• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Ocasio-Cortez Wants to Spend $40T on Progressive Programs. Free Health Care for All?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,012
1,863
136
#1 - Biased news source. Just knowing that there is a donate button front and center on the page tells me it's not a reputable news source. Not even Mainstream media - which in of itself is typically left leaning.
#2 - This is not a healthcare plan. It is a supposed Idaho executive order... As I stated earlier, no insurance carrier is stupid enough to offer a healthcare plan that conflicts with federal law. Regardless of any state laws, no health insurance company would be stupid enough to risk it.
As someone who knows FAR more on this topic than you could hope to I will put it bluntly: you have no valid perspective in evaluating the credibility of Health Affairs.

That said, Idaho Blue Cross took Idaho up on their offer to allow noncompliant plans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackstar7
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,716
136
#1 - Biased news source. Just knowing that there is a donate button front and center on the page tells me it's not a reputable news source. Not even Mainstream media - which in of itself is typically left leaning.
#2 - This is not a healthcare plan. It is a supposed Idaho executive order... As I stated earlier, no insurance carrier is stupid enough to offer a healthcare plan that conflicts with federal law. Regardless of any state laws, no health insurance company would be stupid enough to risk it.
Youbetcha!

HEALTH AFFAIRS JOURNAL

"Health Affairs
is the leading journal of health policy thought and research. The peer-reviewed journal was founded in 1981 under the aegis of Project HOPE, a nonprofit international health education organization. Health Affairs explores health policy issues of current concern in domestic and international spheres. Its mission is to serve as a high-level, nonpartisan forum to promote analysis and discussion on improving health and health care, and to address such issues as cost, quality, and access.

The journal reaches a broad audience that includes: government and health industry leaders; health care advocates; scholars of health, health care and health policy; and others concerned with health and health care issues in the United States and worldwide.

Health Affairs articles are cited by U.S. administration officials, U.S. lawmakers, and ministry of health leaders around the globe. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle reference Health Affairs in drafting legislation. US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cited the journal in his decision regarding the Affordable Care Act. In addition, Health Affairs is frequently cited by national media, including the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, network television and radio, and NPR."

https://www.healthaffairs.org/about

HEALTH AFFAIRS BLOG

"Health Affairs Blog is a vehicle for commentary and analysis on health policy and issues affecting health and health care. The Blog features posts from noted health policy experts and commentators from a wide variety of perspectives, as well as regular Health Affairs contributors and staff.

Health Affairs Blog are cited in congressional testimony and by members of Congress. Media outlets that have cited the Blog include The New York Times, Washington Post, Forbes, National Journal, Reuters, and many others.

All Health Affairs Blog posts are reviewed by Health Affairs editorial staff for timeliness, health policy relevance, originality, and constructive commentary (but are not subject to a formal, peer review)."

https://www.healthaffairs.org/about
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,778
4,750
136
Youbetcha!

HEALTH AFFAIRS JOURNAL

"Health Affairs
is the leading journal of health policy thought and research. The peer-reviewed journal was founded in 1981 under the aegis of Project HOPE, a nonprofit international health education organization. Health Affairs explores health policy issues of current concern in domestic and international spheres. Its mission is to serve as a high-level, nonpartisan forum to promote analysis and discussion on improving health and health care, and to address such issues as cost, quality, and access.

The journal reaches a broad audience that includes: government and health industry leaders; health care advocates; scholars of health, health care and health policy; and others concerned with health and health care issues in the United States and worldwide.

Health Affairs articles are cited by U.S. administration officials, U.S. lawmakers, and ministry of health leaders around the globe. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle reference Health Affairs in drafting legislation. US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cited the journal in his decision regarding the Affordable Care Act. In addition, Health Affairs is frequently cited by national media, including the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, network television and radio, and NPR."

https://www.healthaffairs.org/about

HEALTH AFFAIRS BLOG

"Health Affairs Blog is a vehicle for commentary and analysis on health policy and issues affecting health and health care. The Blog features posts from noted health policy experts and commentators from a wide variety of perspectives, as well as regular Health Affairs contributors and staff.

Health Affairs Blog are cited in congressional testimony and by members of Congress. Media outlets that have cited the Blog include The New York Times, Washington Post, Forbes, National Journal, Reuters, and many others.

All Health Affairs Blog posts are reviewed by Health Affairs editorial staff for timeliness, health policy relevance, originality, and constructive commentary (but are not subject to a formal, peer review)."

https://www.healthaffairs.org/about
God damn you are fucking stupid. I bet when doctor organizations have their opinion on the ACA you thought that was unbiased too.

