From Newsbusters, we have President Obama’s words to the American Medical Association:
So let me begin by saying this: I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage – they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away.
But, well, the President didn’t mean it.
White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn’t about to barge in and force people to change insurance.
Yet.
Make no mistake: when the government starts “controlling costs,” it’s going to have to start controlling the options you have. You’ll either be unable to get private insurance (as Canada tried to do), or you’ll pay far more to keep it, or it will become so inconvenient that you will drop it.
But, seriously, folks. If Barack Obama makes statements that are false, shouldn’t the press warn the American people about it? Or is it acceptable to bury the revelation about the lie while you offer in-kind contributions to pass the lie along?
Cross-posted at Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels.
The press hold The One accountable (chuckle, snort)?!?! The same press that gets tingly feelings at his very presense? Yeah, that’ll happen – when elephants sprout wings and start flying ….
Sharon, your post is full of Republican talking points and straw man fallacies, speculating and then attacking the speculations. And then worst of all this: “White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn’t about to barge in and force people to change insurance.”
Did Obama say this? No! What WH source made this statement? Not given! You can’t make a credible argument based on this non-evidence.
You Repubs never, so far, talk about the healthcare crisis we face, nor, of course, do you offer any solutions.
Cassandra of DL has initiated an excellent discussion on this topic, including her links, from which you might profit knowledgewise, before you again address this topic with nothing more than meaningless right wing political rhetoric:
http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/06/21/comment-rescue-why-not-single-payer/
We have a very serious problem on our hands here, and you folks are doing nothing to help work on it, rather, you only obstruct! The party of No rises again!
This entire “health care” revamping discussion is based on an unexamined and foggy premise: that there is some mysterious extra-constitutional and political “we”, and that “we” have a “health care system” that must now be addressed by the Federal political system.
Apparently the totalizing kind have observed that some people have medical insurance, and that there have been developed various institutional arrangements in this regard.
Like any other institutional arrangement that is the product of civil society and the private market place, the totalizing (read totalitarian kind) cannot rest until they find a way to co-opt, appropriate, control, and centrally redistribute what they inevitably view as a “social product”.
When some of these private or quasi-private arrangements prove to be economically unsustainable (The auto companies and VEBA are a good example of this evolution) because of a defective design or unreasonable burdens, the left is ready to step in with its regular prescription for all such problems: deploying the corrective of coercive universalism.
Equity or “social justice” (as opposed to any principle based on the liberty to act or refrain from acting) is the conceptual moral lever they try to use to stifle political opposition. Solidarity pimping, as it is more adequately described.
And just as with “Social Security”, the only change these celebrators of change are willing to celebrate, is the one that further locks everyone within political reach into a program that politically underwrites the personal dysfunctions of the leftists and their human pets and political clients. A closed room. No exit.
Lefties: what an endlessly importunate lot, and a suffocating drag they are.
Who knew the Associated Press was a Republican think tank?
We have a very serious problem on our hands here, and you folks are doing nothing to help work on it, rather, you only obstruct! The party of No rises again!
Speaking of partisan talking points…
Cassandra of DL has initiated an excellent discussion on this topic
The same Delaware Liberal that advocated shooting Republicans? I wouldn’t believe anything from that site.
Please correct me, with examples, if you think I am wrong, Sharon!
I just gave the a classic example of where you are wrong, Perry. You cite Delaware Liberal.
Sharon: “The same Delaware Liberal that advocated shooting Republicans? I wouldn’t believe anything from that site.”
That was one blogger who immediately apologized for his unwise statement.
Besides, that’s a feeble excuse, Sharon, for avoiding information that might actually educate you a little more on this issue.
“I just gave the a classic example of where you are wrong, Perry.”
Your “classic example”, Sharon, is refuted by a long list of developed nations who have better than 95% coverage and do a better overall job than we do. If you had followed up on Cassandra’s research, you would be much better informed on alternatives than what you appear to be here at this moment. It still is not too late!
That was one blogger who immediately apologized for his unwise statement.
Perry, it was not one blogger who immediately apologized. Similar statements were made before on that site with no penalties. That was only the worst. But if you like them, I think that speaks volumes about your judgment.
Besides, that’s a feeble excuse, Sharon, for avoiding information that might actually educate you a little more on this issue.
Um, Perry, I’ve done a considerable amount of research on socialized medicine, as well as personal experience with the same. I’ve written countless posts on the subject, and dismantled numerous arguments such as yours shrieking about the high cost of American health care.
Your “classic example”, Sharon, is refuted by a long list of developed nations who have better than 95% coverage and do a better overall job than we do.
It gets tiresome repeating this, but those countries (a) do not have the heterogenous mix of citizens to cover that we do; (b) they do not have as many rural citizens (meaning more car travel, more traffic accidents, etc.) tan we do; (c) they do not offer health care to every ill person, but rather pick and choose the winners and losers in their societies, meaning if you’re a loser, you get to die because it’s too expensive to take care of you; (d) you have horrendous waits for care when you can get care; (e) taxes are extremely high in all those countries with “better” care.
I could go on and on, but you wouldn’t want to accept the truth: you can’t offer “free” health care without offsets. That means outrageously high taxes and restrictions on the care you receive. Great Britain, for example ranks last in the number of heart bypasses (a routine surgery these days) because it considers it too expensive. Then there’s new drugs, which many of these same medical systems will not allow. And don’t forget the sick and premature babies that, when born in this country, are counted as live births, but are not in other countries.
There are plenty of reasons Americans pay more for health care than other places, but most of it comes down to the fact that Americans demand far more and get far more than other people do.
BTW, Perry, what does this have to do with Obama lying about not touching your health insurance, choice of doctors, etc.?
Make no mistake: when the government starts “controlling costs,” it’s going to have to start controlling the options you have. You’ll either be unable to get private insurance (as Canada tried to do), or you’ll pay far more to keep it, or it will become so inconvenient that you will drop it.
Sharon, there are people reading here who live in countries with single payer systems. And we know that you can still get private insurance, which is affordable, and convenient. I’ve been at the beds of relatives using it.
Jesus Christ – not only are you lying, you’re lying about our own experiences. What are you going to do next – tell Dana his daughter is in the Air Force?
Here’s the relevant quote:
You fucking Republicans are all to blame. Your advocacy of deregulation for the last 30 years is responsible. The greed that underlies your policies and that invades your supporters was your motivation. You put yourselves and your wallets first, and our country last. You should all be round up and shot. Seriously.
Note – That’s not merely one of the commenters leaving a random comment, that’s actually one of their articles. You are right, Sharon. Clearly this is a site run by complete whackjobs. Not worth more that about 5 seconds of my time.
‘Nuff said.
Eric, you characterize a site by one remark made by one person who immediately apologized. Great reasoning, Eric.
Sharon: “It gets tiresome repeating this, but those countries (a) do not have the heterogenous mix of citizens to cover that we do; of no consequence (b) they do not have as many rural citizens (meaning more car travel, more traffic accidents, etc.) tan we do possibly, but need to see statistics on this; (c) they do not offer health care to every ill person, but rather pick and choose the winners and losers in their societies, meaning if you’re a loser, you get to die because it’s too expensive to take care of you; rationing occurs here too, and the rich get better health care than the middle or the poor (d) you have horrendous waits for care when you can get care; this is a gross exaggeration (e) taxes are extremely high in all those countries with “better” care. wrong; we have the highest per capita health care cost of all!!! “
Sharon: “…you can’t offer “free” health care without offsets.”
This statement alone demonstrates that you have not retained correct information, as you would find out if you checked Cassandra’s research per the link I supplied in a previous post here.
Sharon: “There are plenty of reasons Americans pay more for health care than other places, but most of it comes down to the fact that Americans demand far more and get far more than other people do.”
Right, for sure the 50 million uninsured do, to the point that 60% of our bankruptcies are caused by medical bills payment defaults. That is a national disgrace, which apparently does not concern you Sharon.
Sharon, 70% of Americans polled, in recent polls, want a public option plan. This idea is not new, as it is available already in a number of countries. “Unlike the U.S. insurance industry, though, Bismarck-type health insurance plans have to cover everybody, and they don’t make a profit. Doctors and hospitals tend to be private in Bismarck countries; Japan has more private hospitals than the U.S. Although this is a multi-payer model — Germany has about 240 different funds — tight regulation gives government much of the cost-control clout that the single-payer Beveridge Model provides.
The Bismarck model is found in Germany, of course, and France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, and, to a degree, in Latin America.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html
We need healthcare insurance that covers every American, Sharon. The Bismark model, which is one of the proposals on the table, already has been tested. We can therefore pick and choose features that suit us, and then go with it, provided we identify how we will pay for it.
Regarding Obama “BTW, Perry, what does this have to do with Obama lying about not touching your health insurance, choice of doctors, etc.?”
You’re wrong, Sharon! Obama conveyed that the government will not touch your health insurance. It is out of his control should your insurer change their coverage, which they constantly do anyway, as you well know. But then, that’s the free market in action.
Eric, it was one of the DL bloggers who made that statement, then apologized. Why did you not post his apology. Moreover, let us not practice the usual GOP spin called ‘guilt by association’, expanding one mistake to include all the other bloggers. I’m not surprised it is not worth your time, as you are obviously closed-minded.
The MSM outlets are all a bunch of sycophants.
Please check out my take on all the photo ops, and stick around for more good content.
http://libertarianhumor.com/2009/06/22/idol-worship-president
Ed, do you include FoxNoise on your syncophant list?
I didn’t think so!
From Newsbusters,
like any other sane person, this was when I stopped reading
Sharon, there are people reading here who live in countries with single payer systems. And we know that you can still get private insurance, which is affordable, and convenient. I’ve been at the beds of relatives using it.
In some systems you can and in others you can’t. You live in a country with a population that is about two-thirds of my metropolitan area. It would probably be easy to allow a variety of choices if we were talking about such a small population.
Jesus Christ – not only are you lying, you’re lying about our own experiences.
How can I be “lying” about your experiences? Unfortunately for you, you seem to want to do the very thing you have accused me of. You are using your personal experiences–in a tiny country–and acting as though that’s the face of socialized medicine. But unlike you, what I said is true.
It’s a fact that Great Britain ranks last in the Western world for bypass surgeries, and only does better than Greece for angioplasties. It’s a fact Canada banned private insurance, forcing everyone into a socialized medical system. It’s a fact that patients in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Great Britain all have longer waits for surgery than in the U.S.
Sure. And if I said something just as bizarre (like, maybe, all liberal women should be raped) and then “apologized”, that would make it all OK, right?
How can I be “lying” about your experiences?
To quote you: “Make no mistake: when the government starts “controlling costs,” it’s going to have to start controlling the options you have. You’ll either be unable to get private insurance (as Canada tried to do), or you’ll pay far more to keep it, or it will become so inconvenient that you will drop it.”
My government controls costs. I can get affordable, useful private insurance. It is indeed possible. You lie.
It’s a fact that Great Britain ranks last in the Western world for bypass surgeries, and only does better than Greece for angioplasties. It’s a fact Canada banned private insurance, forcing everyone into a socialized medical system. It’s a fact that patients in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Great Britain all have longer waits for surgery than in the U.S.
It’s a fact that the US pays more per head for health than any other country in the world. It’s a fact that it doesn’t get what it pays for:
Cherry-picking very specific bits of data is only an attempt to obscure that truth.
Perry:
(a) It is “of consequence” whether your society is homogenous or heterogenous. If your society is homogenous, you have fewer problems to deal with. In a heterogenous society, you have many different problems from genetics (such as sickle cell) to cultural (Hispanics not seeking prenatal care).
(b) Get a map of the U.S. and compare it to Great Britain. Lots more rural areas. And the U.S. has a disproportionate number of accidents in rural areas than urban ones. You can see the map here.
(c) The wealthy will always get health care that the middle class and poor do not. But “rationing” does not happen here like it does in many other countries, where you must wait 300 or 400 days to get a hip replacement. Or you could be in the U.K. and just not get that heart bypass.
(d) It is not a gross exaggeration to say there are “horrendous waits” for health care in countries with socialized medicine. Or maybe you don’t think banning many cancer drugs results in “horrendous waits.” Or maybe having your surgery cancelled 3 times doesn’t amount to a “horrendous wait” to you.
Because it must have been way down the comment stream, that’s why. I read just enough to convince me that site was for hate filled loons, then left immediately.
Don’t forget, this was on a PUBLIC blog, whose content is available for the whole world to see. This wasn’t just some random drunken rant made in the privacy of one’s own home. Someone had to think beforehand, then write down their comments, then hit the “send” button. It thus revealed their true thoughts and emotions, and no phony baloney “apology” after the fact can change that one whit. If you were to write on a blog “Kill the niggers”, then later apologize (mainly because you knew you’d get shit for it, not because you actually meant it), would that make it all right?
Eric, yes it would! “‘Nuff said”
Sharon, now you are making no sense at all as you grasp for straws, i.e., any fact you can lay your hands on to say something negative about the healthcare plans provided by other countries: “It’s a fact that Great Britain ranks last in the Western world for bypass surgeries, and only does better than Greece for angioplasties. Is it possible that we perform too many bypass surgeries and angioplasties?It’s a fact Canada banned private insurance, forcing everyone into a socialized medical system. Your link tells us that the Canadian ban has been ended, or did you not notice that? It’s a fact that patients in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Great Britain all have longer waits for surgery than in the U.S. How much longer, Sharon? Your statement does not tell us enough!“
Did you read up on the Bismark plan that I cited, and compare the different plans, Sharon? Here is another reference you might wish to check: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
Whatever amount of research you have done, Sharon, I don’t think you have done enough to overcome your confusions and your ideological biases!
