don't see how they can change Obamacare fundamentally.  Basically the government has to eventually pay for a lot of health care if they want everyone covered as Trump has promised.    It will be done with credits instead of grants or whatever.   A distinction without a difference.  I think Obama won 7 years ago.  He established health care for all and that won't be rejected.  The methods used will just play around the edges.   Obamacare Lite some call it.    Unfortunately, without a real competitive situation and the government paying for so much of it directly or with tax credits, the costs will keep going up. 
costs have to be controlled.  This can be either done by the government (the way they do it with Medicare and Medicaid) or it can be done through negotiation by the insurance carriers (establishing physician networks and getting discounts for services and drugs).  to think that individuals can do this on their own is laughable as there is no transparency on pricing or quality of care/service.  It's not like buying a car using Internet pricing discounts.

Quote
A related story.  I just made an appointment for an annual physical.  I'm on Medicare.  Prior to the doctor's appointment, he mailed me a two page questionnaire that asked questions like Do you think about death?  How do you feel about your health?  How is sex working for you?  All kinds of social and psychological questions, mainly with a few real medical stuff thrown in.  I thought it strange and I really couldn't care about telling him this info but I did and sent the form back, less the question about sex.  None of his business.   Usually, they ask questions regarding past operations and medication you take.  Then it hit me.  Medicare I believe pays doctors for going over these things with their patients.  So now doctors have an easy way to pick up extra money with the cost of a postage stamp and form.  Another doctor rip-off thanks to the government.  If I was buying insurance, I wouldn't pay for this kind of stuff in my coverage.  So when you have the government involved, all sorts of stupid costs are added.  Another government boondoggle.
I've been on Medicare for four years and never encountered that.  there are some quality metrics that were put into Medicare to improve quality of care but this does sound rather strange.  I wouldn't call the effort a boondoggle as one of the most difficult things to do is assess quality of care.  A lot of years ago I attended one of the Jackson Hole meeting that were convened by Dr. Paul Ellwood, one of the very early champions of managed care.  His big thing was trying to figure out how to assess quality and maximize health outcomes.  Unfortunately, this is really an area that is not funded very well.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 331   Go Up