Jesus christ you're so inept in your thought process that you can't even connect the dots that a "non profit" relating to healthcare... might... have a MONETARY stake in the healthcare industry you retard.

Take two, just TWO fucking minutes to pull your head out of your ass and try to think logically you halfwhit numskull. Never mind that is asking far too much.

I mean do you understand the point of journalism? The entire point - the entire foundation is to have an unbiased media reporting. If you come from a healthcare industry -you have an inherit bias. If you come from a healthcare insurance industry - you have an inherit bias There is no doubt that this is bias propaganda with a monetary stake. You can deny it all you want - but that is simply your own bias drowning out your logic and reason.

John K. Iglehart is the founding editor of Health Affairs. He was also the national correspondent of The New England Journal of Medicine.[1] He held these two editorial leadership positions for 27 years.[2]

Iglehart is an elected member of the National Academy of Social Insurance and serves on the advisory board of the National Institute For Health Care Management.[1] He was an elected member in the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciencesand served on its Governing Council between 1985 and 1991. He was also the board member of the American Board of Medical Specialties, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates and AcademyHealth.[1]
 
Last edited:
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,716
136
God damn you are fucking stupid. I bet when doctor organizations have their opinion on the ACA you thought that was unbiased too.

Jesus christ you're so inept in your thought process that you can't even connect the dots that a "non profit" relating to healthcare... might... have a MONETARY stake in the healthcare industry you retard.

Take two, just TWO fucking minutes to pull your head out of your ass and try to think logically you halfwhit numskull. Never mind that is asking far too much.
You're calling me stupid over the information that I provided to you that shows your original statement to be nothing but bullshit? Cool.


Just for lulz

"Health Affairs articles are cited by U.S. administration officials, U.S. lawmakers, and ministry of health leaders around the globe. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle reference Health Affairs in drafting legislation. US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cited the journal in his decision regarding the Affordable Care Act. In addition, Health Affairs is frequently cited by national media, including the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, network television and radio, and NPR."

"Health Affairs Blog are cited in congressional testimony and by members of Congress. Media outlets that have cited the Blog include The New York Times, Washington Post, Forbes, National Journal, Reuters, and many others."


Yeah, they don't sound trustworthy at all.


Ooops, did you drop this?

 
  • Like
Reactions: greatnoob
Nov 8, 2012
20,778
4,750
136
You're calling me stupid over the information that I provided to you that shows your original statement to be nothing but bullshit? Cool.


Just for lulz

"Health Affairs articles are cited by U.S. administration officials, U.S. lawmakers, and ministry of health leaders around the globe. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle reference Health Affairs in drafting legislation. US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cited the journal in his decision regarding the Affordable Care Act. In addition, Health Affairs is frequently cited by national media, including the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, network television and radio, and NPR."

"Health Affairs Blog are cited in congressional testimony and by members of Congress. Media outlets that have cited the Blog include The New York Times, Washington Post, Forbes, National Journal, Reuters, and many others."


Yeah, they don't sound trustworthy at all.


Ooops, did you drop this?


I'm sorry all I see is a sea of worthless text not addressing my point - in which all of your previous post/point was based on a bias source.

Thanks for proving my point fucktard.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,716
136
I'm sorry all I see is a sea of worthless text not addressing my point - in which all of your previous post/point was based on a bias source.

Thanks for proving my point fucktard.
One last time:

Your words

"Biased news source. Just knowing that there is a donate button front and center on the page tells me it's not a reputable news source. Not even Mainstream media"

Words that show your wilful ignorance

"Health Affairs articles are cited by U.S. administration officials, U.S. lawmakers, and ministry of health leaders around the globe"

"Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle reference Health Affairs in drafting legislation."


"US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cited the journal in his decision regarding the Affordable Care Act."

"Health Affairs Blog are cited in congressional testimony and by members of Congress."


 
  • Like
Reactions: greatnoob
Nov 8, 2012
20,778
4,750
136
One last time:

Your words

"Biased news source. Just knowing that there is a donate button front and center on the page tells me it's not a reputable news source. Not even Mainstream media"

Words that show your wilful ignorance

"Health Affairs articles are cited by U.S. administration officials, U.S. lawmakers, and ministry of health leaders around the globe"

"Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle reference Health Affairs in drafting legislation."


"US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cited the journal in his decision regarding the Affordable Care Act."

"Health Affairs Blog are cited in congressional testimony and by members of Congress."

You are still proving my point retard. We have morons in congress that cite all sorts of retarded propoganda.

