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

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
More opinion piece spam! Excellent!

Yeah and I get ripped a new asshole when I posted from a blog by every right wing lunatic on this forum :roll:

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You LIE!

Perhaps you should read the article?

YOU made the claim.

Perhaps you should read the WHO report on quality healthcare by country, in which the U.S. ranks #37. Are you suggesting we've moved from #37 to #1 in the years since the report?

he only 'LIE!'s because he really means medical care, not healthiness. no, we're not healthy, but there are other factors at play besides the medical care system.

Originally posted by: shira
Cutting through all the BS of Dr. Atlas, the undeniable, basic truths are:

1) America pays more per person for health care than any other country on Earth.

2) For all that expense, the life expectancy of Americans is not 1st in the world. Not 5th in the world. Not 10th in the world. Not 25th in the world. The life expectancy we get back for all that expense is 50TH in the world.

all the medical payment system reform in the world isn't going to stop young men from shooting each other.

 

[OrByte]

OP scare tactic?

"Are you willing to bet your life and the life of everyone you know on the government delivering the quality of health care that you want and need?"

yes that is a well thought out, healthy argument.

:roll:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Topic Title: Where's the health care benefit in health insurance "reform?"
Topic Summary: Beneath piles of proposals, nothing but harm

How do you know it's nothing but harm until you try it fucktard?

Ive heard playing in traffic increases your dexterity. I think despite what logic tells you, you should try it! No harm until you try it fucktard!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
More opinion piece spam! Excellent!

Yeah and I get ripped a new asshole when I posted from a blog by every right wing lunatic on this forum :roll:

Now you finally get it?

Only the right wingers allowed to post Original Posts because it's a right wing board.

 

[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:

 

[Ausm]

Well if the legislation includes measures to make the healthcare system more efficient this would be a HUGE plus.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33...ns/health-health_care/

 

[fskimospy]

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:

Hey guys you heard the man, now go take the time to do what neither PJABBER nor any one of his extreme right wing editorials has made even the most cursory attempt to do. I know he's the one that started the thread and all, but he did his part! He quoted a ultra right think tank's editorial! That's just like real proof.

You're probably seeing PJABBER's post and wondering: "how could the guy who does nothing but post sourceless and citation free right wing editorials have the balls to say 'so much rancor and so little thought or research'"? Don't worry, you aren't alone. Geniuses like this guy are why I decided not to post here anymore in any significant way.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hi...
Testing- testing...

This thing on?

You have two countries. Doesn't matter the names.

In Country A the stores close for an hour or two each day. They often go home and eat a prepared meal and probably get a nap.

Country B is a place where they pride themselves on working under stress with no break, but they do shove down a lot of junk food and are chronically sleep deprived.

Guess which country has the higher health care costs, a higher rate of stress and diet related illness? Guess which nation has the lower life expectency?

It aint rocket science folks and there is no health care bill worth the name.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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:

Hey guys you heard the man, now go take the time to do what neither PJABBER nor any one of his extreme right wing editorials has made even the most cursory attempt to do. I know he's the one that started the thread and all, but he did his part! He quoted a ultra right think tank's editorial! That's just like real proof.

You're probably seeing PJABBER's post and wondering: "how could the guy who does nothing but post sourceless and citation free right wing editorials have the balls to say 'so much rancor and so little thought or research'"? Don't worry, you aren't alone. Geniuses like this guy are why I decided not to post here anymore in any significant way.

But eski, I do my best to support any contention I might make with direct and linked references and I don't see the same with all of the pathetic attempts at rebuttal. It makes this such a such a lonely place for intelligent discourse.

Welfare liberals honor and reward themselves for good intentions, why should we classical liberals not be allowed even a modicum of the same grace?

You and your friends' characterizations that everyone who is not ultra-left wing is ultra-right wing are laughable. There are people who study these questions professionally and evaluate the data with a higher level of sophistication than I. If I make reference to them in my postings I would expect that would offer a much higher level of validation than the "three monkey" (or "Sergeant Schultz" for the TV Land generation) level of denial which is the norm from you lefties (see nothing/hear nothing/know nothing.)

Sometimes I feel as frustrated as Diogenes of Sinope must have, in searching for an honest man in these exchanges.

But as a Snowman with a funny little grin and a pointy carrot nose, I do not let it get me down for very long at all!

