• 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."

Where's the health care benefit in health insurance "reform?"

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: PJABBER
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: PJABBER
So much rancor from the lefties, so little thought or research.

The clock is now ticking! :laugh:
Well, here's a little refutation:

Life expectancy by country


Per capita heath care spending by country


So, you can take all of you obfuscating, BS studies and deal with the simple fact: We spend a lot more, and people die earlier.
Aaaah, shira steps back to the plate.

The CIA study is not acceptable because it lists neither the sources of data nor the statistical analyses that were employed. How can we verify the validity independently? (You must not be like Nancy Pelosi, as you trust the CIA!)

The second reference is more complex, but again it is impossible to validate the quality of the data sets they are using and, while it is a fun little programming project they try for, it is not very good for more than the most cursory understanding. They are attempting to use Wiki (!) references and the worst kind of old UN originated data, I gave up trying to trace the data sets entirely.

Unfortunately, as we try to drill deeper, the WWW site has listed the United States as the only outlier (not within the parameters of the comparison) so they themselves do not claim their presentation is a fair representation. And neither should we.

AMERICAN HEALTH STATS for the data stats they are attempting to picture. Interestingly, in most of the cases the US is doing abominably, there is an overwhelming reliance on UN studies. Who woulda thought?

That's OK, shira. I had fun playing with the second WWW site and it might be of use if we were not specifically trying to understand the U.S. specifically.

You win a :cookie: for at least trying.
Here's more data for your sorry ass:

OECD 2009 data

1) Download the Excel file.
2) Look at the data in the category: Total health expenditure per capita, US$ PPP
3) Look at the data in the category: Life expectancy at birth, total population
4) Weep.

Naturally, you'll want to try to discredit the OECD.

Wiki on OECD

You're such a troll.

Oh, you lose.

Bye bye, little man.
I think you need to drill a little deeper, little lady. It is a mixed picture for sure. I would start with the life expectancies for people at age 65. Ugh, those stats will fall off rapidly if we go to the proposed health insurance "reforms."

Have to run to get to a show! CYA later!

PS Keep trying. You are starting to get the hang of it!

:D
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
I'm not going to read the 50 links so far pasted in this thread, because, well, I simply don't care to. I do have a question though:

For all those making references to how long American's live vs. people in other countries, just how are you equating that as the American lifestyle is in no way close at all to any of these other countries.

No/very little exercise, rediculously bad eating habits, higher stress...for ones entire life.

These links and references to American's not living as long somehow take all that into account I hope, Yes?

Chuck
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: chucky2
I'm not going to read the 50 links so far pasted in this thread, because, well, I simply don't care to. I do have a question though:

For all those making references to how long American's live vs. people in other countries, just how are you equating that as the American lifestyle is in no way close at all to any of these other countries.

No/very little exercise, rediculously bad eating habits, higher stress...for ones entire life.

These links and references to American's not living as long somehow take all that into account I hope, Yes?

Chuck
Obesity and diabetes are not American specific problems but are a result of Western diets.

http://www.eubusiness.com/Heal...eting-obesity-problem/
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Originally posted by: chucky2
I'm not going to read the 50 links so far pasted in this thread, because, well, I simply don't care to. I do have a question though:

For all those making references to how long American's live vs. people in other countries, just how are you equating that as the American lifestyle is in no way close at all to any of these other countries.

No/very little exercise, rediculously bad eating habits, higher stress...for ones entire life.

These links and references to American's not living as long somehow take all that into account I hope, Yes?

Chuck
Obesity and diabetes are not American specific problems but are a result of Western diets.

http://www.eubusiness.com/Heal...eting-obesity-problem/
I didn't say they were or it's not because of our diet (or lack of exercise). My point is that if people want to be throwing out how long American's live on average vs. other countries, and how healthy we are vs. other countries, I hope they're factoring in our total lack of exercise and poor diet into that before pronouncing that Trillion dollar healthcare packages are somehow going to fix that: Because they will not, in any way shape or form.

All these uninsured, fat, inactive American's aren't somehow going to see the light when they get health insurance in whatever way it arrives...they'll be living the same way they're living now, no change.

Chuck
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,297
127
106
Originally posted by: PJABBER
So much rancor from the lefties, so little thought or research.

Ladies, shira, dmcowen674, OrByte, Ausm, shadow9d9, DealMonkey (the UN's chattering monkey) -

Let's play a game. You will have to read and understand the rules first, of course.

Demographics and interpretation of demographic data are among the most useful tasks and the most difficult to get right. Limited data sets, inconsistent data standards, lack of consistency as to the isolation and the identification of cause of death or the cause for prolonging life, et al make for some fun work.

