Government Shut Down Looming!

[DC Tom]

the biggest problem with your argument is that those historical numbers don't exist for the population of the us. over the last 10,20 or 40 years the number of uninsured has increased steadily...and in comparison to the rest of the world, especially those with universal health insurance, the us has worsend in those outcomes and most others. therefore the converse of your argument has been shown: lowering the percent of insured population results in worse outcomes, comparatively. look at the life expectancy for various demographic groups in the us and you see very wide discrepancies with some groups (hmmm, guess what economic groups do the worst?) doing abysmally. many in those groups will be newly insured and many are the reason for the embarrasingly low numbers. is this all due to care access? very likely not. but some of it is. SO WHY DON'T WE WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE NUMBERS SHOW? and then you all can find methodology flaws if they look good for the aca and argue how they don't matter.

 

But if those historical numbers don't exist, then there's no objective historical measure by which you can justify the need for the ACA.

 

And those historical numbers do, in fact, exist. I just looked them up, it took all of five minutes.

 

So your argument isn't just stupid, but willfully dishonest at the same time. And you're advising everyone else on objectivity?

[birdog1960]

Here is a good article on the chicanery involving infant mortality rates and life expectancy as the reason we need Obamacare/nationalized care: http://freestudents....-mortality.html

i totally agree with the paragraph about the cost and outcome efficiencies of basic care over expensive whiz bang medicine. he almost seems to catch himself knowing it's antithetical to his argument yet can't bring himself to delete it, likely because he knows it's true. for profit medicine encourages use of these expensive and high margin technologies often with questionable evidence and sometimes with actual negative results. here's just one example: cardiac ct (calcium scoring). it seems every cardiology group over 3 docs and definitely every health system has 1 or 2 of these. and they regularly recommend and advertise screening for the general population despite the fact that the american college of cardiology guidelines (and the available evidence) clearly come down against general screening. why? cuz it produces big bucks downstream from caths , surgeries, treadmills, echos and consultations, many of questionable efficacy but definitely producing big revenue and big costs. much of the rest of the essay is incomprehensible and shallow. many of the criticisms have been addressed by the WHO and other globally respected organizations in peer reviewed journals, not in blogs. the nejm article on "ranking 37th" that i recently linked is a fine example. the multiple references to "the harvard study" are hilarious as if there's only been one study on global health outcomes across systems (unfortunately the link provided is stale). but i certainly recognize this as the source for many of your arguments here. it would be helpful to know his name and credentials. finally, contrary to what jauronimo states, the solution will likely involve consolidation and streamlining of big, fancy brick and mortar hospitals and more outpatient care in places like reclaimed strip mall spaces. after all, the fine art and post modern furniture in waiting rooms does nothing for outcomes. it's gonna be about utility and, as it must be in the usa, it will be market driven as the profit margins for the big ticket items disappear. that's how i suspect it will happen, anyway. probably as valid an hypothesis as that from any other unnamed blogger.

[boyst]

Here is a good article on the chicanery involving infant mortality rates and life expectancy as the reason we need Obamacare/nationalized care: http://freestudents....-mortality.html

Good, interesting article. Thanks.

 

But if those historical numbers don't exist, then there's no objective historical measure by which you can justify the need for the ACA.

 

And those historical numbers do, in fact, exist. I just looked them up, it took all of five minutes.

 

So your argument isn't just stupid, but willfully dishonest at the same time. And you're advising everyone else on objectivity?

Link?

 

You do realize you'll be criticized for any link because it could have an agenda. I find it hard to believe that this is not recorded - it'd be very easy. How many people were insured subtracted from total US population.

[DC Tom]

Good, interesting article. Thanks.

 

 

Link?

 

You do realize you'll be criticized for any link because it could have an agenda. I find it hard to believe that this is not recorded - it'd be very easy. How many people were insured subtracted from total US population.

 

HHS and CDC.

[boyst]

snip

(i only snip to keep from wasting space, please do not be insulted)

I would agree with the overall idea that a majority of people use expensive procedures instead of cheaper solutions. Many jobs ago demographics were brought up. This was mostly men at this company and maybe a dozen women. The ages varied on both sides, but the women spent much less on health care and had many more visits. Their visits were noted as preventative care, for the most part. The men, on the other hand had a much higher cost ratio that was from about half of the visits of the women. Why? Men did not schedule preventative care, have a PCP nor have health care practices. They would go to urgent care or ER for anything from a strained muscle to the flu.

 

I am not saying the women are taking better care of themselves - though, it was true here, only because they were better educated. I think all but three had college degrees vs. the rest being warehouse workers, laborers and a mixture of higher educated people.

 

HHS and CDC.

thanks, was hoping to have a link to click

[birdog1960]

But if those historical numbers don't exist, then there's no objective historical measure by which you can justify the need for the ACA.

 

And those historical numbers do, in fact, exist. I just looked them up, it took all of five minutes.

 

So your argument isn't just stupid, but willfully dishonest at the same time. And you're advising everyone else on objectivity?

wanna cite a study on the effects of increased insured lives for the of US population, as i stated? i'm aware of a study on a small subset of the US population over a limited time period but i'm unaware of any measuring the effects on the entire population. i'm interested to see that.

[DC Tom]

Here is a good article on the chicanery involving infant mortality rates and life expectancy as the reason we need Obamacare/nationalized care: http://freestudents....-mortality.html

 

Yeah, basically life expectancy and quality is a function of public health systems, not health care.