:laugh:

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
But eski, I do my best to support any contention I might make with direct and linked references

Is this a game to see if you can keep topping your last outrageous whopper?

Sometimes I feel as frustrated as Diogenes of Sinope must have, in searching for an honest man in these exchanges.

You win again.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: PJABBER


10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.

all of which are either public hospitals run but state colleges, public hospitals run by non-profit private universities, or non-profit hospitals in the mayo and cleveland clinics, all of which are very outside the mold of the dominant trends in american medicine.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
But eski, I do my best to support any contention I might make with direct and linked references and I don't see the same with all of the pathetic attempts at rebuttal. It makes this such a such a lonely place for intelligent discourse.

your 'best' is pretty fucking abysmal by any standard

Sometimes I feel as frustrated as Diogenes of Sinope must have, in searching for an honest man in these exchanges.

you certainly wouldn't find one by looking in the mirror

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: PJABBER


10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.

all of which are either public hospitals run but state colleges, public hospitals run by non-profit universities, or non-profit hospitals in the mayo and cleveland clinics, all of which are very outside the mold of the dominant trends in american medicine.

Are they, or are they not, AMERICAN hospitals? That is the question you must ask yourself if you seek an answer at all.

You are most definitely NOT a Punk Rock Republican. So you must be a Trotskyite.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: PJABBER
10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.

all of which are either public hospitals run but state colleges, public hospitals run by non-profit private universities, or non-profit hospitals in the mayo and cleveland clinics, all of which are very outside the mold of the dominant trends in american medicine.

Also, how many of those wins are thanks to government funding?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Hey guys you heard the man, now go take the time to do what neither PJABBER nor any one of his extreme right wing editorials has made even the most cursory attempt to do. I know he's the one that started the thread and all, but he did his part! He quoted a ultra right think tank's editorial! That's just like real proof.

You're probably seeing PJABBER's post and wondering: "how could the guy who does nothing but post sourceless and citation free right wing editorials have the balls to say 'so much rancor and so little thought or research'"? Don't worry, you aren't alone. Geniuses like this guy are why I decided not to post here anymore in any significant way.

But eski, I do my best to support any contention I might make with direct and linked references and I don't see the same with all of the pathetic attempts at rebuttal. It makes this such a such a lonely place for intelligent discourse.

Welfare liberals honor and reward themselves for good intentions, why should we classical liberals not be allowed even a modicum of the same grace?

You and your friends' characterizations that everyone who is not ultra-left wing is ultra-right wing are laughable. There are people who study these questions professionally and evaluate the data with a higher level of sophistication than I. If I make reference to them in my postings I would expect that would offer a much higher level of validation than the "three monkey" (or "Sergeant Schultz" for the TV Land generation) level of denial which is the norm from you lefties (see nothing/hear nothing/know nothing.)

Sometimes I feel as frustrated as Diogenes of Sinope must have, in searching for an honest man in these exchanges.

But as a Snowman with a funny little grin and a pointy carrot nose, I do not let it get me down for very long at all!

:laugh:

And here we come to the problem. Speaking of laughable, first is the basic denial of reality. The Hoover Institution is a conservative to libertarian think tank. As far as public policy and the role of the government in regards to health care, libertarianism is by definition as far to the right as you can possibly get. You can agree or disagree with the Hoover Institution's conclusions, but no person rationally looking at an outfit that looks to and has looked to Margaret Thatcher and Milton Friedman is anything other than extremely right wing. If you were looking at Hoover with an objective evaluation of its ideological stance as opposed to if it agreed with you or not, this would have been obvious to you. As I have said before, you seem to lack the basic ability to evaluate sources.

Second, you think that quoting an editorial that provides no sources, has no peer review, and comes from a highly ideological source counds as evidence for your argument. If you think this place is lonely for intellectual discourse, physician, heal thyself.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: PJABBER


* Americans have the best survival rates from cancer and most serious diseases, and the most rapid decline in breast and prostate cancer deaths despite being hindered with severe obesity and the largest burden of smokers over 50 of any Western nation.

seeing as americans have the lowest rates of smoking among all western countries, and obesity rates that aren't much worse than say, england, this looks to be a load of shit.[/quote]

much of this has been disproven, and these statistics are largely based around differences in measurements not results, and furthermore have been selectively choosen to highlight the ones where we are actually above average at.

* Americans have the most successful, most available treatment for chronic diseases like high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

offers no proof

* Americans have the shortest wait times for life-changing surgeries, like cataract and hip replacements, that may not increase survival but greatly impact quality of life.

* Americans have the best access to the newest, most effective drugs.

offers no proof of either access or effectiveness.

* Americans have the quickest access to the safest, most advanced medical technologies.

again no proof, although we certainly have the most expensive medical technologies.

* Americans have the easiest access to specialty doctors, doctors of their choice, doctors who lead the world in health care innovation, regardless of what metrics are assessed.

provides no proof

Instead of solely considering costs, shouldn't we ask if Americans are willing to die sooner from cancer, to give up access to specialists, to be refused safer, more accurate diagnostic imaging, to lose the most accessible screening programs, and to lose their autonomy in pursuing treatments for their families? Shouldn't we ask if Americans want to replace the most advanced and successful medical care in history with the restricted care and lower cost social programs of Europe, and insure the less than 5 percent of people who don't buy insurance but receive care anyway?

false choice falacy, not to mention ridiculously false statements.

How quickly we forget. Americans have already soundly rejected gatekeepers limiting access in our own disastrous experiment with managed care in the 1990s. The backlash against that grand failure should be a strong reminder of what Americans value - yet our government either forgot or doesn't care.

Despite all that, most Americans want reforms to bring costs down if they maintain quality.

the goal is to decrease costs and increase quality, bot of which are easily accomplished, at least when politics is removed.

The Max Baucus plan is paid by massive taxes on existing insurance plans that exceed our government's arbitrary threshold and by significant cuts to Medicare. Its Federal Exchange overtly skews the playing field by subsidizing - directly or indirectly - insurance plans that meet government definitions, and by penalizing existing plans that don't, plans already held by millions of Americans. The House proposals force a government-run "public option" - an option that shifts huge numbers of privately insured Americans to become the burden of an already unsustainable, taxpayer-funded entitlement program that ultimately eliminates private insurance choices.

this idiot doesn't even show a basic understanding of what the public option is. Is this a joke editorial or what?

A public option would interpose bureaucrats between doctors and patients, restricting access to new drugs, to innovative new cures, and to choice of doctors.

pro-tip: this is already done by insurance bureaucrats, but i guess that alright as long as its done in the free market.

It is already proven a failure the world over, even by our own Medicaid program, where government-imposed, below-cost payments have created patients who cannot even find doctors to care for them. While Congress and the administration claim otherwise, costs to the taxpayer increase, and choice and access disappear with a public option.

false comparison this time. Also porvides no empirical proof.

* Bold tax reforms like refundable tax credits, cash even for those who pay no income tax, or vouchers instead of tax deductions, to foster personal ownership and control of insurance, creating millions of value-seeking shoppers.

this is being done, infact the op complained about it earlier in the article, for maximum irony.

* Forcing doctors and hospitals to post prices, qualifications and outcomes - information that is essential to value-based purchasing and fundamental for stimulating competition.

the senate bill does this



why is it that such a great doctor, who apparently is to busy politicking at the hoover institute, not doctoring?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: PJABBER


10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.

all of which are either public hospitals run but state colleges, public hospitals run by non-profit private universities, or non-profit hospitals in the mayo and cleveland clinics, all of which are very outside the mold of the dominant trends in american medicine.

Anyone who thinks that our private insurance industry is the reason for American medical innovation is smoking fucking crack. The reason why pharma companies and biomed companies want to invent things in America is the same reason every other industry on the planet wants to invent things in America, our IP and patent system is the best in the world.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Hey guys you heard the man, now go take the time to do what neither PJABBER nor any one of his extreme right wing editorials has made even the most cursory attempt to do. I know he's the one that started the thread and all, but he did his part! He quoted a ultra right think tank's editorial! That's just like real proof.

You're probably seeing PJABBER's post and wondering: "how could the guy who does nothing but post sourceless and citation free right wing editorials have the balls to say 'so much rancor and so little thought or research'"? Don't worry, you aren't alone. Geniuses like this guy are why I decided not to post here anymore in any significant way.

But eski, I do my best to support any contention I might make with direct and linked references and I don't see the same with all of the pathetic attempts at rebuttal. It makes this such a such a lonely place for intelligent discourse.

Welfare liberals honor and reward themselves for good intentions, why should we classical liberals not be allowed even a modicum of the same grace?