But I will make it super easy for you.

Here are some better known sources for information (the rule writers) -

The Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research

Institut national d'études démographiques

International Journal of Health Geographics

Now here are some derived databases with a fairly comprehensive explanation of the statistical methodology (the game tables) -

Human Life-Table Database

The Human Mortality Database

I invite you to reference your own, if you like.

The Rules - Part 1

From Nature to the Lab: The Methodology of Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality

The Rules - Part 2

Competing Solutions to the Principal-Agent Model

A Commentary On The Rules

Bayesian statistical decision theory and a critical test for substantive significance

You got all that? Great, I just knew you were the brightest bulbs among so many shining on this forum!

Here is the game -

Provide to all gathered here the source data sets and statistical validation for your claims and your positions.

The clock is now ticking! :laugh:
No I won't reply.

Ever since Obama got elected people like yourself and other partisans have crawled out of the woodwork to just spam this board up with so much horrid hyperbole, irrational hate, unreasonable arguments, fallacious reasoning.

Eskimospy and others (myself included) just stopped caring about all of your crazy.

so, enjoy your crazy. It's been a long time since I've posted any worthwhile argument or rationalization...because you and your kind WIN. You guys beat the shit out everyone when it comes wearing the blinders....I say enjoy yourself, you couldn't/wouldn't recognize a rational and worthy counter argument if it bit your nose off.

I'm enjoying myself just taking my potshots from the peanut gallery :)

 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Well, per capita Germany and the UK spend less tax payer money on a single payer government healthcare system that covers everyone.

Perhaps you are just too fucking used to overpaying for things you need so you can buy shit you don't need for less?
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well, per capita Germany and the UK spend less tax payer money on a single payer government healthcare system that covers everyone.

Perhaps you are just too fucking used to overpaying for things you need so you can buy shit you don't need for less?
Don't you realize that someone that sits around all day, sorry, someone who sits around most of the day, needs to eat Popeyes for dinner, and then lunch the next day???? Can't you comprehend that their kids - plural - need to also eat the same thing????

The nerve...not understanding that people need to eat at Rally's and then ride the Walmart electric fat@ss carts around buying a new stretch pant because the old stretch pant doesn't fit any longer...ohhhh, look at that! $1 plastic bucket with $9 hair conditioner in it, got to have that!!!

Chuck
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: PJABBER
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: PJABBER
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: PJABBER
So much rancor from the lefties, so little thought or research.

The clock is now ticking! :laugh:
Well, here's a little refutation:

Life expectancy by country


Per capita heath care spending by country


So, you can take all of you obfuscating, BS studies and deal with the simple fact: We spend a lot more, and people die earlier.
Aaaah, shira steps back to the plate.

The CIA study is not acceptable because it lists neither the sources of data nor the statistical analyses that were employed. How can we verify the validity independently? (You must not be like Nancy Pelosi, as you trust the CIA!)

The second reference is more complex, but again it is impossible to validate the quality of the data sets they are using and, while it is a fun little programming project they try for, it is not very good for more than the most cursory understanding. They are attempting to use Wiki (!) references and the worst kind of old UN originated data, I gave up trying to trace the data sets entirely.

Unfortunately, as we try to drill deeper, the WWW site has listed the United States as the only outlier (not within the parameters of the comparison) so they themselves do not claim their presentation is a fair representation. And neither should we.

AMERICAN HEALTH STATS for the data stats they are attempting to picture. Interestingly, in most of the cases the US is doing abominably, there is an overwhelming reliance on UN studies. Who woulda thought?

That's OK, shira. I had fun playing with the second WWW site and it might be of use if we were not specifically trying to understand the U.S. specifically.

You win a :cookie: for at least trying.
Here's more data for your sorry ass:

OECD 2009 data

1) Download the Excel file.
2) Look at the data in the category: Total health expenditure per capita, US$ PPP
3) Look at the data in the category: Life expectancy at birth, total population
4) Weep.

Naturally, you'll want to try to discredit the OECD.

Wiki on OECD

You're such a troll.

Oh, you lose.

Bye bye, little man.
I think you need to drill a little deeper, little lady. It is a mixed picture for sure. I would start with the life expectancies for people at age 65. Ugh, those stats will fall off rapidly if we go to the proposed health insurance "reforms."

Have to run to get to a show! CYA later!

PS Keep trying. You are starting to get the hang of it!