 

Thus, the other fallacy of the ACA: public health and health care are not the same thing, either. Nor are public health and insurance coverage.

 

thanks, was hoping to have a link to click

 

www.googleitmother!@#$er.com

[boyst]

www.googleitmother!@#$er.com

but I can't click that!

[birdog1960]

Yeah, basically life expectancy and quality is a function of public health systems, not health care.

 

but public health and health insurance can be easily linked. it's already started. some private insurers are requiring yearly wellness exams for favorable premium rates and discounts or cash rewards for proof of preventive care and testing. doesn't take much imagination to see how that could expand.

[Doc]

i totally agree with the paragraph about the cost and outcome efficiencies of basic care over expensive whiz bang medicine. he almost seems to catch himself knowing it's antithetical to his argument yet can't bring himself to delete it, likely because he knows it's true. for profit medicine encourages use of these expensive and high margin technologies often with questionable evidence and sometimes with actual negative results. here's just one example: cardiac ct (calcium scoring). it seems every cardiology group over 3 docs and definitely every health system has 1 or 2 of these. and they regularly recommend and advertise screening for the general population despite the fact that the american college of cardiology guidelines (and the available evidence) clearly come down against general screening. why? cuz it produces big bucks downstream from caths , surgeries, treadmills, echos and consultations, many of questionable efficacy but definitely producing big revenue and big costs. much of the rest of the essay is incomprehensible and shallow. many of the criticisms have been addressed by the WHO and other globally respected organizations in peer reviewed journals, not in blogs. the nejm article on "ranking 37th" that i recently linked is a fine example. the multiple references to "the harvard study" are hilarious as if there's only been one study on global health outcomes across systems (unfortunately the link provided is stale). but i certainly recognize this as the source for many of your arguments here. it would be helpful to know his name and credentials. finally, contrary to what jauronimo states, the solution will likely involve consolidation and streamlining of big, fancy brick and mortar hospitals and more outpatient care in places like reclaimed strip mall spaces. after all, the fine art and post modern furniture in waiting rooms does nothing for outcomes. it's gonna be about utility and, as it must be in the usa, it will be market driven as the profit margins for the big ticket items disappear. that's how i suspect it will happen, anyway. probably as valid an hypothesis as that from any other unnamed blogger.

 

A major factor that puts US spending, per capita, above that of Europe is that Americans tend to prefer to solve problems with expensive care rather than taking cheaper precautions in advance. That is a problem of individual choice, not health care systems.

[birdog1960]

except that health care systems can incentive cheaper care and disincentivize more expensive care. his/her argument assumes the us system remains unchanged. that assumption is now clearly incorrect.

[Doc]

except that health care systems can incentive cheaper care and disincentivize more expensive care. his/her argument assumes the us system remains unchanged. that assumption is now clearly incorrect.

Does the ACA change human behavior?

[birdog1960]

Does the ACA change human behavior?

financial incentives and disincentives do. the aca, facilitates their use.

[Chef Jim]

financial incentives and disincentives do. the aca, facilitates their use.

 

Yeah because tax deductions really gives the average American the incentive to save for retirement.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Leadership ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/17/former-official-admin-refused-to-bring-in-outside-help-for-obamacare-website-for-fear-gop-would-subpoena-them/

 

Un!@#$ingbelievable. You simply cannot make up incompetence on this level.

 

Yes we can! Hope and change! Forward! Most transparent administration

 

Worst administration ever.

 

 

[DC Tom]

but public health and health insurance can be easily linked. it's already started. some private insurers are requiring yearly wellness exams for favorable premium rates and discounts or cash rewards for proof of preventive care and testing. doesn't take much imagination to see how that could expand.

 

"Thus, the other fallacy of the ACA: public health and health care are not the same thing, either."

[/dev/null]

[birdog1960]

"Thus, the other fallacy of the ACA: public health and health care are not the same thing, either."

there's an old saying in medicine: loyalty is a $10 copay. it frequently holds for patients that have been seen for years and holds across specialties. if it costs $10 or 20 more to see one doctor than another because of insurance panels, they'll often switch. now if we used this phenomenon to encourage healthy behavior and check ups rather than use it to upsell folks on expensive technology that leads to even more testing, then health care and public health can effectively work hand to hand. and while were at it lets ban direct to consumer advertising of drugs, tests, etc. i'd love to know what the "low t" ads have cost the system in checking testosterone levels unnecessarily. they can be replaced public service messages on prevention.

[Azalin]

i'd love to know what the "low t" ads have cost the system in checking testosterone levels unnecessarily.

 

but isn't the only reason people see a doctor for low testosterone because they need to get a prescription for it? if the FDA would let men just buy the treatment without a prescription, wouldn't that remove that cost burden from 'the system'?

[DC Tom]

there's an old saying in medicine: loyalty is a $10 copay. it frequently holds for patients that have been seen for years and holds across specialties. if it costs $10 or 20 more to see one doctor than another because of insurance panels, they'll often switch. now if we used this phenomenon to encourage healthy behavior and check ups rather than use it to upsell folks on expensive technology that leads to even more testing, then health care and public health can effectively work hand to hand. and while were at it lets ban direct to consumer advertising of drugs, tests, etc. i'd love to know what the "low t" ads have cost the system in checking testosterone levels unnecessarily. they can be replaced public service messages on prevention.