That doesn't make it factual
That doesn't make it unbiased.

Again - facts do not care about your feelings moron. Also - taking quotations... DIRECTLY from the biased source.... does not make it factual. Jesus fuck, come to the point of rational thinking - oh wait, that is still asking far too much..
 

greatnoob

Senior member
Jan 6, 2014
968
395
136
Ah, a reputable, known and non partisan journal is “biased” according to the drop kick above. His evidence for this? Nothing but more unsubstantiated assertions lol. If it doesn’t hold true to their retard-level understanding of the world or if it isn’t from Fox or Breitbart, everything is automatically “biased” and “fake news”. Heck, they’re delusional enough to think they know more than professionals in the field. These are the conservatards you share your country with.

@s0me0nesmind1 would you like to explain to everybody here why the non-partisan source above is biased? You clearly have evidence to make absurd assertions like that and not because you’re lying and pulling shit out of your ass to save face because of your heightened level of cognitive dissonance, right?
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,012
1,863
136
Your claim of bias came in response to one of MY posts, not VG's. That you don't even know who you're talking about speaks volumes.

YOU made the claim of bias relating to Health Affairs. You have not offered anything to substantiate that claim. The only support to your assertion has been the preposterous statement that the fact they are nonprofit inherently means they are biased. A FOR-PROFIT enterprise is much more likely to be inherently biased for obvious reasons.

You also make no effort to explain how their alleged bias invalidates what I posted. I made a factual statement: Idaho permits noncompliant plans. How does any alleged bias invalidate that statement when it can be corroborated by dozens of other sources?

All you've done is lashed out at facts that don't fit your preconceived worldview.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackstar7
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,716
136
You are still proving my point retard. We have morons in congress that cite all sorts of retarded propoganda.

That doesn't make it factual
That doesn't make it unbiased.

Again - facts do not care about your feelings moron. Also - taking quotations... DIRECTLY from the biased source.... does not make it factual. Jesus fuck, come to the point of rational thinking - oh wait, that is still asking far too much..
Ok, show us just how biased the journal is. Show us how Chief Justice Roberts, for example, used some biased information from the journal when he made his decision. Show us how members of both parties have used biased information from the journal when they've cited from it. Show us how members of both parties have used biased information from the journal when drafting legislation. Show us how news magazines and papers from various ideological perspectives have used biased information from the journal in their reporting/articles.

You made the claim that it's biased. Now you get to prove it bunky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

ecogen

Golden Member
Dec 24, 2016
1,217
1,285
136
You are still proving my point retard. We have morons in congress that cite all sorts of retarded propoganda.

That doesn't make it factual
That doesn't make it unbiased.

Again - facts do not care about your feelings moron. Also - taking quotations... DIRECTLY from the biased source.... does not make it factual. Jesus fuck, come to the point of rational thinking - oh wait, that is still asking far too much..
Aren't you tired of being embarrassed all the time? Why is it so hard for you to just keep your mouth shut on subjects you obviously know jack shit about, it's not hard and it isn't something to be ashamed of either. No one is expected to be informed on everything.

Your bullshit is all over this thread, just give it a rest.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
14,771
4,951
136
Aren't you tired of being embarrassed all the time? Why is it so hard for you to just keep your mouth shut on subjects you obviously know jack shit about, it's not hard and it isn't something to be ashamed of either. No one is expected to be informed on everything.

Your bullshit is all over this thread, just give it a rest.
Furthermore, his definition of "biased" clearly means "does not conform to what I've allowed myself to be programmed with".
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
21,062
13,164
136
God damn you are fucking stupid. I bet when doctor organizations have their opinion on the ACA you thought that was unbiased too.

Jesus christ you're so inept in your thought process that you can't even connect the dots that a "non profit" relating to healthcare... might... have a MONETARY stake in the healthcare industry you retard.

Take two, just TWO fucking minutes to pull your head out of your ass and try to think logically you halfwhit numskull. Never mind that is asking far too much.

I mean do you understand the point of journalism? The entire point - the entire foundation is to have an unbiased media reporting. If you come from a healthcare industry -you have an inherit bias. If you come from a healthcare insurance industry - you have an inherit bias There is no doubt that this is bias propaganda with a monetary stake. You can deny it all you want - but that is simply your own bias drowning out your logic and reason.
I'm sorry all I see is a sea of worthless text not addressing my point - in which all of your previous post/point was based on a bias source.