:D
Your regular posting style reminds me of Monty Python and the holy grail.. "run awaaaay, run awaaay"

Truth is that you count your life expectancy by "expectancy rates" rather than actual numbers, much like you don't count unemployed by those who are actually unemployed but by an expected rate of unemployment (based on statistics ONLY on those who actually report as unemployed as long as they get their money for doing so, after that, they are gone, your real numbers in EU's numbers are about 2-3 times the reported rate)
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well, per capita Germany and the UK spend less tax payer money on a single payer government healthcare system that covers everyone.

Perhaps you are just too fucking used to overpaying for things you need so you can buy shit you don't need for less?
Don't you realize that someone that sits around all day, sorry, someone who sits around most of the day, needs to eat Popeyes for dinner, and then lunch the next day???? Can't you comprehend that their kids - plural - need to also eat the same thing????

The nerve...not understanding that people need to eat at Rally's and then ride the Walmart electric fat@ss carts around buying a new stretch pant because the old stretch pant doesn't fit any longer...ohhhh, look at that! $1 plastic bucket with $9 hair conditioner in it, got to have that!!!

Chuck
Well, we got those in the UK too, besides, with the statistics of alcohol consumption that PJABBER posted we SHOULD be much worse off.

You do realise that i am talking about you spending more government money for less than 10% compared to what we spend for 100% coverage? It's ridiculous and it shows mainly one thing.

Would anyone be ok with for profit fire service? Hey, get insured and they will come if someone with better insurance doesn't need them first. BTW, you'll get to pay twice what you pay in taxes while paying MORE in taxes for the city to be able to afford the insurance for your public buildings.

I CANNOT understand how anyone can possibly think that a for profit life and death service is a good idea when you have to pay twice for the service and in the end more than 8x more than what other people pay to get the same care. Not to mention that you might not even recieve crucial treatment if there is a workaround that saves someone money.

I just can't understand how anyone can think that such a system is a good idea.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Sory JoS, I was just using your post to poke fun at these folks that think that American's live less long or aren't as healthy because they lack health insurance. American's, overwhelmingly, live unhealthy lives - and absolutely know they're doing it as they're doing it. 200% coverage isn't going to make American's live long or be healthier, better life decisions will.

I actually agree with you in part, a synergistic system is much more preferable to what we have now.

However, your example of the fire dept. is a good one...except fire dept's are run at the local level, maybe county. Handing over even more money to the Fed. so they can mismanage that much more money is not the same as the local fire dept doing what they need to do with what they've got - because they know that's all they're going to get. The Fed. doesn't give a sh1t, they have unlimited funds - us - so trusting them to actually get that right?!??

Errr.....that makes me really uneasy, despite how having a unified system is ideal as systems, processes, costing, etc. are all realized.

Chuck
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: chucky2
Sory JoS, I was just using your post to poke fun at these folks that think that American's live less long or aren't as healthy because they lack health insurance. American's, overwhelmingly, live unhealthy lives - and absolutely know they're doing it as they're doing it. 200% coverage isn't going to make American's live long or be healthier, better life decisions will.

I actually agree with you in part, a synergistic system is much more preferable to what we have now.

However, your example of the fire dept. is a good one...except fire dept's are run at the local level, maybe county. Handing over even more money to the Fed. so they can mismanage that much more money is not the same as the local fire dept doing what they need to do with what they've got - because they know that's all they're going to get. The Fed. doesn't give a sh1t, they have unlimited funds - us - so trusting them to actually get that right?!??

Errr.....that makes me really uneasy, despite how having a unified system is ideal as systems, processes, costing, etc. are all realized.

Chuck
I get your point, the problem you are having isn't with the system of unified healthcare, it's with the corruption of government.

I can't really disagree with you on that one either since i consider my own current government to be a collection of traitors and corrupted twats.

I also think that we have a different culture, a flu or a cold, anything that leaves you with a fever below 41C is managable and you don't go see a doc unless you got white spots in your throat or any other of the signs of a more serious infection. (which today will most probably send you home with nothing but regular painkillers since they are wary of prescribing antibiotics for anything less than life threatening diseases)

That is something i've read and don't get, "people would start going to the doctor every day".. is that some kind of US fetish? If i never see another doctor it won't be a day too soon.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Well, there are lots of people who need healthcare but they cannot afford it, and there's lots of people who could use healthcare but chose not to pay for it because it's too expensive: These are the people that we should cover.

Then there's the presently uninsured multitudes of people that will abuse the system, and to be fair, they'll be just like the people who have insurance now who abuse the system. We all know them. They're the people who bring their 8 year old precious in because he's got a little cough, his temp is at 100F, and he's not bouncing off the walls in a sugar driven mania like usual (because, every 8 year old needs multiple spoonfulls of sugar after they choke down that uber healthy Lunchable that Mom "made" them, because she's super F'ing busy watching Oprah): These are the people we should not cover.

The problem is there is zero way to tell them apart. So WTF to do? Let legitmate users suffer because others will abuse the system? That sucks. Cover everyone and have tons of abuse, because there's a disturbing number of American's that are too F'ing stupid to speak Americanized English after 4 generations of being here, let alone get why going to see the Dr. because you stubbed your toe at Walmart getting on the FatMobile and you're bored, so you're going to go exerise that Platinum Plated "free" healthcare that Obama gets' you? Well, that F'ing sucks too.

That's not even touching on the cost of this system, who's going to pay for it, and that no one has any real clue on what it'll cost (and even if they thought they did, Surprise! It's a Fed. estimate, you know it's going to be way off.)

I think if we saw any strong competency - and that includes the current Admin and Congress - we could have a little faith in being generous with a little more of our money, abuses be damned. America shouldn't be known for being selfish, we should be known for the mental image we have of our country (well, those of us that don't find every little thing to hate about ourselves), however we shouldn't be known for being consistent dumb suckers either.

Short of just nuking Washington D.C. area and starting over clean, I'm not sure how we get there in the next 15-20 years. I personally want the Rep.'s and Independents to just hands off totally and let the Dem's totally clusterF up things to a level 'Bush&Co' could never have achieved. Why? So we can be that much closer to just shooting all these corrupt F's and starting over.

Chuck
 

rohitw55

Banned
Nov 11, 2009
1
0
0
While it would seem that other countries are a bit slow to catch on to the many health benefits of ,International Health insurace that situation is likely to change soon. The growing number of people who have experienced favorable results from using this almost magical fruit is a clear sign that there may be something to the Thai Mangosteen claims after all.
 

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,878
1
0
No I won't reply.

Ever since Obama got elected people like yourself and other partisans have crawled out of the woodwork to just spam this board up with so much horrid hyperbole, irrational hate, unreasonable arguments, fallacious reasoning.

Eskimospy and others (myself included) just stopped caring about all of your crazy.

so, enjoy your crazy. It's been a long time since I've posted any worthwhile argument or rationalization...because you and your kind WIN. You guys beat the shit out everyone when it comes wearing the blinders....I say enjoy yourself, you couldn't/wouldn't recognize a rational and worthy counter argument if it bit your nose off.

I'm enjoying myself just taking my potshots from the peanut gallery :)
The short term memory loss doesn't help much either. Every time a new loonie posts a health care thread they want to rehash the same arguments over and over again even if the facts have been poured out in a thread made not 2 days before.

Sheesh. :p
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
OP further proves he's a condescending douche.
I'd say this thread proves most people dont really care about what we are doing. Only passing what their team wants to be passed. Regardless of the poster and his links. The majority of responses boiled down to "I have my opinions and they arent changing becuse the OP is a douchenozzle".

So we will get the system we want. Basically forced participation at the end of a gun and no real cost reductions in the system. In a decade will everybody who yapped their mouth off for their team come back here and admit our healthcare costs werent fixed by this piece of shit legislation?

I have my serious doubts.
 

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,878
1
0
I'd say this thread proves most people dont really care about what we are doing. Only passing what their team wants to be passed. Regardless of the poster and his links. The majority of responses boiled down to "I have my opinions and they arent changing becuse the OP is a douchenozzle".

So we will get the system we want. Basically forced participation at the end of a gun and no real cost reductions in the system. In a decade will everybody who yapped their mouth off for their team come back here and admit our healthcare costs werent fixed by this piece of shit legislation?

I have my serious doubts.
We could fix it all with Universal Health Care but can't get the votes or politicians motivated to pass it.

So we have to start somewhere. Hopefully we can drive the private insurers into the ground by making them actually take pay for stuff and push everyone onto the public option until it becomes large enough that we can turn it into UHC and have the government negotiate rates / drug prices / medical supply prices for the whole nation.

Then we can bring costs down.

Until then....we wait and weep for the Americans who will die.

P.S. good evidence has been posted to refute every anti-UHC claim on these forums, you can look it up, the intelligent people here are sick of going through those arguments over and over.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
We could fix it all with Universal Health Care but can't get the votes or politicians motivated to pass it.

So we have to start somewhere. Hopefully we can drive the private insurers into the ground by making them actually take pay for stuff and push everyone onto the public option until it becomes large enough that we can turn it into UHC and have the government negotiate rates / drug prices / medical supply prices for the whole nation.

Then we can bring costs down.

Until then....we wait and weep for the Americans who will die.

P.S. good evidence has been posted to refute every anti-UHC claim on these forums, you can look it up, the intelligent people here are sick of going through those arguments over and over.
The claim for intelligence seems based on the condition of accepting your views.