You and your friends' characterizations that everyone who is not ultra-left wing is ultra-right wing are laughable. There are people who study these questions professionally and evaluate the data with a higher level of sophistication than I. If I make reference to them in my postings I would expect that would offer a much higher level of validation than the "three monkey" (or "Sergeant Schultz" for the TV Land generation) level of denial which is the norm from you lefties (see nothing/hear nothing/know nothing.)

Sometimes I feel as frustrated as Diogenes of Sinope must have, in searching for an honest man in these exchanges.

But as a Snowman with a funny little grin and a pointy carrot nose, I do not let it get me down for very long at all!

:laugh:

And here we come to the problem. Speaking of laughable, first is the basic denial of reality. The Hoover Institution is a conservative to libertarian think tank. As far as public policy and the role of the government in regards to health care, libertarianism is by definition as far to the right as you can possibly get. You can agree or disagree with the Hoover Institution's conclusions, but no person rationally looking at an outfit that looks to and has looked to Margaret Thatcher and Milton Friedman is anything other than extremely right wing. If you were looking at Hoover with an objective evaluation of its ideological stance as opposed to if it agreed with you or not, this would have been obvious to you. As I have said before, you seem to lack the basic ability to evaluate sources.

Second, you think that quoting an editorial that provides no sources, has no peer review, and comes from a highly ideological source counds as evidence for your argument. If you think this place is lonely for intellectual discourse, physician, heal thyself.

For someone from the Trotskyite wing of the Democrat party, EVERYTHING looks right wing, so I can't help you with your nit-picking definitional delusion.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Hey guys you heard the man, now go take the time to do what neither PJABBER nor any one of his extreme right wing editorials has made even the most cursory attempt to do. I know he's the one that started the thread and all, but he did his part! He quoted a ultra right think tank's editorial! That's just like real proof.

You're probably seeing PJABBER's post and wondering: "how could the guy who does nothing but post sourceless and citation free right wing editorials have the balls to say 'so much rancor and so little thought or research'"? Don't worry, you aren't alone. Geniuses like this guy are why I decided not to post here anymore in any significant way.

But eski, I do my best to support any contention I might make with direct and linked references and I don't see the same with all of the pathetic attempts at rebuttal. It makes this such a such a lonely place for intelligent discourse.

Welfare liberals honor and reward themselves for good intentions, why should we classical liberals not be allowed even a modicum of the same grace?

You and your friends' characterizations that everyone who is not ultra-left wing is ultra-right wing are laughable. There are people who study these questions professionally and evaluate the data with a higher level of sophistication than I. If I make reference to them in my postings I would expect that would offer a much higher level of validation than the "three monkey" (or "Sergeant Schultz" for the TV Land generation) level of denial which is the norm from you lefties (see nothing/hear nothing/know nothing.)

Sometimes I feel as frustrated as Diogenes of Sinope must have, in searching for an honest man in these exchanges.

But as a Snowman with a funny little grin and a pointy carrot nose, I do not let it get me down for very long at all!

:laugh:

And here we come to the problem. Speaking of laughable, first is the basic denial of reality. The Hoover Institution is a conservative to libertarian think tank. As far as public policy and the role of the government in regards to health care, libertarianism is by definition as far to the right as you can possibly get. You can agree or disagree with the Hoover Institution's conclusions, but no person rationally looking at an outfit that looks to and has looked to Margaret Thatcher and Milton Friedman is anything other than extremely right wing. If you were looking at Hoover with an objective evaluation of its ideological stance as opposed to if it agreed with you or not, this would have been obvious to you. As I have said before, you seem to lack the basic ability to evaluate sources.

Second, you think that quoting an editorial that provides no sources, has no peer review, and comes from a highly ideological source counds as evidence for your argument. If you think this place is lonely for intellectual discourse, physician, heal thyself.

For someone from the Trotskyite wing of the Democrat party, EVERYTHING looks right wing, so I can't help you with your nit-picking definitional delusion.

Hahahaha, CAD? Is that you? You guys should go get together and complain about how the world uses the definitions from the dictionary instead of ones you made up. Damn those nit picking people who think libertarians are economically right wing!

WHY IS THE DICTIONARY SUCH A COMMUNIST

 

[shira]

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:

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.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: PJABBER


* Americans have the best survival rates from cancer and most serious diseases, and the most rapid decline in breast and prostate cancer deaths despite being hindered with severe obesity and the largest burden of smokers over 50 of any Western nation.

seeing as americans have the lowest rates of smoking among all western countries, and obesity rates that aren't much worse than say, england, this looks to be a load of shit.

much of this has been disproven, and these statistics are largely based around differences in measurements not results, and furthermore have been selectively choosen to highlight the ones where we are actually above average at.

* Americans have the most successful, most available treatment for chronic diseases like high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

offers no proof

* Americans have the shortest wait times for life-changing surgeries, like cataract and hip replacements, that may not increase survival but greatly impact quality of life.

* Americans have the best access to the newest, most effective drugs.

offers no proof of either access or effectiveness.

* Americans have the quickest access to the safest, most advanced medical technologies.

again no proof, although we certainly have the most expensive medical technologies.

* Americans have the easiest access to specialty doctors, doctors of their choice, doctors who lead the world in health care innovation, regardless of what metrics are assessed.

provides no proof

Instead of solely considering costs, shouldn't we ask if Americans are willing to die sooner from cancer, to give up access to specialists, to be refused safer, more accurate diagnostic imaging, to lose the most accessible screening programs, and to lose their autonomy in pursuing treatments for their families? Shouldn't we ask if Americans want to replace the most advanced and successful medical care in history with the restricted care and lower cost social programs of Europe, and insure the less than 5 percent of people who don't buy insurance but receive care anyway?

false choice falacy, not to mention ridiculously false statements.

How quickly we forget. Americans have already soundly rejected gatekeepers limiting access in our own disastrous experiment with managed care in the 1990s. The backlash against that grand failure should be a strong reminder of what Americans value - yet our government either forgot or doesn't care.

Despite all that, most Americans want reforms to bring costs down if they maintain quality.

the goal is to decrease costs and increase quality, bot of which are easily accomplished, at least when politics is removed.

The Max Baucus plan is paid by massive taxes on existing insurance plans that exceed our government's arbitrary threshold and by significant cuts to Medicare. Its Federal Exchange overtly skews the playing field by subsidizing - directly or indirectly - insurance plans that meet government definitions, and by penalizing existing plans that don't, plans already held by millions of Americans. The House proposals force a government-run "public option" - an option that shifts huge numbers of privately insured Americans to become the burden of an already unsustainable, taxpayer-funded entitlement program that ultimately eliminates private insurance choices.

this idiot doesn't even show a basic understanding of what the public option is. Is this a joke editorial or what?

A public option would interpose bureaucrats between doctors and patients, restricting access to new drugs, to innovative new cures, and to choice of doctors.

pro-tip: this is already done by insurance bureaucrats, but i guess that alright as long as its done in the free market.

It is already proven a failure the world over, even by our own Medicaid program, where government-imposed, below-cost payments have created patients who cannot even find doctors to care for them. While Congress and the administration claim otherwise, costs to the taxpayer increase, and choice and access disappear with a public option.

false comparison this time. Also porvides no empirical proof.

* Bold tax reforms like refundable tax credits, cash even for those who pay no income tax, or vouchers instead of tax deductions, to foster personal ownership and control of insurance, creating millions of value-seeking shoppers.

this is being done, infact the op complained about it earlier in the article, for maximum irony.

* Forcing doctors and hospitals to post prices, qualifications and outcomes - information that is essential to value-based purchasing and fundamental for stimulating competition.

the senate bill does this

why is it that such a great doctor, who apparently is to busy politicking at the hoover institute, not doctoring?
[/quote]

MilkeTheIdiot, posting so many words without reference or demonstration, and capping them with an ad hominem attack against the OP, whose resume weigh so heavily that your GED quivers in trepidation.

MikeTheIdiot, who spouts nonsense from the top of his wobbly head, while failing to click through to any posted reference or validating research.

MikeTheIdiot, living up to his name. Again.

Peace. Out.

 

[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 trying to understand the U.S. specifically. On second thought, as so much of it is based on extremely flawed UN studies, I wouldn't rely on that engine for an accurate picture of any country, much less a valid comparison between them.

You win a for at least trying.

 

[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 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.

 

[0marTheZealot]

In the 5+ years I've been here, PJABBER is one of the most verbose trolls I've ever seen. Yet for all he says, he is one of the most adept at avoiding the issues, obfuscating the arguments and flat-out ignoring the hard evidence in front of him. I can't wait until his wall-of-text posting ass gets banned. It's not worth following his train of illogic.