This statement alone demonstrates that you have not retained correct information, as you would find out if you checked Cassandra’s research per the link I supplied in a previous post here.
How are there not offsets, Perry? If you are required to go to certain doctors, have certain procedures, have higher taxes and so on, does that not fall into the category of “offsets” to you?
Right, for sure the 50 million uninsured do, to the point that 60% of our bankruptcies are caused by medical bills payment defaults. That is a national disgrace, which apparently does not concern you Sharon.
50 million Americans are not uninsured, Perry. See here.
Some people choose not to get health insurance, Perry. That doesn’t mean they don’t get care.
You don’t have to approve of the choice not to get health insurance. Well, unless the government decides to make you.
70% of Americans polled, in recent polls, want a public option plan.
Americans also want low taxes and fewer services, Perry. People want lots of things until they are forced to agree to it.
We need healthcare insurance that covers every American, Sharon.
We have health insurance that covers every American, Perry. But many Americans choose not to participate.
You’re wrong, Sharon! Obama conveyed that the government will not touch your health insurance.
But that’s a lie, Perry. As the article I linked to pointed out, it’s impossible to do the things Obama wants to do to the healthcare system without fundamentally altering your relationship with your employer, your insurance and your doctor. And don’t try some mealy-mouth bullshit that somehow, the insurer is just going to unexplainably decide to change your coverage for no reason related to Obamacare. That’s bullshit.
Eric, it was one of the DL bloggers who made that statement, then apologized. Why did you not post his apology. Moreover, let us not practice the usual GOP spin called ‘guilt by association’, expanding one mistake to include all the other bloggers. I’m not surprised it is not worth your time, as you are obviously closed-minded.
Perry, one blogger made the statement. And the others didn’t do anything about it until the commenters came unglued. It’s not just that one statement, either. Why don’t you try reading Delaware Liberal from any given month in 2008 and count the number of times the Delaidiots blamed Republicans for starving, maiming, murdering people here and around the world. Oh, and it’s always intentional, according to them. It’s not merely that they disagree with some policy. They’re evil. You like that site, you can have it. I will not waste my time on them.
My government controls costs. I can get affordable, useful private insurance. It is indeed possible. You lie.
Again, you live in a country smaller than my city. You are not representative of anything. No lie.
It’s a fact that the US pays more per head for health than any other country in the world.
It’s also a fact that the U.S. leads in stem cell research and in vitro fertilizations. We take care of premature babies (very expensive), and give cancer treatments denied by other countries. We do surgeries on the elderly that other countries won’t do. Those things cost money.
Sharon, now you are making no sense at all as you grasp for straws
You asked for links supporting my position. Now you’re complaining that providing you specific examples is “grasping at straws.” *rolls eyes.
Is it possible that we perform too many bypass surgeries and angioplasties?
Tell that to your dad, then watch him die.
Your link tells us that the Canadian ban has been ended, or did you not notice that?
I used the past tense of the verb “ban.” Did you not notice that?
How much longer, Sharon? Your statement does not tell us enough!“
Try clicking on the link. The U.S. had the shortest wait (5%) compared to other countries.
Whatever amount of research you have done, Sharon, I don’t think you have done enough to overcome your confusions and your ideological biases!
Shorter Perry: Wah! You don’t agree with me!
Did you read up on the Bismark plan that I cited, and compare the different plans, Sharon?
What part of “medical services are tightly controlled” doesn’t result in rationing?
Yet again, there are long waits.
Again, you live in a country smaller than my city.
Sharon, you did not limit yourself to the US – you even mentioned Canada! You made a categorical statement about government health care – not limiting it to any one country- and you were wrong.
I point out that my country is about as populated as Kentucky, as spread out as Oregon, and more diverse than the US (in terms of ethnic proportions). So why is that of your 50 States, not one can solve this problem – but comparable countries can?
Could it be that running a health system solely through for-profit insurers is dysfunctional?
You know, Sharon, you’re arguing with strawmen of your own creation when the current system cannot be sustained. You do realise that people much smarter than you have already considered these issues, don’t you? Or have you successfully blocked your own ignorance from your mind?
Could it be that running a health system solely through for-profit insurers is dysfunctional?
Or could forcing people into a system they don’t want or forcing people to pay for someone elses health care is dictatorial?
Sharon, you did not limit yourself to the US – you even mentioned Canada! You made a categorical statement about government health care – not limiting it to any one country- and you were wrong.
Pho, I also substantiated my claim with numerous examples. Your country is an outlier by comparison.
Look, I understand why you are convinced that any criticism of socialized medicine, backed up with facts, is “lying” or “stupid.” But it’s not. Again, you like your system, I hope you live with it.
Or could forcing people into a system they don’t want or forcing people to pay for someone elses health care is dictatorial?
Pho doesn’t think anyone doesn’t want socialized medicine.
it’s so awesome when people prove Sharon wrong over & over and she employs the “just keep yelling” model of defense
Does socialized medicine provide a magnetic attraction for people who want the best care available or does it appeal to those who are looking for a free lunch?
Patients vote with their feet if they have the opportunity to do so.
Modern medicine has come with a price tag. MRI equipment is not cheap. But neither is the surtax on health care called defensive medicine. How was MRI development financed? Seems as if some of the Decca profits from those Beatles songs was plowed into R&D.
What great medical benefits have come from bureaucrats?
Note than in the perverted thinking of Senate Democrats, it would be a violation of Senate Ethics for Senator Coburn (R-OK, MD) to continue to provide medical care to patience. Perhaps if he had spent time boozing and wenching with the likes of Kennedy and Dodd they would have cut him a break. Perhaps a late term abortionist would have been given more ethical slack.
Does socialized medicine provide a magnetic attraction for people who want the best care available or does it appeal to those who are looking for a free lunch?
Answer: Best care available! I win!
How was MRI development financed?
By Stony Brook University. I win again!
Sharon, it is obvious that you have no concern for the $50 million uninsured, for the 60% of bankruptcies caused by healthcare bill defaults, for our having the highest per capita healthcare costs in the developed world, for the higher infant mortality rates and shorter life spans than most other developed nations. It is obvious, because you continue to shill for maintaining the current system. Frankly, in spite of all your anecdotal material to the contrary, you absolutely refuse to see the big picture. You absolutely refuse to learn from the systems put into place by other countries.
You do have the AMA, Pharma, the private insurers, and the hospitals all on your side, all literally against what would be best for the American people. Your folks have prevailed in the past, and you might prevail again, due to the power of their riches and their ownership of the votes of too many people in Congress.
Countries like Phoenician’s New Zealand in many respects are far more enlightened than we are, not only on healthcare, but on running an economy, on taking good care of their own people, and on minding their own business re other nations. I just wish we would come down from our perch of arrogance, pounding ourselves on the chest, proclaiming ourselves to be the greatest nation. We do do just that, you know?
Getting back to healthcare, Ezra Klein, to whom Phoenician referred, had this to say, which pretty much defines our healthcare problem:
“The system is currently biased toward the worst form of cost control: rationing by income. Every year, we contain costs by quietly letting 2 million or so more people fall into the ranks of the uninsured. And why not? It does not require an act of Congress. It does not require a war with a powerful interest group. The same cannot be said for cutting provider payments, implementing comparative effectiveness research, founding a public plan or bargaining with pharmaceutical companies. And so the system, which prefers to avoid conflict, prefers letting people lose their coverage to changing how providers practice medicine, because letting people lose their coverage does not require conflict. It’s government. As Tom Geoghegan has said, it likes the quiet life.”
Is that you, Sharon? Do you like the quiet life? Are you pleased with yourself just to call any alternative healthcare plan “socialized medicine” and then wash your hands with anti-bacterial soap and be done with the rest of us? Not I!
Sharon with the “uh uh, you are!” shocker.
Instead of frantically searching the Internets for scare-stories why don’t you tell everybody why your husband can’t (couldn’t?) be insured? How about some anecdotes about the many joys of having a “pre-existing condition”? What’s the waiting list like for a lymphoma patient who just got dumped by BCBS?
Truth be told, Sharon, if there was a public option you would be the first in line.
Wow, got the Democrat talking points out bigtime, I see.
Sharon, it is obvious that you have no concern for the $50 million uninsured, for the 60% of bankruptcies caused by healthcare bill defaults, for our having the highest per capita healthcare costs in the developed world, for the higher infant mortality rates and shorter life spans than most other developed nations.
Why is it when someone points out reality–that the vast majority of the uninsured do so voluntarily, that most bankruptcies are not, in fact, caused by medical bills (another Democrat talking point), and that the high costs of our health care system are caused by a variety of factors (including med-mal cases)–that means they “don’t care”? Is this a race to see who “cares” the most?
What I “care” about is not lying about the supposed benefits of socialized medicine. You call every case and study that derides socialized medicine as “anecdotal,” but, indeed, that’s what facts end up being. If enough “anecdotes” are strung together, it’s a trend.
Mike likes to point out that my husband was uninsurable as an individual. But there was, in fact, insurance available for the rest of us. And he now has very good insurance, much better than anything available by the government or under Obamacare.
BTW, Perry, the Ezra Klein heartstring-pulling piece is a lie, too. We don’t let “2 million more people every day slip into the ranks of the uninsured.” Such a rate would be unsustainable. And if those people choose not to get health insurance (I did), why are they victims, which is what your argument boils down to?
Incredibly, Klein thinks that cutting payments will not result in higher out of pocket costs or fewer services, but why should doctors, nurses and other health providers work for less money just because you want to stamp your foot and call them greedy?
Truth be told, Sharon, if there was a public option you would be the first in line.
Actually, I wouldn’t, since we have better insurance now than we had before. But it’s interesting that you think a public option would create more mooches off the system. That’s pretty much why Hawaii had to get rid of its children’s health insurance. People who could afford their own were mooching off the government, which is quite typical.
And Perry, if you like being insignificant, then New Zealand is probably the place for you. Of course, they have 4 million people total to worry about and no one expects them to run the world (remember during the 1990s when we weren’t doing anything about Bosnia and the Europeans were screaming that the U.S. had to “do something”?), which makes it considerably easier to lecture the rest of us and Google-search for supporting links. That’s not to say it isn’t a pretty place and a nice location for filming fantasy movies.
Sharon misquotes: BTW, Perry, the Ezra Klein heartstring-pulling piece is a lie, too. “We don’t let “2 million more people every day slip into the ranks of the uninsured.””
It was every year, not every day, Sharon. How many other items do you confuse in your over-exuberance to oppose change in our healthcare system?
You can call my objections talking points if you wish, Sharon; I call them facts.
As Cassandra’s piece on DL points out, there are many countries with what you call “socialized medicine” that are doing just fine, better than we are. But you find excuses not to check it out. You don’t want to hear what you don’t want to hear, that’s obvious!
I’ll give it to you, you are a fighter, but I hope you and your wealthy corporate special interests don’t win this one.
You remind me a lot of my sister – she is just as partisan as you are, and unconvincing too, most of the time, very much unlike her husband, a pediatric surgeon, who is a caring, wonderful person. The contrast is striking!
Look, neither of us is convincing the other, so I now defer to you to have the last word. Have at it!
truth bears repeating:
You spend a lot of time thinking that one up, TT?
It was every year, not every day, Sharon. How many other items do you confuse in your over-exuberance to oppose change in our healthcare system?
Ooh, I made a mistake. I hope you acknowledge when you don’t bother reading links or understanding facts. I mean, it’s not like that’s a rare occurance.
You can call my objections talking points if you wish, Sharon; I call them facts.
And you call my facts anecdotes, as though, somehow, if only a few thousand people wait years for treatment is permissible because, gosh, we can say everybody is covered. Sorry, it’s not coverage if you can’t see a doctor.
As Cassandra’s piece on DL points out, there are many countries with what you call “socialized medicine” that are doing just fine, better than we are. But you find excuses not to check it out. You don’t want to hear what you don’t want to hear, that’s obvious!
I don’t have a problem with trying to cut the costs of medicine, Perry. I have a problem with lying about how they will cut costs. Every proposal out there talks about cutting fees to doctors, hospitals and other medical providers. That means those same facilities are going to either raise the costs to you and me or cut services. And we haven’t even talked about the tax increases necessary to pay for all this, at a time when we are running a gazillion dollar deficit thanks to Democrat spending. Have you thought about how we’re supposed to pay for it yet?
I’ll give it to you, you are a fighter, but I hope you and your wealthy corporate special interests don’t win this one.
Yeah, my wealthy corporate special interests: your primary care physician, the nurse who gives you your bedside care, the techs who do your testing. Those are some wealthy corporate special interests you want to screw over there.
You remind me a lot of my sister – she is just as partisan as you are, and unconvincing too, most of the time, very much unlike her husband, a pediatric surgeon, who is a caring, wonderful person. The contrast is striking!
Translation: My sister used to sit on my chest and wouldn’t let me up until I was crying and saying “Uncle.”
Sharon going to great lengths to prove me right I see
But it’s interesting that you think a public option would create more mooches off the system.
Did Sharon just admit that she’s a mooch?
But there was, in fact, insurance available for the rest of us.