Now if you gave everyone 20 million dollars in a health care expense account you wouldn't have problems either, would you?

Neither will happen because the politicians in this country want control over the process. In this country the politicians make de facto health decisions just as surely as Cigna does.

So you make claims for a system that's DOA, and even if it was here you haven't allowed for the fact that American society is largely based on killing ourselves with stress. You don't even realize why people are becoming obese and developing diabetes. It isn't the medicine. It's the concept of putting in a crazy work day with no breaks and little opportunity to eat reasonably that makes us different from most cultures. We're suicidal and UHC isn't going to remove all the stress hormones causing you to put on weight, increase blood pressure and burn out your pancreas, all of which have been known for years.

Getting UHC will magically make all of that go away. Well, no.

Until we address the core issue, that is us, you won't work magic. Fairies are awful physicians.

Does your proposed health care deal with that?
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Kinda like the war in Iraq. We need more war somewhere, that's the best place to start!!! We should have invaded Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but that won't fly...let's do Iraq!

Democrats, the new social neocons...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,150
22,741
136
The claim for intelligence seems based on the condition of accepting your views.

Now if you gave everyone 20 million dollars in a health care expense account you wouldn't have problems either, would you?

Neither will happen because the politicians in this country want control over the process. In this country the politicians make de facto health decisions just as surely as Cigna does.

So you make claims for a system that's DOA, and even if it was here you haven't allowed for the fact that American society is largely based on killing ourselves with stress. You don't even realize why people are becoming obese and developing diabetes. It isn't the medicine. It's the concept of putting in a crazy work day with no breaks and little opportunity to eat reasonably that makes us different from most cultures. We're suicidal and UHC isn't going to remove all the stress hormones causing you to put on weight, increase blood pressure and burn out your pancreas, all of which have been known for years.

Getting UHC will magically make all of that go away. Well, no.

Until we address the core issue, that is us, you won't work magic. Fairies are awful physicians.

Does your proposed health care deal with that?
So as I've asked before, how does this square with the fact that another country (Australia) that has a similarly unhealthy lifestyle still pays WAY less than we do? Unhealthy lifestyles certainly cost more, but there's scant evidence that it costs anywhere NEAR as much more as we're paying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
The mistake the original neocons made was that by government intervention we would make Iraq into a better place and inspire the region to peace.

They completely ignored the complexities of the situation.

Likewise, the Healthocons believe that by having government intervention will solve the problem. Well, the US healthcare delivery system isn't as simple as Iraq. It isn't something elementary like rocket science. It's the most complex entity in the world.

By giving politicians the authority to remold that which they don't know enough about to ask basic questions, all will be fine. Just like Iraq.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
So as I've asked before, how does this square with the fact that another country (Australia) that has a similarly unhealthy lifestyle still pays WAY less than we do? Unhealthy lifestyles certainly cost more, but there's scant evidence that it costs anywhere NEAR as much more as we're paying.

So you believe the Australia has a similar psychopathic work ethic as the US?

Does reshuffling finances change the medicine?

Do you think the Dems have any desire to surrender control to people who actually DO health care? I've not seen any evidence of that. Neither has anyone else.

Waving the Magic Wand isn't going to fix it, and they aren't going to let anyone else have it. As I've often said if health care was a priority then they would have gotten up to speed THEN enacted legislation guided by those who have a clue about how the system works.

Nope. Instead we charge in just like Iraq, because the exact same mentality applies. It's the Dems turn to gain control, and that's what counts, not if you live longer or better.

It's painfully obvious to us who do this day to day that this will be another gem like medicaid, a program around for decades which has glaring faults, but those politicians who are going to give you better health care can't begin to fix.

If they can't handle the easy stuff, why am I to trust them with my and my family's health care?
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
I doubt there's any interest in actually discussing the topic, but anyway.

People with coverage will go to the doctor sooner and therefore not get as sick. This increases their productivity and reduces the ultimate cost of their healthcare. That reduction in cost should benefit everybody in the long run, as long as all the savings don't go to insurance companies' profits.

another point, watch out whenever you hear someone talk about health savings accounts. There only purpose is a tax break for the ultra rich at the expense of everyone else.

Just like doing away with the estate tax. Both of these sound good and fair, but actually add another level of unfairness to our tax system which rewards the rich and the poor at the expense of the middle.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,054
3,600
126
If they can't handle the easy stuff, why am I to trust them with my and my family's health care?
You don't have to trust them, they'll do it at gun point and then call this a "free nation". Besides, who else will you turn to for health care once private health care is legally priced out of the equation?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY