birdog1960

i'm certainly not excluding life expectancy as an outcome. why would anyone except if the results didn't fit their belief system? it's the most objective endpoint one can measure.

i'm using WHO data. it's easily accessed. most everyone accepts it as meaningful with the exception of american conservatives who disregard it usually based on the myth of american exceptionalism

no one had to invent a need for the ACA to fill. you've seen the statistics on the uninsured and how poorly we compare in outcomes and costs to other countries (i know because i've linked those numbers before). how can you write something so ridiculous? ,

you're not alone. nor can anyone else. hence HMO's, PPO's, medical homes and ACO's. they're all poor attempts at doing what single payer does best while preserving a for profit system. they're incompatible. how many times does the experience need to be repeated on a large scale before that's understood. the only hope is that the ACA is the trojan horse to single payer that many of us think it is. and yes, "can't pay don't deserve" (even if prices for self payers are outrageously inflated) is a fairly well represented attitude, especially here.

and who chose the perfect idiot? why it's those braniacs on conservative radio and tv, isn't it? and now, some are seriously asking the question whether slavery is preferable to a life of freedom. this from people that ostensibly subscribe to libertarianism. whose deciding what's best for someone else now? i thought that's what y'all (unjustly) criticize liberals for. i thought i'd seen championship level examples of hypocrisy in the past but this beats all.

here's the original article proposing rvu's and the resource base relative value scale http://archive.today/GHjjg it's from a group at harvard led by dr hsaio. none of the authors worked for the govt. medicare adopted rvrbs with bush's 1989 budget. but the power was and is mostly in the hands of the commitee i cited. oc, it would advance your argument to link to some articles supporting your case. you rarely do. there's likely a reason for that.

i suggest you reread b man's link fron the distinguished conservative economist. the parts about r>g that she "leaves aside" are fairly concisely explained while not questioned or analyzed. maybe you'd understand it better when delivered from the hand of another con.

most of what any of us learned in school, even at the graduate level, is from texts representing condensations of thousands of pages of original works. i did not read kelly's texbook of rheumatology (which was in turn based on thousands of original papers) as my primary source to learn rheumatology. i learned it mostly from harrison's text of internal medicine. and that knowledge level is sufficient to pass a demanding written board exam. similarly, i don't believe one needs to have read an original seminal work (as some are calling this book) to understand it's major thesis. that has already been quite heavily covered, presented, debated and parsed by readily available and respected sources (excepting b mans who began her article by setting aside the question of validity of this very thesis). so yes, it's apparent that a rudimentary understanding of the major points of this book can be obtained by accessing those sources, especially when there appears to be little current disagreement on what the thesis means. reading the actual book, on the other hand, does not ensure it's understanding as your second point illustrates.

try again.wealth is being redistributed as we speak at an alarming rate. just not in the way you imagine. look at the graph. where the two lines intersect is bad.

i'm beginning to get the idea that most of you have no idea what this book is about. i'm shocked. gator's initial link had this excellent link included. if you are not just feigning interest, it's a good place to start. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/opinion/capitalism-vs-democracy.html#

um, that's kinda picketty's point. the only way to stem the rising (and already pre WWI level of) inequality is to tax the very wealthy more. any interventions on behalf of the poor alone (or even involving the middle class) won't alter the arithmetic appreciably.

and none of those credentials answers the obvious question of how low income people that often can't pay for essentials without govt assistance are supposed to save. and if they were somehow able to how that would make a noticeable difference in income inequality. she's talking about spit in the ocean.

geez, why hasn't anybody thought of this before? lower income targated incentives to save and invest. someone making minimum wage should be able to put away at least 40 or 50 bucks a year...unless there stove goes out or it's a really cold winter, or their rent increases or...

lol ,but you are correct. and so are the giants. the entire concept of pro, college, high school and little league cheerleading is demeaning. maybe those in support of it would like beauty pagents at halftime but then be outraged by a halftime wardrobe malfunction. but yes, some of the blame surely falls on those that signed up to do it. complaining about a required "jiggle test" and then agreeing to perform it and take the job is more than a bit hypocritical.