I thought that they told you that you were too obese? Isn’t that what you said?
And he now has very good insurance, much better than anything available by the government or under Obamacare.
Through his occupation, I’m assuming, where everyone pools together so that they can bargain for a discounted rate while the employer kicks in the difference? Kinda sounds familiar.
Pho, I also substantiated my claim with numerous examples. Your country is an outlier by comparison.
Riiiiiiiiight.
I thought that they told you that you were too obese? Isn’t that what you said?
Nope. I said they wanted to charge me extra because I was over their ideal weight.
Through his occupation, I’m assuming, where everyone pools together so that they can bargain for a discounted rate while the employer kicks in the difference? Kinda sounds familiar.
Not really. I can still get surgery sooner than 400 days.
And Perry, if you like being insignificant, then New Zealand is probably the place for you.
“One of the great attractions of patriotism – it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what’s more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous.” – Aldous Huxley
Nope. I said they wanted to charge me extra because I was over their ideal weight.
Well, good luck in meeting that goal. I say that in jest, btw, as a person who has gained a few pounds over the past decade.
Not really. I can still get surgery sooner than 400 days.
Sharon, I gotta say that I’m not really heartbroken when I hear stories about some tub that has to wait in line to get their knees replaced. My parents are from England so naturally a great deal of my family is still over there and to be honest I never hear any of these chicken little stories that Republicans tell around the campfire to scare each other. Nor do I hear any tales of doom about the government forcing people out of their private options. Anecdotal? Yes. But there it is.
Well, good luck in meeting that goal.
What goal?
Sharon, I gotta say that I’m not really heartbroken when I hear stories about some tub that has to wait in line to get their knees replaced.
Why not? Are you going to put some sort of “means testing” for medical procedures? Does this mean Barack Obama is ineligible (or has to wait an incredibly long time) for treatment for lung cancer and/or emphysema when he gets it?
My parents are from England so naturally a great deal of my family is still over there and to be honest I never hear any of these chicken little stories that Republicans tell around the campfire to scare each other.
Do they live there now? Do they need hip or knee replacements, cancer drugs, etc., etc? Because I can assure you, they aren’t just scary stories. Of course, Brits take it as commonplace and no big deal that you have to wait six months or a year for some “elective” surgery. Maybe that’s why they aren’t complaining.
Anecdotal? Yes.
How many anecdotes does it take before it becomes a statistic? As I said before, the Frosts were anecdotal, too, but you guys didn’t mind getting hysterical about them.
How many anecdotes does it take before it becomes a statistic?
Your comment would be far more credible, Sharon, if you weren’t so conspicious in ignoring the actual data and resorting to cheap cherry-picking.
I imagine Ulan Bator is better than the United States in some health measure, perhaps regarding disease picked up from horse fleas. Should we cherry-pick this in praising Ulan Bator over the US?
How many anecdotes does it take before it becomes a statistic? And is it acceptable to be merely an anecdote if it is you?
Because I can assure you, they aren’t just scary stories. Of course, Brits take it as commonplace and no big deal that you have to wait six months or a year for some “elective” surgery. Maybe that’s why they aren’t complaining.
If Britons want to pay out of pocket they can get their knees replaced much sooner but I can assure you, ye who obviously hasn’t traveled much outside of suburban Texas, that they aren’t complaining if they are getting it at no cost. If someone from Blackpool wants to pay out of pocket for elective surgeries they can do so much sooner via private practitioners. Surgeries like knee replacements for obese gluttons are rightly seen as drains on the system and are kicked to the back of the line. Why shouldn’t they be?
Both of my grandparents died of lung cancer within the past fifteen years because of miserable conditions endured in the weaving sheds and the bomb factories of Lancashire and yes, when it was their time they got their cancer treatment (whatever the h*ll “cancer drugs” means at that point I don’t know…lung cancer is more or less a death sentence). They also got their in-home hospice care, a once a day visit from a private nurse and free transportation to and from wherever they pleased. Of course, this would be seen as unnecessary largesse in the eyes of both you and the health insurance companies. In the eyes of those that survived the blitz, on the other hand (that is, those who fought two world wars including the Nazis for years while FDR was twiddling his thumbs and trying not to upset the likes of Prescott Bush), the people that punch a clock day in and day out deserve something more.
You see, your BS only works if we all assume that private medical practice disappears once there is a public option. Why do you insist that we believe in this ridiculous hypothetical fantasy that you have constructed? Especially considering that the point of doing so is merely to make an ideological point?
Read and learn.
Or another actual study:
I assume you’re going to counter this with an anecdote about your aunt’s dentist’s cousin who went to England and spent three hours in a waiting room? Or perhaps an observation that tongue depressors cost 2 cents more a unit in France, and therefore they must spend more than the US on health?
“Instead, MGI found that the overriding cause of high U.S. health care costs is the failure of the intermediation system — payors, employers, and government — to provide sufficient incentives to patients and consumers to be value–conscious in their demand decisions, and to regulate the necessary incentives to promote rational use by providers and suppliers.”
I think the biggest reason is that we’re(US citizens) fat and lazy. Pure and simple. We over demand the system. The people in the countries we compare ourselves to are healthier to start with.
I hope by now that Sharon has discovered how much she has lost her way in this debate, as the evidence has built up, as recent posts by Phoenician, mike g and others well attest and add to the accumulation.
And more: In the “My Visit to Lehighton Ford” topic, the discussion switched to healthcare and some very interesting topics. If you are interested:
http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=6234#comment-482903
When conservatives think of rights, they think of things people have a right to do without interference from other people or from the state. But if health care is going to be considered a right, then you are talking about something wholly different; you are talking about a right to have other people provide something for you, whether they wish to or not.
ye who obviously hasn’t traveled much outside of suburban Texas
Funniest line of the day. And one of the most ignorant and arrogant.
Dana,
These guys don’t really care about the cost. If there’s supposedly coverage, it won’t matter what the wait is. The argument “If you want better treatment, get private insurance” that Mike makes really does say it all. And Mike, I hope you are living a healthy, clean, and sober life. Otherwise, I might have to hope you get the care you wish on others.
BTW, do fat people pay fewer taxes in England? Or smokers? Or drinkers? And if they pay the same taxes for health care, why shouldn’t they get the care they want? It’s their right.
I hope by now that Sharon has discovered how much she has lost her way in this debate, as the evidence has built up, as recent posts by Phoenician, mike g and others well attest and add to the accumulation.
What the hell are you talking about, Perry? Pho quotes a sorce, then when I provide a link debunking it, it comes back with another one, and so on. It’s an endless game where Pho declares itself the winner because, gosh, if only 10% of patients have unreasonable waits, that’s anecdotal evidence.
Sharon: “Pho quotes a sorce, then when I provide a link debunking it, it comes back with another one, and so on.”
“…it comes back ….” Now you are up to insults, is that where you are now, Sharon? You should have said: “…he/she comes back ….” Maybe it was a mistake!
Nevertheless, I’ve observed that the debunking was the other way around, Sharon.
Just as an example, did you “debunk” this one?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/economix/EconomixGraphUve.jpg
when I provide a link debunking it,
There’s your problem, right there. No, Sharon, you do not.
Perry:
Perry, given your client classes’insistent and cherished moral and behavioral dysfunctions, and my aversion to wasting energy on coercing even the stupid, it sounds like the right approach.
Thus: you and yours get to continue to screw yourselves up with minimal kill-joy interference from me; while I get to avoid wearing the effects of your pets’ stupidity and incapacity around my neck, as if I killed the albatross.
And Perry, if you are not fit to participate in the kind of regime of political and economic liberty that necessitates personal responsibility and self-governance, or if you find the thought of it uncongenial and disorienting, why not just come right out and admit it?
And then there’s the indignant mike g:
Well, now we have the germ of an implied moral principle here don’t we: That people, especially those in their age of majority, and of a sufficient mental capacity to be entitled to full civic rights, bear responsibility for their own actions; and those actions – even in the kind of regime of centralized governmental control that mike g cherishes – have consequences.
So, what’s the problem?
Some people want liberty, personal responsibility, and self-direction; and some people just can’t deal with the requirements these ways of living impose.
That’s part of the reason we have different countries.
It’s a big planet, still, and one would think that especially in matters such as these, there would be room for all without such constant jostling.
DNW hitting the Roget’s very hard today
He’s also more incoherent than normal. Alcohol?
“…it comes back ….” Now you are up to insults, is that where you are now, Sharon? You should have said: “…he/she comes back ….” Maybe it was a mistake!
Nevertheless, I’ve observed that the debunking was the other way around, Sharon.
It’s no insult. Pho describes itself in neither a male nor female way, so neither do I. And if you “observed” Pho doing anything, then, by all means, you are entitled to your *cough* opinion.
“Surgeries like knee replacements for obese gluttons are rightly seen as drains on the system and are kicked to the back of the line. Why shouldn’t they be?”
They shouldn’t be because these obese gluttons are A. taxpayers and B. citizens and C. human beings and not animals. If the state runs healthcare it MUST provide equal access to all or it is despotism. I really don’t want to see a beauracrat standing in front of a line saying: “You, to the left. You, to the right.”
Well, now we have the germ of an implied moral principle here don’t we: That people, especially those in their age of majority, and of a sufficient mental capacity to be entitled to full civic rights, bear responsibility for their own actions; and those actions – even in the kind of regime of centralized governmental control that mike g cherishes – have consequences.
Really, all Mike is doing is admitting that he approves of rationing care; he just wants the right to determine who gets that rationed care. So, if you’re overweight or smoke or are the wino under the bridge downtown, Mike agrees that taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill. Well, maybe the wino, since he’s not “rich.” At least he’s not going so far as some others in saying that no private pay options should be available, but if you are willing to rationalize rationing by “He ate too many potato chips” kind of logic, it doesn’t seem a very big leap.
And it’s worth repeating:
Sharon, you didn’t answer this yet, so I’ll ask again:
Did you debunk this?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/economix/EconomixGraphUve.jpg
Or do I need to answer for you?
Sharon continuing her comment thread attrition strategy I see. the last one still clinging to her point in the face of mountains of contradictory evidence wins!
I am of course not claiming anything along the lines that mike g wishes to abolish the private practice of medicine, or to prevent people from forming or joining in private or commercial risk sharing organizations in order to indemnify themselves as far as practicable against health issues.
What is obvious, is that those touting public underwriting or control of these kinds of programs on this board, are advocating that the Federal Government of the United States begin to further intrude in upon, and manage the so-called health care “system”.
What mike g has also done however, is introduce an evaluative principle of deservingness to the discussion, one based on his assessment of personal responsibility for one’s medical condition.
The context of his comments indicate that he brings this principle along with him when it comes to making judgments as to whether any given taxpaying individual is entitled to receive speedy government underwritten, or government supervised private-payer, medical treatment.
And like you say, within that context he doesn’t seem to mind if some people unequally bear the consequences of their poor judgment or self-control when it comes to receiving this government supervised or underwritten medical treatment; as long as they are members of a class which he thinks of as undeserving.
Private insurance in principle, whether profit or non-profit, at least sidesteps that social justice BS, by setting out the terms of your benefits beforehand. And within that context, you get (unless there is fraud or mal-administration of some sort) what you voluntarily pay for.
The problem in this “discussion”, is that there are several lines of argument going on simultaneously under the guise of one.
The advocates of Obamacare are in practical terms arguing that any adjustments to our political system and conception of rights and responsibilities, are irrelevant in the face of the supposed data they bring to the table, and the efficiencies in delivery they promise.
As you point out, (as well as the practical matters they wish to avoid – see Phoenician’s deliberate ignoring of Sharon’s important point on heart procedures), there are political implications that they simply don’t want to acknowledge.
“Thomas Tallis:
DNW hitting the Roget’s very hard today”
LOL. Isn’t there a Weakland version of the Bible you should be off pounding somewhere?
And like you say, within that context he doesn’t seem to mind if some people unequally bear the consequences of their poor judgment or self-control when it comes to receiving this government supervised or underwritten medical treatment; as long as they are members of a class which he thinks of as undeserving.
There’s more to this argument than just those using poor judgment or self-control. This really comes down to an elite determining which behaviors are acceptable and which are not. If you are obese because of a medical condition, are you more eligible for knee replacements–and quicker surgery–than someone who simply didn’t control his or her eating? What about medications and the effects they have on other aspects of one’s health? If you have high blood pressure but are skinny, are you more deserving of the best medications than someone who is obese? The possibilities of judgment here are endless.
And Perry, I’ll answer your question when you answer mine.
“He’s also more incoherent than normal. Alcohol?”
You on the other hand are about the same as usual. Luetic?
By the way, what part of, “Accommodating you, is not worth the potential loss in political liberty”, don’t you understand?
This really comes down to an elite determining which behaviors are acceptable and which are not.
Yes, it’s called “the problem of economic choice” – unlimited desires vs limited resources. It turns out that, for health care, a certain amount of command economics (i.e. “elites” telling people what the public system will and will not pay for) works better than market economics (i.e. those with the money getting whatever they are scared into purchasing, those with insurance getting whatever the profit-maximising insurer says they will, and those without going without).
It works better in efficiency, outcomes, and practical liberty. Go talk to the numerous Americans living in fear that a medical emergency will bankrupt them.
Really, all Mike is doing is admitting that he approves of rationing care; he just wants the right to determine who gets that rationed care.
Considering that private options exist along side public options your histrionics seem a little contrived, Sharon. Furthermore,
This really comes down to an elite determining which behaviors are acceptable and which are not.
Apparently the point didn’t sink in when private insurance rationed care to your husband. As stated previously we’re dealing with the economics of a limited choice. In all of your frantic scribbling about Big Bad Government Elites the only point you’ve made is that you want the rationing to be done by unaccountable private tyrannies.
Some people want liberty, personal responsibility, and self-direction; and some people just can’t deal with the requirements these ways of living impose.
Personal responsibility? You mean like avoiding the Denny’s buffet to forgo future knee issues?
I found a YouTube of DNW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fktwWrLr4pY
Pho says, “It works better in efficiency, outcomes, and practical liberty. Go talk to the numerous Americans living in fear that a medical emergency will bankrupt them.”
From http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/january/the_new_zealand_heal.php
“New Zealand residents have the highest levels of anxiety about health care of any OECD country surveyed: 42% of New Zealanders feared they wouldn’t be able to afford medical care in the event of illness, 38% worried they would be forced to wait too long for non-emergency care, 38% believed they won’t get advanced care if they become seriously ill.”
Looks like we’re not the only ones.
No, you’re not. I wouldn’t recommend NZ’s public health-care system as a model, even if it is better than the US’s.
Considering that private options exist along side public options your histrionics seem a little contrived, Sharon.
I like the fact that you laud government-sponsorship of health insurance, then want to come back with, “but you can buy your own private insurance.” I thought liberals really were about equality, but, apparently, you’re ok with “the rich” still getting better care than everyone else. Because that’s what will happen, if there’s private insurance at all. And then you’ll be crying your little cornpone heart out about the unfairness of some Republican fat cat getting treatments that the wino under the bridge can’t afford.
Apparently the point didn’t sink in when private insurance rationed care to your husband. As stated previously we’re dealing with the economics of a limited choice. In all of your frantic scribbling about Big Bad Government Elites the only point you’ve made is that you want the rationing to be done by unaccountable private tyrannies.
Mike, in all your hystrionics, you never bothered reading what I’ve written, which periodically includes the sorts of regulations that I consider helpful and least intrusive. Instead, you simply go down the “private insurance is Teh Bad” road. You’re actually fine with rationing, too, Mike. Only you want the government to decide the winners and losers.
Personal responsibility? You mean like avoiding the Denny’s buffet to forgo future knee issues?
Personal responsibility? Like being told by the government that they’ve decided that your tax money isn’t really meant for your health care. Because fat people pay less in taxes or something.
No, you’re not. I wouldn’t recommend NZ’s public health-care system as a model, even if it is better than the US’s.
Sounds like the point where Pho admits defeat and runs off to another thread.
As this seems to be a categorical proposition, one would be tempted to ask “For whom?”; since, there seem to be obvious exceptions to the unconditional claims implied by the formulation of the statement.
Many people get the best possible medical outcomes under the current state of affairs.
But then, experience shows that with the posturing “Pho”, all we’d get in reply is some spindly armed utilitarian-lite, threat-disguised-as-reason style mantra: ” I speak of society as a whole. You’re part of society, you get it’s benefits, you better yield up your allegiance …” yada yada yada
Do most American citizens live in that fear? Must the philosophical basis of our federal government and this republic be warped or even overturned in order to accommodate those “fears”?
What say, that in mike g fashion, we first link patient’s previous behavior to their claim to specific treatment before admitting the justice of that claim? Would using mike g’s principle, go some way toward reducing the load on the medical establishment? And what of all those burdening American hospital emergency rooms who are not even in the country legally?
Like I said earlier: “Lefties: what an endlessly importunate lot, and a suffocating drag they are.”
Please tell us more about how your parent’s suffering in the old country, caused you to dedicate yourself to making yourself a politically subversive nuisance here.
I care about your pain, I really do.
I thought liberals really were about equality, but, apparently, you’re ok with “the rich” still getting better care than everyone else. Because that’s what will happen, if there’s private insurance at all.
You think wrong, obviously. This isn’t surprising given your habit of engaging with strawmen.
The point is, Sharon, that health care has special characteristics – information asymmetry, agent-principal problems, and especially the ability to expand into unlimited demand very easily. The goal, therefore, is to deliver a basic level of care to all, as efficiently and rationally as possible, aimed at the goal of the maximum actual benefit based on that spending. If individuals want to spend above that for themselves as individuals, that’s their decision.
Thus, in the real world, socialised systems are supplemented with optional private insurance systems. People do not *need* private insurance, but can *have* it if they want.
I thought liberals really were about equality, but, apparently, you’re ok with “the rich” still getting better care than everyone else. Because that’s what will happen, if there’s private insurance at all.
Sharon, defender of winos! I admire your newfound concern for schizophrenics and their maladies. So what’s your beef here? That I refuse to take you hysterical false assumption that the government will restrict choices for those who wish to go outside of a public plan seriously? All you’re left with is your usual routine; ceaselessly repeating “BECAUSE I SAID SO”.
Instead, you simply go down the “private insurance is Teh Bad” road. You’re actually fine with rationing, too, Mike. Only you want the government to decide the winners and losers.
I know, I know. I was supposed to pee my pants in fear when you invoked the “rationing” boogeyman. What you have failed to do is explain why rationing by unaccountable private tyrannies is inherently better than rationing done by potentially accountable elected officials. I can at least understand that rationing occurs in both private and public systems.
I care about your pain, I really do.
Unctuous preener DNW masterfully replies with sarcasm, the lowest form of wit. Isn’t there some sidewalk out there that you should be erecting a toll-booth in front of? I mean, that concrete is just sitting there and it has never made one thin dime! No wonder it’s in such disrepair.
S bragging that her ongoing strategy of “just pretend you haven’t been proven wrong & keep posting longer and longer responses” counts as victory in her mind
I think the part where Pho admits it wouldn’t use the public health system in New Zealand constitutes victory.
“I think the part where Pho admits it wouldn’t use the public health system in New Zealand constitutes victory.”
After all those links, and all that jabbering and jibing, we find that the Phoenician certainly doesn’t recommend it. All of which leaves the question of what it is she would recommend, if she were in a position where her recommendation actually meant something.
What we can safely assume on the basis of the Phoenician’s own statements, is that it would include an element of centralized government “command”, and that one of the elements she approvingly lists, “equity”, however construed, would be an important part of it.
As I heard a Canadian say in praising his own system, it’s not so much the actual benefits that one received that counted when it came to emotional satisfaction received,, as much as the fact that their system was a governmentally mandated expression of almost the ultimate in social solidarity.
“Weez all in dis togedda, sniff …“
“I think the part where Pho admits it wouldn’t use the public health system in New Zealand constitutes victory.”
Well, maybe not completely but it does make you wonder why anyone in a country government run system would worry at all about not being able to afford health care if they become ill. Isn’t that the point of these systems, you don’t have to worry about that stuff.
What you have been writing about in other threads, Sharon, is true. Supply and Demand with government price controls, which they will impose, will lead to rationing. People that can afford better care, Shaq, Tom Brady, Paris Hilton, will be able to avoid the rationing by paying extra for better care. You will end up with at least a two-tiered system. The commoners will be able to avoid bankruptcy but they will have to settle on their care.
I think the part where Pho admits it wouldn’t use the public health system in New Zealand constitutes victory.
Gee, Sharon, where did you learn to read? Can you ask for your money back?
What I actually said was ” I wouldn’t recommend NZ’s public health-care system as a model, even if it is better than the US’s.”
No wonder you’re routinely outgunned in these discussions if that’s the level of your comprehension.
jcw: “Supply and Demand with government price controls, which they will impose, will lead to rationing.”
We already have rationing, jcw, by the insurance companies, by doctors and by family members. Life and death decisions are made all the time, as you would know well were you a medical services provider, or were you a relative who has had to be involved in such decisions. Of course rationing is not easy, but it is a necessity. So the premise of your comment, that we don’t have rationing, is not correct.
Therefore, to write honestly about rationing, it is unavoidable, government involvement or not.
We already have a model healthcare plan that works very well in this country, one with a public option (FFS) too, and offering many choices depending on one’s family needs. It is called the Federal Employee Health Benefit: http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/types.asp Check it out!
It also will be true under any healthcare insurance plan that the uber-wealthy will always be able to avoid the rationing that the rest of us have, so in that sense we will have a two-tiered system; in fact, we already do!
I personally prefer a simple, single payer plan, because it saves on private insurance administration fees and profits (about 30%), and it sets reimbursement fees for doctors, hospitals, labs, and other healthcare providers, which eliminates double-digit inflation of medical care. There are models in other nations as well as our own (Medicare), so we would not be reinventing the wheel. For those who can afford it, I’m sure the private insurers would be happy to provide either competitive insurance and to provide supplemental insurance.
Sharon, besides misquoting Phoenician, you avoided my question: Repeating: “Sharon, you didn’t answer this yet, so I’ll ask again:
Did you debunk this?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/economix/EconomixGraphUve.jpg
Or do I need to answer for you?”
Sharon’s answer: “And Perry, I’ll answer your question when you answer mine.”
Really weak, Sharon. In any case, I cannot find a question from you addressed to me.
What are you talking about? With over a million dollars in medical bills would I have enough experience to tell you that you are full of shit?
Are you sure about those figures and that the government plans do better?
Perry what experience have you had with Medicare? How about Medicaid? How much experience have you had with private carriers?
Gee, Sharon, where did you learn to read? Can you ask for your money back?
What I actually said was ” I wouldn’t recommend NZ’s public health-care system as a model, even if it is better than the US’s.”
No wonder you’re routinely outgunned in these discussions if that’s the level of your comprehension.
It’s odd that you think “as a model” changes the part of your statement that you “wouldn’t recommend it.” The implication, of course, is that you choose not to use it. This is why no thinking person takes your comments seriously.
So the premise of your comment, that we don’t have rationing, is not correct.
No, jcw’s comment is that the government isn’t determining what sort of care you get. You get to make that decision with the advice of your physician. Whether your insurance pays all, part, or none of that choice is another thing entirely.
The problem with your argument is that you accept the idea of rationing by government bureaucrats as acceptable. I do not.
And here is the question I put to you (and others) here:
As for “debunking” a chart with no context, what is there to say about it? What, precisely, are you wanting me to “debunk”?
I want the same health care options President Obama wants for his family.
It’s odd that you think “as a model” changes the part of your statement that you “wouldn’t recommend it.” The implication, of course, is that you choose not to use it.
No, Sharon, it does not. This is why we say you have problems reading.
I can and do use it. It does the job pretty well, producing free-to-the-consumer basic and emergency care. I’ve gotten emergency observation and care as needed, and had a long series of skin treatments without having to worry about paying a cent out of my pocket, and it handling a major infection when I was a kid which involved three serious operations and extended care – without bankrupting my mother. As a health system it works.
I wouldn’t recommend using it as a model when discussing health care reform which is what we are doing – it has excellent, even world class points, but its structure is too complicated due to regional politics. Based on the OECD measures, France is a better model.
Learn to read, Sharon. Really – it helps.
Thanks for clearing that up, Pho. I hope your model continues to work for you. I don’t want it here. As I said, I want all the options Barack Obama wants for his family.
Sharon’s answer: “As for “debunking” a chart with no context, what is there to say about it? What, precisely, are you wanting me to “debunk”?”
Sharon, you are forgetful too! You claimed that you debunked all of Phoenician’s links. Now do you remember?
Sharon: “BTW, do fat people pay fewer taxes in England? Or smokers? Or drinkers? And if they pay the same taxes for health care, why shouldn’t they get the care they want? It’s their right.”
I doubt they pay less taxes, but I don’t really know. Nevertheless, yes, everyone should get the care they need regardless.
pgwarner: “Perry what experience have you had with Medicare? How about Medicaid? How much experience have you had with private carriers?”
With them all, pg! Of them all, in today’s context, Medicare is better than any of the private insurers that I am aware of. Medicaid is not really an insurer in the sense that the others are, because there is no premium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
On the rationing issue, if you think about it a little more, I think you will agree with me that medical care is rationed as we speak. In other words, there are procedures and services that are not covered by insurance, and there are some that doctors, etc decide not to perform. Abortions are one example, but there are many others. This is rationing!
Perry, you really are a loser if that’s your idea of a “gotcha” moment. And if smokers, drinkers and the obese pay the same taxes, why shouldn’t they get all the care they need? And how are you planning to pay for it. I recommend that we take all your money first, since you seem to think it’s a great plan.
And your doctor deciding that you don’t need certain procedures is not rationing. You’re completely deceitful. You’ve learned how to be a liberal fast.
And by the way, Sharon, this chart certainly does have context:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/economix/EconomixGraphUve.jpg
It has a labeled ordinate and a labeled abscissa, and several points labeled, and the statistical parameters relating to the algebraic equation for the curve and the curve fit.
Of the 24 nations other than the US, all but one are close to the curve, meaning that there is a correlation between per capita health spending and GDP per capita. The US is the 25th. Instead of being on or near the correlation curve, it is significantly higher, indicating the significantly higher per capita health spending in the US.
This is the context, Sharon. I hope it helps.
These data (2006) suggest that the US has a significant problem with regard to what we put out for healthcare. Instead of $4819 per capita, it is $6714, about 39% higher than expected if we were to follow the correlation curve. That’s you and I, Sharon, who are paying!
Perry, you are correct there is rationing in the US with insurance companies but if I may quote from the article I referred to in an earlier response,
• 43% of New Zealand patients reported waiting one month or less for elective surgery. In comparison 63% of US patients, 51% of Australian patients, 38% of UK patients and 37% of Canadian patients waited one month or less for elective surgery.
• 26% of New Zealand patients reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery. In comparison 38% of UK patients, 27% of Canadian patients, 23% of Australian patients and 5% of US patients waited four months or more.
This is the gist of what I was getting at with rationing. As you can see US patients have very much more favorable wait times for elective surgery. So if you live in a country that deems hip replacement surgery is elective surgery you may be waiting awhile for it. Of course in almost any system Shaq won’t wait as long as me but I’m probably not going to wait nearly as long for my new hip as Pho.
I want the same health care options President Obama wants for his family.
25 June 2009, 5:54 pm
Absolutely! If it’s not good enough for the president and his family, then it’s not good enough for me or my family. Why would I and more importantly, why should I settle for second best? And, I would like to see Congress and the administration have the exact same health care plan that our enlisted men do. Or better yet, I’d like to see our military have the exact same quality of care that the president does.
This is an unacceptable double-standard and elitist hypocrisy on it’s face.
Therefore, to write honestly about rationing, it is unavoidable, government involvement or not.
Putting your fingers in your ears and repeating “but doctors don’t ration!!” isn’t a cogent response, Sharon. You’re disingenuously ignoring the crux of the argument which is that rationing goes on all the time in the health care industry because it completely undermines your central point; that rationing is bad and is inherent to a public option.
So I guess now we’re supposed to assume two things. Public and private options cannot exist side by side and that rationing is a pejorative.
Have you thought about how you can work the word “quota” into your directionless comments? That’d really be effective!
• 43% of New Zealand patients reported waiting one month or less for elective surgery. In comparison 63% of US patients, 51% of Australian patients, 38% of UK patients and 37% of Canadian patients waited one month or less for elective surgery.
• 26% of New Zealand patients reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery. In comparison 38% of UK patients, 27% of Canadian patients, 23% of Australian patients and 5% of US patients waited four months or more.
Uh-huh. And to what extent is that affected by the fact that the patients in the countries are able to get on waiting lists for surgery without having to worry about paying for them, as opposed to those in the USA – who are thus filtered <b.before appearing in the statistics? Now, I’ve used private medicine myself to bypass a waiting list for minor procedures – ingrown toenails. Then again, I’ve also been rushed to hospital and operated on the same day in an emergency with no cost to my family.
See here:
and here:
And from that last one as well:
I’m just sure Congress will include themselves in this scheme. If it’s good for us, it’s good for them.
Since jcw and I are both (ultimately) referring to studies from the Commonwealth Fund, here’s what they had to say about waiting times [p.27]:
If you go back, you’ll see JCW’s source citing this paper.
What it failed to cite were things like the following from teh same paper:
And the findings of the paper?
Not exactly Pho, from the actual study found here,
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Performance-Snapshots/International-Comparisons/International-Comparison–Access—Timeliness.aspx
“The U.S. patients reported relatively longer waiting times for doctor appointments when they were sick, but relatively shorter waiting times to be seen at the emergency department, see a specialist, and have elective surgery.”
Seems to me the author at the Huffington Post was playing a little loose with the data.
Next Pho says,
“Then again, I’ve also been rushed to hospital and operated on the same day in an emergency with no cost to my family.” Sorry Pho, but your family paid for the emergency surgery, just in a different way than my family would pay for emergency surgery.
Now the Commonwealth Fund certainly has an agenda, who doesn’t, but the information there is quite interesting and relevant.
My apologies for double posting of the Commonwealth Information between me and Pho. It appears Pho’s posting was in moderation when I did mine. As I said in mine, however, the Commonwealth Fund study does have interesting and relevant information about the topic being discussed. The other paper I referenced also had a lot of pertinent information about healthcare in a few other industrialized nations.
Of the 24 nations other than the US, all but one are close to the curve, meaning that there is a correlation between per capita health spending and GDP per capita. The US is the 25th. Instead of being on or near the correlation curve, it is significantly higher, indicating the significantly higher per capita health spending in the US.
Again, Perry, so what? We know the U.S. spends more. We also know that the rates for survival on a variety of cancers is significantly higher in the U.S. than other countries. We also perform operations that doctors and patients want and recommend at much higher rates than countries with socialized medicine. All your arguments to the side, even President Obama doesn’t want to be limited by the health care plan he wants to impose on the rest of us. That truly does say it all.
Putting your fingers in your ears and repeating “but doctors don’t ration!!” isn’t a cogent response, Sharon. You’re disingenuously ignoring the crux of the argument which is that rationing goes on all the time in the health care industry because it completely undermines your central point; that rationing is bad and is inherent to a public option.
First, I didn’t make the remark you cited, but since you decided to attack me, I’ll answer it. When my doctor determines that a particular course of action has better results for my ailments, it isn’t “rationing,” any more than my inability to buy a BMW is “rationing.” You want to argue that permitting the government to take my tax money involuntarily, then tell me which doctors, hospitals, and treatments I’m allowed to have is permissible because “everybody rations.” That logic didn’t work on my mother and it doesn’t work here, either.
If my insurance company won’t cover a procedure, I can choose a different company or pay for the procedure out of pocket. I don’t have to give the insurance company my money if I don’t like the policy. But the same can’t be said of a government mandated system. Sure, I can add an additional expense of buying my own insurance, but I’m also required to pay for the public plan whether I use it or not.
Perry:
Your abuse of the language is as incredibly corrupt as your utilitarian warped mind.
Rationing is controlled distribution. You could only conceive of medical treatment choices as being necessarily “rationed” by their very nature, if you first assume that all medical activities are in principle socially owned products, in critically limited supply; and that the only question open is, who most properly gets to do the directive allocating when it comes to the socially fungible recipients.
For you, seemingly every availability or non-availability of a good be it geographically or economically based, every choice be it pragmatic, idealistic, or a matter of idiosyncratic preference, is “rationed”, i.e., an instance of controlled distribution.
You think that some innocent individual is going to get hurt in any event, therefore it’s best that government do the hurting in the interest of the “greater good”.
” … if someone really thinks, in advance, that it is open to question whether such an action as procuring the judicial execution of the innocent should be quite excluded from consideration?-I do not want to argue with him; he shows a corrupt mind.” G.E.M. Anscombe
First, I didn’t make the remark you cited, but since you decided to attack me, I’ll answer it. When my doctor determines that a particular course of action has better results for my ailments, it isn’t “rationing,” any more than my inability to buy a BMW is “rationing.”
I don’t think doctors ration on a regular basis either unless they’re in an acute or trauma setting. Perry made the statement. I was merely commenting on your preferred method of discussion; constant, inane repetition.
You want to argue that permitting the government to take my tax money involuntarily, then tell me which doctors, hospitals, and treatments I’m allowed to have is permissible because “everybody rations.” That logic didn’t work on my mother and it doesn’t work here, either.
This would make sense if somebody was forcing you into the public option. Nobody is. You have no argument. As for the tax issue I can accept that angle because at least it’s not a hypothetical. My recommendation? Ask for some of DNW’s old copies of Reason magazine to dry your tears with. Perhaps you two can erect a toll booth by a local see-saw or swing-set. Ya know, show those dirty hippies what capitalism and free enterprise are all about.
Rationing is controlled distribution.
So you’re admitting that an insurance company rations. I’m glad we could settle that.
I hold property/casualty licenses in five states. I have worked as an adjuster for two major insurance companies. I currently do contract adjusting work for a publishing company. I assign dollar amounts to errors everyday from 8-5 based on a number of underwriting criteria. I ration.
DNW, aside from all of your preening and bluster you’ve only got one tune to sing and that is government is reflexively bad. You sound like one of those guys who read Atlas Shrugged for the first time in college and couldn’t STFU about it on your dorm floor. Here’s a bit of insight from the real world…grown-ups who have read Wealth of Nations past page one hundred don’t take your free-market fantasies seriously.
I was merely commenting on your preferred method of discussion; constant, inane repetition.
Exactly when did I do this? When we talked examples, I gave examples. When we talked broad policies, I gave broad policies. When someone argues that “everybody rations,” as though that makes government mandates about my health care permissible, I attack that assumption. Your mischaracterizations are inane.
This would make sense if somebody was forcing you into the public option. Nobody is.
If, as Democrats have discussed, Americans’ health benefits are taxed, it will encourage businesses to drop their private insurance, forcing more people into the “public option.” There have already been studies showing a large increase in the numbers of uninsured once a “public option” is put in place.
As for the tax issue I can accept that angle because at least it’s not a hypothetical.
But it clearly doesn’t bother you that people will be expected to pay even more for a system that they don’t want. Some liberty.
There have already been studies showing a large increase in the numbers of uninsured once a “public option” is put in place.
And yet you do not cite them. Is this because, as so often seems to happen, you’re misrepresenting them, or ignoring other things they say which invalidate your case?
When someone argues that “everybody rations,” as though that makes government mandates about my health care permissible, I attack that assumption.
Again, I’m glad that we can agree that health insurance companies ration.
There have already been studies showing a large increase in the numbers of uninsured once a “public option” is put in place.
Well, Sharon, here’s your chance to show that you actually have an argument besides government = bad. Put up or shut up.
But it clearly doesn’t bother you that people will be expected to pay even more for a system that they don’t want. Some liberty.
No because that money can come from elsewhere in the budget. It’s a question of priorities. It seems to me that we subsidize high-tech industry in this country to the tune of half a trillion dollars a year via the Pentagon. I would suggest starting there.
Sharon: “If, as Democrats have discussed, Americans’ health benefits are taxed, it will encourage businesses to drop their private insurance, forcing more people into the “public option.””
Not necessarily. Here is my understanding of the public option: The tax will be on employees as an income tax, not on employers, therefore there will be no impact on the employer bottom line. The employee then will have a choice to make: Stay with their employer provided health insurance, or chose the public option. My guess: The employee premium contribution, including the additional tax, will still be cheaper than the public option, for which the employee would have to pay the entire public option premium. So this will come out of employee pockets in the form of a higher income tax — not to cool! Therefore I would like to see the tax idea dropped. Nevertheless, the public option definitely will be competitive with the non-employee provided health insurance choices, therefore reducing the premiums, forcing the health insurers to operate leaner (less profit; lower administration costs), and permitting more people to afford health insurance, therefore a net reduction in healthcare costs for the nation and an increase in the number of citizens insured.
Sharon: “There have already been studies showing a large increase in the numbers of uninsured once a “public option” is put in place.”
I concur with Phoenician and mike g, Sharon. There is no reason for us to believe in your far-out, off-the-wall statements like this unless you provide some credible citations. Therefore your grade is barely passing, a “D”! (I’m being charitable, because that’s what Liberals do!) Continue? You might as well save your typing fingers from the stress! Provide references? Your grade improves!
Pho, I didn’t really think I need to link to this, since pretty much everybody was talking about it just a week ago. But, I suppose you were too busy trying to find links to support your arguments to actually read anything. Same for you, Mike. You know, try reading the news.
Again, I’m glad that we can agree that health insurance companies ration.
No one’s agreeing to that. If your health insurance company doesn’t cover a procedure, it’s not being rationed. You still have the option to pay for it or find a different insurance company.
No because that money can come from elsewhere in the budget.
Didn’t your party just vote to triple the deficit? Physician, heal thyself.
The tax will be on employees as an income tax, not on employers, therefore there will be no impact on the employer bottom line.
Employers get tax write-offs for offering insurance, Perry. Obama’s already proposed taking that away. On top of this, let’s not forget that Obama excoriated John McCain for suggesting that we would need to tax insurance benefits as income. Were you in favor of it then?
Your arguments are naive. Employers offer insurance in lieu of additional compensation. If there’s no incentive to offer it, they won’t. Why should they? If employees are going to pay the taxes anyway, what reason would employers have outside of some feel-good emotionalism for offering it?
Here’s the kicker: the government doesn’t have to compete with the private sector if they become insurers. The government health insurance system won’t go belly up; they’ll simply raise taxes and/or cut services. And if all else fails, they’ll just print more money (like we’re doing now). Private companies have to compete for business and make a profit to stay solvent. Unfair competition. You bet.
I concur with Phoenician and mike g, Sharon. There is no reason for us to believe in your far-out, off-the-wall statements like this unless you provide some credible citations. Therefore your grade is barely passing, a “D”! (I’m being charitable, because that’s what Liberals do!) Continue? You might as well save your typing fingers from the stress! Provide references? Your grade improves!
Read the news, Perry. The CBO estimates that 23 million people will not be covered under Obamacare. And that’s after spending $1 trillion that we don’t have. Why should we pay for that and have to buy private insurance because the government-run system will be awful?
Pho, I didn’t really think I need to link to this, since pretty much everybody was talking about it just a week ago. But, I suppose you were too busy trying to find links to support your arguments to actually read anything. Same for you, Mike. You know, try reading the news.
Oh, Jesus, you’re funny.
Your claim: “There have already been studies showing a large increase in the numbers of uninsured once a “public option” is put in place.”
The piece you cite:
You get it, Sharon? You’re quoting a piece which talks about a NET DECREASE in the number of uninsured.
And you wonder why we keep laughing at your reading ability…
Here’s the kicker: the government doesn’t have to compete with the private sector if they become insurers. The government health insurance system won’t go belly up; they’ll simply raise taxes and/or cut services.
And yet, as has been shown, countries which use government health insurance lie along a nice line relating GDP per capita to spending – with the US spending way above this line.
Read the news, Perry. The CBO estimates that 23 million people will not be covered under Obamacare.
The actual quote again:
Gee, I can’t understand WHY we keep asking you to provide cites for your bullshit assertions, can you?
Pho, the cost would be $1 trillion.
And, I hate to keep pointing this out to you, but the 40 to 50 million is a lie.
There have already been studies showing a large increase in the numbers of uninsured once a “public option” is put in place.
Pardon me, but did Sharon just link to a study that is completely at odds with the above statement that she made earlier in the same day? And she still has the guts to chide others about not reading? What a piece of work. Like I’ve said before, Sharon, you are pathologically unable to concede a point even when you go out of your way to contradict yourself. Pathetic.
what reason would employers have outside of some feel-good emotionalism for offering it?
To attract the best talent in the labor pool, of course. Free market and all, right Sharon?
Private companies have to compete for business and make a profit to stay solvent.
I don’t remember getting to choose what company to insure with during orientation. Does anybody else?
Why should we pay for that and have to buy private insurance because the government-run system will be awful?
You just can’t stop relying on those hypotheticals, can you? Do you have a tangible argument? It looks to me like you don’t.
So, again, what we’re left with here since Sharon’s citations don’t support her contentions, is government = bad ideological posturing. Do I have that right?
Pho, the cost would be $1 trillion.
Uh-huh. An estimated 1 trillion OVER TEN YEARS to cover an estimated 39 million people.
Which comes down to, oh, $2,500 per person per year. Or about 10-15% less than is currently been spent per person on private health care, by a back of the envelope calculation from here.
And, I hate to keep pointing this out to you, but the 40 to 50 million is a lie.
Sharon, you yourself quoted the CBO talking about 39 million.
Pardon me, but did Sharon just link to a study that is completely at odds with the above statement that she made earlier in the same day?
Worse – she linked to that study IN AN ATTEMPT TO SUPPORT the statement she made earlier today.
She is so totally pwned.
Our Phoenician friend directly quotes the CBO report:
Given that the number of people uninsured is currently greater than 16 to 17 million, does that not mean that such plan would leave a rather substantial number of people uninsured even after the passage of this plan? Given that you quoted the number of uninsured as 39 million, wouldn’t a net decrease of 16 million leave 23 million uninsured, the very number you complained that Sharon misstated?
I haven’t participated in this thread very much — very busy week at work, you know! — so I have missed some of the arguments made. However, I’d point out that, unlike most of the writers here, I decided, very reluctantly, that we’d have to go to a single-payer plan in the United States. I ended that article thus:
Now, I am under no illusions that this will make our health care system better. Like every government program which provides benefits to individuals, it will be abused. Like every government program, there will be huge cost overruns. Like every large government program, bureaucrats will have to do things to try and reduce costs, and those measures will make our health care system poorer in quality. But the internal discipline of a capitalist system, that if you don’t pay for something, you don’t get it, has been abandoned in our medical care system: we don’t let people who are sick but can pay for treatment die in the street.
This is the greatest weakness in our current system: people who pay for health care coverage get health care, and people who don’t pay for health care coverage get health care. If we go to a single=payer system, at least the government will be taxing everyone something to pay for health care.
Naturally, those who make more will have to pay more. I’d be much happier with a flat-rate government taxation scheme: $50 a week from everyone, regardless of his income, $50 from Perry, $50 from me, $50 from Art and Sharon and Jeromy. But we won’t do it that way. Instead, the people who make more money will wind up paying more money, while the minimum wage earners will pay less. But at least they will have to pay something, which seems to be the best we can hope to achieve.
Pardon me, but did Sharon just link to a study that is completely at odds with the above statement that she made earlier in the same day? And she still has the guts to chide others about not reading? What a piece of work. Like I’ve said before, Sharon, you are pathologically unable to concede a point even when you go out of your way to contradict yourself. Pathetic.
While I’m not going to link to the numerous times I have admitted to making mistakes–unlike every troll who visits this site–I can and do. And while the CBO argues that the number of uninsured will go down, I would point out that (a) they are new uninsured and (b) if the real number of people who cannot get insurance is 19 million, then this is, in fact, a net increase.
I don’t remember getting to choose what company to insure with during orientation. Does anybody else?
You always have the option of buying your own private insurance. You don’t have to sign up with the plan your company offers. And, btw, many companies, particularly large ones, offer a variety of plans, from HMOs to PPOs to 80/20 plans and HSAs for employees to choose from.
You just can’t stop relying on those hypotheticals, can you? Do you have a tangible argument? It looks to me like you don’t.
What is hypothetical about having to pay (through tax dollars) for Obamacare, then pay more money for private insurance? This entire conversation has revolved around Pho’s contention that it is perfectly acceptable for this to happen. The truth is, if I’m paying for the government plan, and still have to buy private insurance because the government plan is lousy, how is that a good thing? You’ve already conceded that having to pay taxes on a system you can’t use is not right. How is repeating that “a hypothetical”?
Uh-huh. An estimated 1 trillion OVER TEN YEARS to cover an estimated 39 million people.
Which comes down to, oh, $2,500 per person per year. Or about 10-15% less than is currently been spent per person on private health care
First, this is only an estimation by the CBO, and we have many examples of government spending going well above and beyond earlier estimates. And this doesn’t include people who will either be dropped from company insurance or who decide they want a freebie through government insurance. Second, the U.S. does not have $1 trillion for anything, given the budget-busting the Democrats have already engaged in during the last six months.
And while the CBO argues that the number of uninsured will go down, I would point out that (a) they are new uninsured and (b) if the real number of people who cannot get insurance is 19 million, then this is, in fact, a net increase.
That quote from the CBO again:
To give an analogy, imagine the border between North Korea and South Korea opens. It is estimated that 39 million North Koreans will head south, and 23 million South Koreans head north.
Sharon will be out there saying it is a bad thing because, look, people are heading north and therefore opening the border increased the population of North Korea…
While I’m not going to link to the numerous times I have admitted to making mistakes…
You won’t because you can’t.
No one’s agreeing to that. If your health insurance company doesn’t cover a procedure, it’s not being rationed. You still have the option to pay for it or find a different insurance company.
Oh, insurance companies have unlimited resources? That’s a new one. Pointing out that people have choices in regards to service doesn’t mean that insurance companies don’t ration. The company (or entity) has a limited supply of resources (money) that they distribute based upon a variety of criteria. That is the textbook definition of rationing. Whether there are other options available doesn’t enter into it. You simply want rationing to be a naughty word like “quota” because to you only government rations and government = bad. Can it be put any
Didn’t your party just vote to triple the deficit? Physician, heal thyself.
You mean the continuation of Bush’s policies? Regardless, I don’t see how your comment is relevant to what I was saying. As I stated previously there are large swaths of the budget that could receive cuts. If you can’t respect that then I guess you simply are unwilling to take suggestions seriously.
And while the CBO argues that the number of uninsured will go down, I would point out that (a) they are new uninsured and (b) if the real number of people who cannot get insurance is 19 million, then this is, in fact, a net increase.
Is that what it shows, Sharon? Or is that what your right-wing think tank says? Again, you’ve failed to show any citation to back up your claims and instead of owning up to your blunder you’ve gone back to your usual childish MO; accusing those that question your outlandish claims of lack of understanding.
The truth is, if I’m paying for the government plan, and still have to buy private insurance because the government plan is lousy, how is that a good thing?
You’re hypothesizing that the government plan will be lousy. Of course one must take into consideration your singular criteria; the knee replacement, the apparent gold standard by which we should all base our judgment. The truth, as any adult would be more than happy to tell you (you would say so as well but you’re too busy ignoring the facts and your own experience to be honest), is that the surgeries you invoke aren’t covered worth a d*mn by private insurance companies and when they are you end up paying exorbitant amounts in the end anyway. I ended up paying for half of my retinal surgery even though I had “good” insurance because it wasn’t deemed completely necessary by BCBS. Now, in your estimation, I could have gone out and found an insurance company that would have covered me. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this scenario? Surprise me, Sharon, and tell me I don’t have to spell this one out for you.
Let’s assume that it does take roughly $2,500 per person, per year, to cover everyone in America. And let us further assume that an “average family” consists of four people. It would cost $10,000 to insure the average family. Well, according to the 2008 Federal Income Tax Tables (warning: pdf document), federal income tax does not cross the $10,000 threshold for a married couple filing jointly until they have reached $69,250 of taxable income. But taxable income is not your gross income. From the 2008 Form 1040, such couple taking the standard deduction of $10,900 and having four personal exemptions ($3,500 x 4 = $14,000), to have a taxable income (Line 43) of $69,250 you’d have an adjusted gross income (Line 38) of $94,150!
Now, it might be reasonable to say that we’ll raise taxes to cover the health insurance through the government, but as people lose their health insurance premiums, it’ll work out to be a net zero. Except, of course, that that isn’t the way it would work. Most people get their health insurance through their employers, and the employer pays the lion’s share. If employers were somehow required to give every employee a raise to match what the employer contributed to their health insurance, so that individuals could then have the money to pay the health insurance tax, it might work out as a net was to those people who already have health insurance. How would you raise taxes on people making the median income ($67,019 in 2005; I couldn’t find the 2008 number.) or less to produce an additional $2,500 per person?
Taking $68,000 as a 2008 rough median income (I added a little for inflation, not having the exact number), you get a taxable income of $43,100, on which the 2008 federal income tax was just $5,666. Our taxes are already too high; just where will people get the money to pay the new taxes for health care?
Oh, silly me, of course I know the answer: the minimum wage earner won’t see his taxes go up at all; it will be the more productive people who will be expected to pay for the health care of the less productive. So when the Pico family income goes up $10,000, as employers are required to give us raises to make up for the amounts of money they no longer pay for our health insurance, the Pico family’s taxes will have to be increased by more than $10,000, much more than $10,000, to pay for the health care of those who make less.
Let’s assume that it does take roughly $2,500 per person, per year, to cover everyone in America. And let us further assume that an “average family” consists of four people. It would cost $10,000 to insure the average family.
In 2007, the U.S. spent $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person, up from $2.1 trillion, or $7,026 per capita, the previous year (Wikipedia). That would be about $30,000 for your family of 4. Of that, 51% was paid for privately. So, by your own estimates, that would mean you could replace about $3,750 in private spending with $2,500 in taxes.
It’s not quite that simple, of course, because, on the one hand, people will still get supplemental private insurance, and on the other hand, the government already covers a huge proportion of the population in insurance (Medicare and Medicaid, especially for the expensive seniors).
But, unless your argument is that it is better to pay $3,750 to a private company than $2,500 to the government, or that it is better for the poor and rich alike to have to pay the same or go without rather than allocating the burden by the ability to afford it(*), you have a problem.
(*)”The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” – Anatole France.
It is better for everyone to have to pay the same, regardless of income. To me, the Sixteenth Amendment was the greatest violence we ever did to the wisdom of the Framers.
It is better for everyone to have to pay the same, regardless of income.
Meaning, of course, that the poor should die and the rich should live?
Why exactly is this “better”? Spell it out in terms of outcomes as well as ideology, please.
*crickets*
Mike g,
Why the dishonesty, mike?
1. The point in contention was whether the marketplace phenomenon that Perry was terming “rationing”, was morally and politically the same in its coercive effects as universal government rationing, (or the grant of a universal power to the government to ultimately ration medical treatment).
Perry wrote in a typical utilitarian vein: ” …to write honestly about rationing, it is unavoidable, government involvement or not.”
Thus, Perry attempted to establish a kind of sociopolitical equivalency between a governmentally controlled distribution of a good on the one hand, and the series of private cost/benefit choices and evaluations made by persons who seek and purchase private medical treatments, and those who either provide them or underwrite the potential costs of them, on the other.
Now, you claim to be involved in a part of this market process as an adjuster. Based on certain supposed acts you perform, you attempt to generalize from your sphere of apparently commercial activities, to a more universal principle: insinuating that so as you in commercial practice make decisions, so by this example we are all then globally subject to the effects these same “rationing” decisions, regardless of personal condition.
But that’s a form of equivocation. Your “rationing” is not in any way the same as federal governmental rationing, either in human scope, or in legal authority.
You might as well argue that because you were hired as an institutional dietician, you have special insight into the inevitability and desirability of a state controlled commissary.
You would argue that as we all decide by one principle or another what food to eat based on various factors somewhat beyond our effective control, therefore, all access to food might as well be ultimately “rationed” by the government. And, since we don’t have complete control anyway, better absolute final control by a bureaucrat we can trust, than limited control by a privately hired dietician who may have impure motives.
In fact, mike g, you are a mere hireling, and not master of the political universe; and you have no universal power to “ration” and apportion beyond your charter.
This equivocal argument of yours then, is in form the same dishonest argument as that used by Marxists when they deny that individual economic and political choice and liberty is actually significant; given they say, that there are exigent circumstances that condition our practical economic choices. “You really are not ‘free’ to chose if you are not also free of the impositions and concerns of earning a livelihood”, they say.
(Which says something about the mind-set of the one who makes that argument, no doubt.)
2. If, mike, you have something specific you wish to discuss in the Wealth of Nations, please do so. It would probably prove more interesting than are your pretentious allusions to having some such point in pocket.
3. As for my considering government as intrinsically (You probably meant to say “reflexively sing”) bad? What preposterous line of “reasoning” misled you to that conclusion? That I don’t see it as my duty to pay for your medical bills, or Phoenician’s eczema treatments through taxes?
In fact, government is probably indispensable in one form or another to associative life. It only becomes “bad” when some troubled or calculating persons like yourself attempt to warp the legitimate functions of our institutions of governance away from a focus on the preservation of liberty, in order to use it in order to coerce other members of the polity to underwrite their private concerns.
Now as for the rest of your various expressions of pique, here and elsewhere: You obviously nurse active resentments toward FDR’s delay in WWII, and over Mr. and Mrs. Gooch’s travails in the English weaving sheds, and apparently, toward disciples of Ayn Rand, as well.
What any of this has to do with me, exists only in your own mind.
You seem to come at all this with the assumption that your emotional baggage is somehow my baggage, and that your life’s purpose is properly manifest in getting me and others to carry it.
Unfortunately for you, chump, that’s a game you are doomed to play with yourself.
DNW bringin the attrition strategy of interminable posting, very hard to roll saving throw against that one
But that’s a form of equivocation. Your “rationing” is not in any way the same as federal governmental rationing, either in human scope, or in legal authority.
In the sense that the free market “rationing” seems to kill about 22,000 additional Americans a year.
So, when Al Qaeda cite ideology as a reason for bringing down the World Trade Centre, killing about 3000 Americans, this is seen as evil. When wingnuts cite ideology as a reason for standing in the way of a singer-payer health system, as followed by every other Western country, and consequently accept about 22,000 Americans dying needlessly each year, this is… what?
There is nothing intrinsically morally superior or worthwhile in socialism over capitalism that is worth a single human life. however, there is equally nothing intrinsically morally superior or worthwhile in capitalism over socialism that is worth a single human life.
So why is DNW advocating that 22,000 Americans die needlessly each year?
So, Michael Jackson’s estate is now gonna pay for all our health care?
DNW bringin the attrition strategy of interminable posting, very hard to roll saving throw against that one
There’s a scene in the Blackadder series where the boys serve up dog turds, well garnished and on silver plates. The officers eat it all up. They’re not very smart. DNW figures he can do the same thing if he deploys a thesaurus and a guide to philosophy well enough. It’s still the same old shit underneath, though – you just have to dig a little further to smell it out.
To quote: “Good Prose should be transparent—like a window pane. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.” – George Orwell
So, Michael Jackson’s estate is now gonna pay for all our health care?
I think it all went on his plastic surgery bills.
And here’s a look at how well private insurance is working in the US:
What, thinking of trying something new? Seeing that you confine yourself to generating sniping one liners and posting mealy-mouthed pieties, you have little reason to complain of the difficulty of a work you have never undertaken in the first place.
But my freedom is more important to me than is ensuring your comfort. So yes, there is something intrinsically and morally superior in a constitutional polity and system dedicated to the preservation of liberty and self-direction, to the kind of human termite heap that seems to enthrall you.
I don’t blame you for your acquired tastes, Pho, or your assortative selectional breeding, or your social conditioning, or whatever it is that causes you to imagine or pretend to imagine that I have an unconditional obligation to haul your worthless carcass around wherever I go.
I merely dispute the fact that I do have such an unconditional moral obligation, and I point out that your social solidarity pimping technique is just part of the survival strategy you employ as a means of getting others to underwrite your satisfactions and projects to the detriment of their own best liberty interests.
And as I said before: the world is a big place.
Seeing that much of it has already been thoroughly infested with, and dedicated to the service of, people like yourself; feeble little twits with big appetites for laying claims on others, I see no need to accommodate you here as well.
Maybe the 22 thousand should move to New Zealand. Free travel is still a reality, and I’m sure you would be happy to have them there, safe and cozy in the middle of your airless little social scrum.
Maybe mike g would find it more congenial there as well …
So why is DNW advocating that 22,000 Americans die needlessly each year?”
But my freedom is more important to me than is ensuring your comfort.
DNW, why are you advocating 22,000 Americans die needlessly each year? Not “my comfort” – Americans dying.
DNW, I think we can all agree that our healthcare system is broken, and does not stand up in coverage when compared to the rest of the developed world. We just cannot be satisfied with having 22,000 Americans dying needlessly, and with countless others suffering due to unaffordable thus insufficient medical services.
If you have an idea about how we can fix this high priority problem, what is it?
Did somebody say my name?
mike g:
Did somebody say my name?
Why? Was there a disturbance in the force?
Despite all your big talk and scatological references, you’re feeble, princess, very feeble. Flinging references to shit around, doesn’t mask your weakness any.
What I am doing, and have been doing, is exposing you as a childish poseur, as a dishonest polemicist, and as an hysterically ignorant one to boot.
Examples of your stupidity? You pretended to a legal competency when discussing the doctrine of habeas corpus, but you cannot spell the term. You made categorical claims regarding American marriage law, that I demonstrated were false. You grandly mis-cited J. S. Mill the utilitarian-liberal philosopher, as author of a “classic conservative text”, and “knowingly” referred to him while doing so, as “John Mills”.
The fact is, that while you pretended to know something about philosophy, and legal theory, and ethics, the evidence of your own postings is that you even don’t know enough to make your pretenses coherent, much less make your argument compelling.
You aren’t roundly educated, Pho. You merely have a search engine at your disposal, and a lot of driving resentment to use it; which, despite your delusions, cannot rescue you from your basic educational deficits.
Not embarrassed yet? Still insulated from feelings of shame by the heat of your ideological ardor? Need further examples of your absurd ignorance? Then continue reading …
In an attempt to make your case on the Gitmo matter, you gullibly linked to an old and notorious left-wing lawyers guild, which informed Americans know, once served as a communist front. And then, in advancing your proposition that Bush administration officials might be indicted on criminal conspiracy charges, you triumphantly cited a magazine article, the hopeful premise of which was invalidated by court decisions months before you even linked to it..
Is that evidence enough that you are a bullshit artist, even for you?
How about we apply the term “chickenshit” to you as well? You are after all, the one who called Art Downs “senile”, half-a-dozen others “stupid”, and Sharon a “waste of carbon”, while yourself getting comically indignant over the fact that Cindy Sheehan’s babbling antics were mocked on this board.
And now you post a link to a web site claiming that 22,000 Americans suffered needless deaths as a result of lack of insurance, while asking me why I want to see 22,000 Americans needlessly die.
Of course the site itself says:
“Surely”? How the hell would they know …
and …
Except however, of those 40,500 prox. who died in that cohort in 2000, approximately 3,300 were the result of “murder” [which is a subcategory of homicide and excludes additional figures for justifiable homicide by police or private citizens, for example].
But what of suicide and accident as well?
Poor Martha drowned in a lake when she drunkenly fell off their boat. If only she had gotten that mammogram she had been delaying …
Now, if we look at the figures for 2005, we see that approximately 42,000 persons in this same cohort died. What this indicates is that the aggregate figures for total deaths in this age cohort are not swinging wildly. Thus, we can likely get some analogical notion (without endless research) of how the breakdowns likely operated in 2000, from chronologically near years.
So, in 2006, we see the top ten leading causes of mortality account for almost 34,800 deaths in this age cohort.
Now, what were the very top 2006 causes by the numbers? Unintentional injury, 14,954; suicide, 4,985; homicide 4,725.
Doesn’t leave much room in this category for the death-by- illness-due-to-un/underinsurance manipulations engaged in by your cited authorities, does it.
Their argument is faulty because their initial assumptions -quoted above – are seriously and obviously flawed. But you uncritically swallowed it right up, just like the little religious zealot with a chip on her shoulder that you are.
Pho: you make bold claims. You attempt to buttress them with displays of pretended knowledge and with unexamined links. But it’s clear you don’t even understand the implications of the material you are yourself citing.
And all of your references to “fuck”, and “piss”, and “shit” and how stupid, senile, and a waste of carbon others are, won’t do anything at all to change that, princess …
No, Perry, I don’t agree with you on several fronts.
First, Pho’s numbers are untrustworthy, as I have just demonstrated.
Next, as I have said before, I don’t think that we have a “health care ‘system’ ” in the sense seemingly assumed by many on the “progressive” side. In that instance meaning “system” as a socially owned institution.
There are for-profit hospitals, non-profit hospitals and government owned hospitals.
In places like the City of Detroit, government institutions or systems, have been so poorly managed that they were unsustainable, and large portions of them were closed down. It occured while the political class of the city sat contentedly among the ruins they had made, dividing up the dwindling spoils.
This left non-profits like St. John providing hundreds of millions in unreimbursed services to city residents who complained about the Catholic sister’s inability to underwrite their desires, while doing nothing about the civic political leadership that had left them relying on Catholic charity for medical treatment.
It’s not a medical system that is broken Perry. It is a political system that is broken, which, as a result, stresses every civil institution within geographical reach. And the pattern is repeated all across the nation wherever “progressives” have had success infesting the institutions of government and implementing their entropic schemes.
By the way, Perry, what was the result of your communications with Population Control, when you expressed your annoyance with their hypocritical position on immigration and population growth in this country?
You are, after all Perry, the one who directly complained about population as a systemic problem. Surely you must be aware that although acknowledged illegals make up a small reported portion of emergency room visits, the EMTALA has in general proven a disaster for American hospitals, and that their children born in this country, are not counted as illegals.
And then too you might ask your brother in law about the “frequent flyer” phenomenon. I’m sure he has put in internship time in the emergency room.
And then too, there is mike g’s plan for sorting the deserving from the undeserving when it comes to government controlled rationing.
So now, why should many type two diabetics presently get treated for free [and many do, gangrenous feet, failing kidneys and all], when under mike g’s scheme of things they may be eventually denied rationed treatment later anyway when the government gets in control?
Look at the “system” problem closely Perry, and it begins to dissolve into some fairly discrete problems that have obvious and reasonable solutions. Ones that don’t require warping the entire constitutional framework of this country in just order to get someone like Pho a tar bath.
You can wear that yoke of obligation voluntarily if you want. And you can do it without a governmental mandate. Why the urge to drag everyone along with you?
So, in 2006, we see the top ten leading causes of mortality account for almost 34,800 deaths in this age cohort.
Now, what were the very top 2006 causes by the numbers? Unintentional injury, 14,954; suicide, 4,985; homicide 4,725.
Doesn’t leave much room in this category for the death-by- illness-due-to-un/underinsurance manipulations engaged in by your cited authorities, does it.
Either that, or you’re deliberately trying to distort and confuse the issue by referring to one of the healthiest part of the population, the 25-34 cohort, one of those least likely to die from diseases and illness, and one of those most likely to die from violence.
A tool for looking at mortality by age can be found here.
For 2006, the top three causes of death for the 25-34 group were indeed unintentional injury (14,954), suicide (4,985) and homicide (4,735).
What you seem to have deliberately not mentioned in attempting to discredit figures you object to on ideological grounds are the other figures which place them in context.
For 2006, the top three causes of death for the 35-44 group were unintentional injury (17,534), malignant neoplasms (13,917), and heart disease (12,339). For the 45-54 group, malignant neoplasms (50,334), heart disease (38,095), and unintentional injury (19,675). For the 55-64 group, malignant neoplasms (101,454), heart disease (65,477) and chronic low respitory disease (12,375).
You stated “Doesn’t leave much room in this category for the death-by- illness-due-to-un/underinsurance manipulations engaged in by your cited authorities, does it” citing just mortality in the 25-34 range. the claim was about Americans overall – we can see that just one type of illness for one other group, cancer in the 55-64 group, kills nearly three times as many Americans as those three causes you cite for the 25-34 range.
And cancer deaths are related to medical care and insurance cover.
First, Pho’s numbers are untrustworthy, as I have just demonstrated.
No, DNW. All you have shown is that you are willing to distort facts to tell lies in service of an ideological stance.
And just to reiterate that DNW is being dishonest, rather than merely mistaken, the report I cited discusses these issues in greater detail:
Bugger. Dana, can you insert a close blockquote tag above the “so, to recap” para, please?
I don?t normally comment on blogs but your post was a real call to action. Thank you for a great read, I will be sure to bookmark your site and check in now and again.
I referred to problems with derivations from 25-34 year old cohort,because it is precisely the same age cohort used by the authors to illustrate the operation of their methodology.
The authors again:
They used that number in order to demonstrate the supposed soundness of their method, and present us with a specific numerical figure on premature deaths caused by uninsurance within that cohort, which they derived from use of the total data set. They gave the number of deaths caused by a lack of insurance as “1,930″.
However even you recognize the problem with using this 40,548 total number (when you criticize my supposedly ideologically motivated reference to this specific 25-34 year old cohort.)
The total population of persons dying in this age cohort who are relevant to their analysis, is much smaller than the 40,584 figure they use.
And lack of insurance doesn’t prevent a drowned party-goer or head capped gang-banger from being transported by ambulance to an emergency room.
I referred to problems with derivations from 25-34 year old cohort,because it is precisely the same age cohort used by the authors to illustrate the operation of their methodology.
They used it to illustrate a methodology. You attempted to extend the special characteristics of this cohort to the sample as a whole. It’s like citing Rush Limbaugh as an example of a conservative, and then working from the premise that all conservatives are fat white males.
The study starts in laying out its methodology as:
Note that the studies used did NOT state “a 25% increase in mortality risk for adults aged 25-34″ but “working-age adults”. The IOM methodology assumed this applied equally to every 10 year cohort.
You are quite right in saying that this methodology probably overstates the case for the 25-34 cohort. Where you are dishonest is that you didn’t acknowledge that it likewise understates the case for other cohorts, such as the 55-64 cohort. AND YOU CAN’T CLAIM IT WAS AN HONEST MISTAKE BECAUSE THIS REPORT DISCUSSES JUST THAT FLAW BELOW, concluding that even more people are dying unnecessarily thatn the original study estimated.
Your dishonesty is transparent, DNW.
Utter bullshit. The class interval at issue was the sample they used to make their case. I merely demonstrated that their assumed multiplier, to use the term loosely, could not be validly applied to the entire population of the specific death cohort in question (as if it were a sound interval in itself), and for which they provided a resultant number.
That derived number of 1,930, is based on their unadjusted sample of 40,548 deaths. However, half or more of that number of observations could not, per their own hypothesis, be relevant in assessing the specific effect they seek to substantiate.
If we accept their formula and their assumptions, and I see no reason to do so uncritically, the 1,930 figure would probably be cut in half or to less than that, depending on what causes of death (such as a gunshot wound to the head/DOA)that you exclude as being irrelevant to assessing the number of deaths actually caused by a lack of utilized insurance based prophylactic medical care.
Now, that is simply the problem with that particular cohort’s unadjusted death numbers.
…
“You are quite right in saying that this methodology probably overstates the case for the 25-34 cohort.”
Yes, I am. As an old text on statistics pointed out: “Any interpretation of cause and effect must be based on logical considerations, not based on the observed ( or in this case fabricated) correlation. The observed correlation may suggest a cause-and-effect relationship, but can never prove that it exists or show in what degree it exists.”
In fact, it is entirely possible that virtually no deaths in the instant category were caused by lack of insurance; and that any correlation between lack of insurance and death in this cohort is an artifact of some other deeper trait such as risk-taking, or stupidity, or fatalism or some other factor; and that even if insured, these persons would be behaving in the same way, and to largely the same effect.
What are you going to do, chain them up, and drag them in for mammograms?
What you are stupidly demanding is that I assume and grant canceling errors. On what specific evidential basis? Your say-so? Their say-so?
You want people to believe, and me to accede the point, that if the authors’ sample interval in the case of the 25-34 year old cohort was defective in such a way that their formula overstated the resultant numbers of death-due-to-underinsurance, then, there will offsetting and compensatory errors in the cohorts that provide the other sampling intervals.
There is no reason to make such an assumption. Nor, is there, given your author’s lack of frankness in the case of the obvious 25-34 yr old cohort overcount, to then extend the benefit of the doubt to them when they claim that the numbers derived from other death cohorts will reflect an undercount.
Their general claims mean nothing, when their numbers and fallacious logic undermine their case internally.
How many years, again, of logic did you take?
What you are stupidly demanding is that I assume and grant canceling errors.
Except, DNW, that they discussed just those errors later in the report.
An assertion in evidence of nothing.
Instead of spinning there in circles trying to salvage an argument with allusions rather than evidence, go get the quote from the PDF where the authors explicitly admit their overcount errors in the figures for the 24-35 year old cohort.
Let’s lay out the sequence again, shall we?
(1), Two longitudinal studies dated from 1993 and 1994 exist from which the IOM conclude that uninsurance increases the mortality risk by 25% for working age adults.
(2) The IOM in a 2002 report use this to estimate the number of unnecessary deaths due to uninsurance in the American system. In 2002 this is estimated at 18,000.
(3) The Urban Institute in 2008 publish a report looking at this. This does teh following things:
(3a) It uses the original IOM methodology to show that that 2002 estimate should be updated to an estimate of 22,000 in 2006.
(3b) It explains the IOM methodology using the 25-34 cohort as an illustration. The methodology applied a formula to all the cohorts; the Urban Institute shows how this would apply to one cohort as an example.
(3c) It discusses the IOM methodology, showing several pieces of research showing that the IOM study probably underestimated the effects of lack of insurance on older adults.
It also mentions criticism of the study on the basis of unexamined variables:
And goes on to state:
(4) You come along. You take the 25-34 cohort which was used bythe Urban Institute as an illustration of the IOM methodology. You raise legitimate questions about whether the 25% figure would apply to it, due to the nature of deaths in that cohort, while failing to mention that:
(i) the 25% figure came from studies prior to the IOM study
(ii) the 25% figure were derived from logitudinal studies covering teh range of working age adults.
(iii) Far more people die in the older groups, and that if the 25-34 group had less than 25% extra risk from uninsurance, the 55-64 group had more than a 25% extra risk from uninsurance. Again, the figures were taken from studies covering the range of working adults.
Let us stress this again – the 25% extra risk was from the 1993 and 1994 studies. The IOM applied this to each ten year cohort. The Urban Institute discussed problems with this, and concluded that it probably underestimated the number of excess deaths. You took the problems with the IOM methodology and seem to have used them to firstly conclude that the 1993 and 1994 studies were wrong. and that based on a single cohort there are far fewer deaths, using a cohort based on it being used in an illustration by the Urban Institute and ignoring the Urban Institute discussion on subsequent research showing that the IOM methodology probably underestimated deaths in the older cohorts who happen to have higher mortality rates than the 25-34 cohort you mentioned.
Which shows your dishonesty.
And that leads us back to our question. DNW, why are you advocating that at least 22,000 Americans die needlessly each year?
The question then becomes: why should we change our entire health care coverage system because 18,000 people took a decision which resulted in their deaths?
At some point you have to accept personal responsibility for your actions; if you choose to go without health insurance, the onus should be on you, and not on society.
Nonsense. I merely and correctly concluded that their presented data set could not substantiate their claims regarding it. This in turn implies, unless you insist on caneling errors, that their final and aggregate number was too high by at least the error in the 25-34 year old cohort.
It was their argument. They derived the figures by summing the “extra” deaths derived from the various cohorts’ data sets. I showed how an examination of one of the cohort sets indicated that they were way off on their extra death count in that set, given their own assumptions as to what caused the extra deaths.
I would suspect that an examination of a couple of the other cohorts would probably yield results that trend in the same way and reinforce the downward estimate rather than cancel it out.
So, just as I thought: You cannot come up with either an explicit authorial proviso or an implication that the figure they actually used for illustration and validation purposes with the 25-34 year old cohort is not trustworthy and inflates the resultant number.
So instead, you argue that we should trust that because the authors have adverted to various potential problems with the derivations – specifically stating and variously implying that they may reflect a general UNDERCOUNT - we should then assume that if their figures vastly erred on the high side for the 25-34 year old cohort, they will err on the low side for all the other cohorts.
You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth in an attempt to salvage your having placed up a polemically slanted link in support of an cherished contention.
I doubt that you even really read the link yourself. If you had, and if you had had any training in logic, you would have recognized the built-in problem with the figures used in their summing process straight off.
As it was you just grabbed a number from a source you found congenial, and linked to it, without even examining or bothering to re-present their actual argument.
Now you are caught in error. Now you are indignant over it. It’s not the first time.
So instead, you argue that we should trust that because the authors have adverted to various potential problems with the derivations – specifically stating and variously implying that they may reflect a general UNDERCOUNT –
That quote again from the Urban Institute:
we should then assume that if their figures vastly erred on the high side for the 25-34 year old cohort, they will err on the low side for all the other cohorts.
At this point, I have to ask whether you actually realise whether we’re talking about three different pieces of research, these being:
(i) studies showing that lack of insurance increases mortality rates
(ii) An IOM estimate of excess deaths from this effect.
(iii) An Urban Institute report discussing this estimate.
You cannot come up with either an explicit authorial proviso or an implication that the figure they actually used for illustration and validation purposes with the 25-34 year old cohort is not trustworthy and inflates the resultant number.
You mean apart from:
Again, the 25% figure is derived from the full range of working adults. If applying it to the 25-34 cohort inflates the estimate, applying it to the 55-64 cohort deflates the estimate. To get past this, you have to show that the 25% rate is inflated for the entire range.
Look again at those words, DNW:
Question, DNW, do you believe that a lack of insurance leads to an overall increase of 25 percent in mortality risk for working age adults?
Question, DNW, do you understand that this proposition, which comes from the 1993 and 1994 studies, is different than the proposition that there is a 25% increase in mortality risk for each cohort in that range, which is part of the IOM methodology?
Question, DNW, if you do not accept that figure for working adults as a whole, then on what grounds do you disagree with the 1993 and 1994 study? Your gut feelings? Your ideological stance?
Question, DNW, working from the assumption that it is accurate for the range as a whole then how can you have a lower figure applying to one cohort without a higher figure applying to another cohort?
I doubt that you even really read the link yourself. If you had, and if you had had any training in logic, you would have recognized the built-in problem with the figures used in their summing process straight off.
Have YOU actually read it? If so, why are you conflating the 1993 and 1994 research on extra mortality due to uninsurance with the IOM estimate of the number of deaths?
It’s a fairly simple proposition, DNW, even if you exclude the IOM methodology:
i, Lack of insurance tends to kill more often.
ii, Some people lack insurance in America.
iii, Therefore there will be more deaths than if they had insurance.
Since the 25% estimate came from research prior to the IOM estimate, it is not affected by how they chose to apply it. Since it covered the entire range of working adults, then it is reasonable to expect that there may be variations in whether it applied to different cohorts within that range. If one cohort suffers less than a 25% extra mortality, you’d expect another cohort to suffer more – since the 25% figure was determined for the range as a whole.
Let’s go back up. In 2006, the top three killers for the 55-64 group were malignant neoplasms (101,454), heart disease (65,477) and chronic low respitory disease (12,375).
Question, DNW, do you think outcomes for people in this group with these diseases are likely to be better or worse if they lack insurance?
Question, DNW, do you expect to see more or less deaths if a significant number of people in this group lack insurance than the alternative of all of them being insured?
Question, DNW, if you answered that outcomes are NOT likely to be worse, how do you deal with the research that says they are? It’s not that difficult to find.
Question, DNW, if you answered that outcomes ARE likely to be worse, then how can you not conclude that more people will die in a situation where a proportion are not insured than if everyone is covered?
We? Quit trying to obfuscate. It’s not “we”, it’s you; in your shady attempt to shift footing and thereby salvage the numbers you proffered during your original contention.
I have been focused on a particular data set in Table 1, and the implications that this data set has for the gross “excess death” numbers argument presented by the authors of “Uninsured and Dying Because of It”.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411588_uninsured_dying.pdf, and repeated by you with additions.
That link given immediately above, is the link that in its turn had provided the data set evidence which supposedly supported the opinion piece article written by Stan Dorn of the Urban Institute in January 2008, and to which you had linked with your phrase,”… about 22,000 additional Americans”; i.e.,http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/january/make_that_22000_uni.php .
Thus, your text:
It’s also worth mentioning in passing that both you and the authors are unambiguously asserting a causal relationship between their specifically enumerated excess death figures (in the IOM report), and under/uninsurance. Unlike you however, their claim is actually less categorical when it comes to the exact numbers.
I merely unpacked a significant element buttressing that claim. I showed how the very instance they, and by implication you, adduced as an illustration of their methodology in deriving the absolute number figure (of 1930 unnecessary deaths) they gave for one cohort, could not withstand even a cursory examination.
You admitted it.
Now you wish to argue around the point of their trustworthiness.
That is simply non-responsive on the point of my question regarding their transparency on 25-34, Phoenician. You are merely insinuating you have addressed the specific methodological problem, by adverting to the residuum of more global claims they have made.
These residua [other data sets or intervals or claims] are themselves quite problematical when it comes to applying to them the same IOM formula and calculations previously used on their 25-34 cohort. Which of course, is just how you derive your 22,000 total number.
For example, while admitting the force of my argument for the 25-34 year old cohort, you earlier implied that the other cohort counts would prove to counterbalance (or more) the 25-34 year old overestimate. In this regard you specifically mentioned the “55-64 group”.
However, beside the 25-34 class and the 55-64 set, there are two other groups deployed in the Table 1 IOM analysis: the 35-44; and the 45-54.
Now, despite the logic of an increasing likelihood of pathological health conditions arising with increasing age, the same observations made about the 25-34 year old cohort can still be made about these other two cohorts when it comes to looking for causes of death that cannot be possibly laid at a lack of preventative health care due to “uninsurance”.
The year 2000 IOM Table 1 provided example, gives total deaths for the 35-44 group as 89,202. However, nonmedical related deaths are still a highly significant portion of that cohort as well, as figures from, say, two years later show.
In 2002 for example, unintentional injury accounted for 16,085 of that year’s total deaths in the 35-44 set. Suicide, 6,852; homicide, 3,239; and HIV, largely behavioral in transmission, 5,707. Thus in 2002, whatever the exact number of “DT” or total deaths in that cohort, one could deduct at least 26,000 prox. (and maybe 6,000 more) from the relevant death set totals.
It is from this diminished death total then, that the proportionate pool of relevant uninsured will be drawn, regardless of their increased risk. They will then make up a necessarily smaller absolute number than implied by the stated IOM methodology, and insinuated by yourself.