Thanks for proving my point fucktard.
Its really funny watching the vitriol from this account increase in an inverse relationship with the logic of its arguments. In a few more pages its going to be reduced to sounding like incorruptible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,012
1,863
136
Remember, this is from the account that says Manafort should be really *sneaky* and only pretend to cooperate with Mueller and then once the charges are dropped reveal that it was all a ruse and suffer no consequences.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,663
3,814
136
I'm sorry all I see is a sea of worthless text not addressing my point - in which all of your previous post/point was based on a bias source.

Thanks for proving my point fucktard.
Being biased and factual are not mutually exclusive.

Your pattern of kneejerk assumptions/ conclusions and then predicable eruptions into vulgarities when challenged has severely damaged the credibility of your posts.

Challenge the facts surrounding @sactoking 's argument rather than committing ad hominem & other logical fallacies if you want your intellect to be taken seriously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,308
14,519
136
Being biased and factual are not mutually exclusive.

Your pattern of kneejerk assumptions/ conclusions and then predicable eruptions into vulgarities when challenged has severely damaged the credibility of your posts.

Challenge the facts surrounding @sactoking 's argument rather than committing ad hominem & other logical fallacies if you want your intellect to be taken seriously.
Everybody knows that facts have a Liberal bias. They don't seem to matter much in post-truth Trumplandia.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,296
1,384
136
lol, return of the death panels!

If someone wishes to spend millions of dollars on prolonging their life for a few extra, painful days, weeks, or months that's their business. I see no reason why other people should pay for it though as it's not helpful.
Its interesting how some people feel the elderly are entitled to limitless resources funded by the taxpayers to extend a painful life for a few weeks, but the idea that the young should be entitled to healthcare is heresy.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,012
1,863
136
Its interesting how some people feel the elderly are entitled to limitless resources funded by the taxpayers to extend a painful life for a few weeks, but the idea that the young should be entitled to healthcare is heresy.
Kind of like how an unborn fetus is entitled to oodles of legal protections but once that kid is born they can just fuck off.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,158
24,754
136
We could also address cost issues by taxing the negative health externalities of other markets. Tax pollution, tax sugar. It doesn't even have to be drastic or equal to its actual harm, but it would still have an impact, and will cause those industries to adjust some. And then over time you can see the effects and then adjust things (raise/lower taxes, incentivize healthier options).
I agree and I'm of the opinion that tackling health care costs won't be one big thing, it will be a ton of small things. Taxation of pollution and sugar are certainly good candidates.

No, because it is more than research. It is real actual trials of the treatments and methods. Research only gets you so far. Trial by fire is much more pertinent. There are valid things to learn even if it ends up being ultimately futile. If people had that mentality decades ago, cancer treatment would not be where it is today. Yes it still has a long way to go, and yes plenty of the improved treatment likely won't help people who are already near to death for the cumulative aspects of age on top of whatever debilitating illness they have (so its not just cancer). I think especially for younger/inexperienced doctors it provides a very worthwhile training as well. There are going to be losses, there are going to be situations where the fight won't end up mattering, but learning to fight still provides tangible benefits that carry over. Plus, the loss for inexperience are less (that's not to say you treat them as disposable "lessons", in fact I think it should carry extra scrutiny so that you can help guide them; unless there was some ridiculously gross negligence, they shouldn't face much repercussions and instead use it as learning and work to improve, and a key part of that is working with the patients - learning how to address their concerns, how to talk to them about serious things, getting family involved as well, things that can get lost easily in the shuffle to try and treat as many people as you can). Maybe find some incentive for the patients as well (I'm not sure what), as some small token for their sacrifice as well.
I do not think that engaging in end of life medical care that is very expensive and provides little benefit to patients is a cost effective way to push research or train doctors. I think cancer research is advanced by how we currently fund end of life care but that's because companies can charge enormous sums for these drugs that in many cases provide a limited benefit at best. I would prefer to use those resources towards other things.

I just feel like there's benefits that aren't necessarily being realized, and that we're kinda ignoring how it provided real tangible benefits before, but we're getting a lot less return of it due to the situation. I don't feel that warrants thinking about cutting treatment.