I think a review of the history of RVU use, the governance over their levels and what changes might be coming soon might clarify your thinking here. this article does a very good job: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1310583 "ideally, physicians work would be reimbursed on the basis of patient outcomes that use effective clinical risk assessment" "natural reform of RVU_based systems is limited by the secretive, proprietary and specialty based nature of the AMA's RVU committee which functionally sets RVU levels". from the outset, 1 RVU in 1 specialty was to be of equal value to an RVU in any other. Many would argue that even before the bastardization of the entire concept, the calculus valued specialists. I can't recall the number of diabetes office visits that originally equalled a single bypass surgery but i believe it approached a weeks worth. from a population based health perspective this is absurd. Then the secret little committee which is overwhelmingly specialty weighted decide to add on a conversion factor to rvu's which is a multiplier that is invariably higher for specialists than for primary care. and the results? well, firstly we have the desired ratio (at least as found in most of the rest of the more cost and outcomes efficient nations in the world) of specialists to primary care reversed. This necessarily leads to time constraints and shorter patient visits since primary care is the front line. It also leads to very expensive care as people with scalpels and xray machines and those administrating them like to use them as profit centers. we also have about 50% of all physicians employed, although I can't find any figures that substantiate your claim that those are majority primary care. personal experience tells me differently. And then we get claims like yours that primary care is subsidized and lucky to be so. nothing could be further from the truth. we're relatively undervalued and the corrupt system of setting RVU levels is to blame. Importantly, those responsible are not government officials.

well other than abject poverty versus pretentious, conspicuous, wasteful and over the top wealth (have you seen the hunger games - a caricature but nevertheless relevant and very popular - kinda like this book), i'd cite medicine. it's generally considered good to promote diversity of ideas in treatment and diagnosis. the extremes of active euthanasia, chelation therapy ansd homeopathy are nearly universally panned. and rightfully so.

oh no! do gooders! only on this forum would those that seek to do good be disparaged. presumably those that seek to do bad are to be admired? or maybe those that just want to look after themselves, unconcerned with anyone elses circumstances are the ones most revered.

diversity is excellent. extremes are very often undesirable. the fact that liberalism and conservatism are not directly correlated to socioeconomic status even among the ultra wealthy.

not an accurate summation in any regard. the major point i was making that i suspect you fully understand but refuse to acknowledge is this: wall street and high finance generally are largely controlled by a very small, very exclusive, very rich and very powerful group and many of their important dealings are within this small group, disproportionately benefitting those in said group. in a word, their relationships are often incestuous. with you to here. the envy arguemt is old, tired and false. i'd link to some demoraphic stats but the posters making the envy argument seem unimpressed with facts.

i've read reviews and critiques on his overiding thesis. that's enough for me to understand it's appeal for now (and most sales of the book were likely based on similar info). but i will read it in it's entirety.

i'd say that's an extremely biased viewpoint but totally expected. i feel on balance i give better than i get here..but let's get back to the facts, things that are so often ignored in favor of opinion here: http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/21/news/companies/piketty-best-seller/index.html. this looks like a bit more than a fringe following just like the book on wall street skimming. the thread was about mass appeal and none have you have written anything that disputes the premise that it's growing for such subjects. but don't let facts get in the way...

the book was number 16 on nyt nonfiction best sellers list. from that fact and the comments here, we can conclude one of several things: many posters here don't read, many posters here don't read nonfiction, posters here don't represent a cross section of the reading american populace, posters here are on avg more conservative on economic policy than the reading public, many posters here are out of touch with mainstream sentiment and/or have no interest in what that might be, many posters here knee jerk reject any idea outside their narrow world view, many posters here are ignorant and all of the above. personally, i'll take all of the above for $10000 alex.

the data is less than convincing as to superiority of outcomes vis a vis chater schools. if they're proven to be more effective then they should be considered. but why not first consider international models that have clearly superior outcomes?

so if bad outcomes are a direct result of demorat policies, explain why so many blue states are at the top of the pile and so many red states are at the bottom. read here how the world's top ranked educational system values teachers: http://www.whichcountry.co/which-country-has-best-education-system-in-the-world/

don't know how i missed this for a month but it's very entertaining. kinda like watching a lioness play with a mouse. and "mickey" burr is the purrfect foil. http://pnhp.org/blog/2014/03/15/canadas-dr-danielle-martin-educates-sen-richard-burr-on-single-payer/. she dispels many of the myths put forward here so regularly as well.