tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post3339431890076816671..comments2024-03-17T08:07:12.695-05:00Comments on Between The Lines: Lawsuit compels more state exit of managing benefitsJeff Sadowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972004592729833310noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-67581858757629076902012-01-24T09:34:38.115-06:002012-01-24T09:34:38.115-06:00Seems that the second commenter, who may very well...Seems that the second commenter, who may very well be the first, has a problem with reading comprehension.<br /><br />The first comment based its entire argument in criticizing the notion of partial privatization by casting aspersions on the report, accusing the Jindal Administration of manipulating through payment its results. It addressed none of the facts, all part of the public record, contained in the report. I pointed out this attempt to shoot the messenger, noting that this often is a common trick to avoid the actual merits of the argument. And any discussion of presumed Administrative motive therefore is moot. It does not matter because the numbers show as does the experience of other states, regardless of any putative motive, that the "outsource" solution (which already works with the HMO and other plans) works better.<br /><br />And, tellingly, this comment just as the previous one refuses to engage the debate on the issues and the data. All the facts I posed remain, unrebutted. Address those facts, try to explain them away -- or stand as another example of an opponent who cannot support his argument against the reform and must resort to name-calling and accusations of bad faith.Jeff Sadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03972004592729833310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-23285327012849436722012-01-24T08:49:58.965-06:002012-01-24T08:49:58.965-06:00So you accuse the commentor of "impugn[ing] t...So you accuse the commentor of "impugn[ing] the messenger".<br /><br />Then you proceed to refer to the commentor as "prejudicial" and "close-minded." Are these designations you always use for people who might deign to disagree with you.<br /><br />Later you accuse the commentor of being a "person who has an agenda". Your judgment that some might find an effort to belittle the messenger.<br /><br />But you would not do that, would you?<br /><br />And, to top it all off, you did not even attempt to address the suggestion that perhaps there is an effort to outsource matters that this administration cannot (or does not want to) manage.<br /><br />Used a little misdirection, perhaps, by trying to impugn the commentor.<br /><br />Next we see that now they want to outsource education to private schools. Wonder why, after four years in office.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-26829753492254826162012-01-23T11:22:49.434-06:002012-01-23T11:22:49.434-06:00This previous comment is the perfect example of th...This previous comment is the perfect example of the prejudicial, closed-minded approach some defenders of the current system have. They cannot dispute the facts that show their policy preference is inferior, so they try to impugn the messenger.<br /><br />I assume what's being brought up here was the study. That was done by an organization independent of DOA, although paid for by DOA. The maximum $217 million estimate one-time revenue is a matter of judgment. But most of the figures in the report, clearly something the commenter has not read, are not judgment but a matter of public record. LA does employ about 150 people in OGB dealing with benefits, compared to much smaller staffs in other states. It does spend millions more a year doing this than other states. It does cost almost 3 times more per PPO member as opposed to the other plans to administer them. And so on and so forth. These are indisputable, yet naturally the commenter avoids any reference to them. Which leads one to believe this person has an agenda to favor certain interests that are incompatible with the best interest of ratepayers and taxpayers in LA.Jeff Sadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03972004592729833310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-68821916058508117782012-01-23T08:25:12.170-06:002012-01-23T08:25:12.170-06:00Again, beyond incredible!!!!!
Mismanagement is a ...Again, beyond incredible!!!!!<br /><br />Mismanagement is a reason to outsource it!!!!<br /><br />How about getting rid of those who are mismanaging (and their bosses, the Commissioner of Administration and his boss, the Governor)?????<br /><br />The "analysis" you speak of was bought and paid for, by whom? The ones doing the mismanaging; surprise, surprise.<br /><br />Let's see: we really can't run this thing like it should be (or we don't want to), so let's sell it and tell everyone what a good deal that is. We'll even pay some so-called expert to give us a report that says its a good deal.<br /><br />Now, that is really governing!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com