Unless there is actual limited resource (I don't consider money to be that in this regard, far too much of the costs are made up or don't reflect the actual cost, which that absolutely needs to be addressed as well), I don't agree. Now sure we should maybe have those people be in some hospice care or something, or even at home (which developing external treatment apparatus, where doctors could keep tabs on the patient and be able to assist them well remotely, would be pretty damn worthwhile development as well), so that they aren't taking up as much of the immediate needs in a hospital, although I don't think that's necessarily an actual issue most of the time.
Without getting too much into MMT if you mean the government could always print more money that's true but we are resource constrained by the fact that there are only so many doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc. We are also resource constrained by opportunity costs. (if the government is paying someone to give people dubiously effective treatments they are prevented from potentially doing something more useful)

I really didn't think your actual argument was the hyperbolic one that you've been kinda saying (I assume fairly tongue-in-cheek) but that you kept repeatedly pushing that way, I felt the need to rebuke it. Now maybe I'm wrong and you actually do support the over the top aspect, but I'm saying that is a very dangerous mentality to enshrine in that profession. It is skirting very dangerously with validating the so called "angel of mercy" mentality, and there's a lot of suffering that you could validate "ending" via the balance sheet.
I'm not sure what you take my argument to be exactly but I do genuinely believe that the US government should institute a program whose purpose is to identify drugs and procedures that do not meet a minimum cost/benefit ratio and then deny payment for those treatments as a form of cost control.

Yes, I know there are other aspects (people left in vegetative state for instance, there was that big case with the kid where the parents wanted to take them to get some radical treatment in the US), that present other situations so where do you draw the line. But the more you let the "we shouldn't treat them because its too expensive and they're going to die anyway" argument get hold, the more it can lead to more lax feelings on what is and isn't treatable and who should and shouldn't get treatment. And singling out ones that should get their treatment cut off, will undermine any attempt to improve health care for all (its a hard sell in my opinion to go "care for all, well not those they cost too much"). I get that you might be arguing pragmatically, that you usher in medicare for all by cutting costs by reducing outsized ones like these, but I feel like there's so many other ways you should be addressing the cost issue first. I think the best route would be to offer as comprehensive of care as you can, and then work on preventative care and early detection for younger people. So I feel the costs could be made up via keeping the middle age working class healthy, so their productivity improves via improved health. And that will reduce these costs in the future. Meanwhile, we take care of the people that aren't going to get those benefits as best as we can.
To be clear I'm not advocating denial of treatments based on someone's medical situation, I'm advocating for denial of treatments that are 1) ineffective or 2) very expansive and marginally effective, regardless of someone's medical condition. A lot of these end up being end of life cases because that's where people get desperate but it's not about 'you're going to die anyway so screw you'.

Oh, and lastly, since many of these elderly on are medicare, I'm not that concerned that its going to be unfeasible cost-wise. Considering, it actually seems to show that even with their outsized costs, its still better than our current private setup that most are stuck with, where yes, people are having treatment cut off by their insurance company for costing too much. That's exactly one of the reasons I want a new system, and it fundamentally is wrong for me to want that but then say "well their old and gonna die soon anyway, I don't want to pay for them".

-----

Ugh, mostly blather on my part. Boils down to I think there's still a lot of value there, and that I don't think the costs are that troubling. Plus I want everyone to have good care (its the main factor behind me wanting a different system) and I'm not willing to compromise that over costs (that I think are addressable in other ways). Certainly I can agree that it would cause a shock and early on costs could be very troubling, but I think long term those will fall in line.

I'm realistic that it won't go perfectly smooth (I've argued before about a gradual shift to try and make a smoother transition for all), and I'm not saying costs don't matter at all (I just believe they can be reigned in to be manageable though). Heck, I think there's a lot of people that are sick and don't even really know it because they don't go to the doctor, and those will increase costs initially, but as people learn to go to the doctors for regular checkups and can get informed about addressing issues that are developing, like people with poor diets where they might be doing fine because they're younger, but it'll start to hit them hard later in life and it'll be incredibly difficult to address and change behaviors at that point. People will trot out the "who cares if you're dead when you're 50+ those parts of your life suck" - well we'll never develop the means to extend our "good" parts of life if we just keep this mentality. We will be able to extend our lives, and 50 will be like 30 some day (actually that already happened by and large). And then 70 (getting there), and then 90, and who knows after that.
I think access to affordable and quality medical care is one of the most important human rights issues that our country faces today and I think we both agree on what we want to see happen and almost entirely on how to achieve it. (government funded medical care for everyone)
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,025
5,107
126
Healthcare is rising as an issue, unsurprisingly. Private sector has failed to manage costs and take care of people's needs. Even those of us with pretty good employer insurance are pretty unhappy with dealing with various problems like surprise out of network bills, tracking deductibles, seeing our employer being fleeced by local hospital oligopoly, and so on. I think the trend is toward accepting that universal single payer is the way to go.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,245
3,783
126
Collaboration to avoid bankruptcy and provide care? Sounds like witch craft! Or a better insurance, naw... gotta go with witch craft.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS