The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 34

What is HCRF?

And what exactly do you think won't be a big deal?

And back to the tax question:

MJ: Yes, the reasons for raising taxes on tanning beds and expensive health plans are 1) to raise revenues and 2) discourage them.

1 does not bother me so much.

Are you actually fine with 2?

So increasing taxes on something will have a tendency to decrease it?

Healthcare Reform. Maybe it's not perfect abbreviation but I thought you might get the idea. Anyway I don't really have the time to talk with someone just because they're trying to make a tempest in a teapot, they want the last word, or both.

If you're going to have sales taxes, they might as well be highest on the worst things. And that way you can choose how much you're taxed. You want to guzzle gas, or smoke, or etc.? OK, but you're going to have to pay more.

Broad-based taxes are better in general though. I suppose a mix is fine. What do you think?

MJ: Yes, obviously taxes discourage the behavior that is taxed, but I don't really want to play 40 questions. If you want to make a point, please make it directly.

No, no. I was just checking. And I assume that the more you tax something the more you would discourage that activity. Just wanting to make sure I understand is all.

Now that we have that settled. I am wondering if the fact that taxes discourage something to some degree was factored into their revenue projections as well. But that's another matter.

Back to the new health care taxes. It seems that one side-effect, based on what taxing something will tend to do, is to discourage people from obtaining better, higher quality insurance plans. Is this the goal?

I understand the reasoning behind the taxes. Gas taxes pay for roads, not intended to reduce fuel consumption, but it might have that effect if they raise the taxes higher. The taxes on cigarettes I understand but do not agree with. The government trying to alter my or your behavior through taxes is an invasion of my privacy and yours, and an infringement on personal freedom. Cigarette taxes you can argue are justified as the people that are around smokers are also affected. But Tanning beds? Other activities that only affect the consumer? Is there a point where government involvement becomes too much for you?

Trumptman, in place of contributing to the thread in any reasoned, articulate fashion, you seem to have posted an inflammatory picture of Barack Obama flipping the bird.

I'm sure you didn't mean to contribute to the poisoning of American political discourse and to incensed atmosphere that has seen dozens of acts of vandalism, violence and direct, personalised threats of death and violence against specific individuals.

It is very important that you "win", however. So keep it up.

Hiss, spit, hiss, spit!

Some people just don't get it when they're shooting themselves in the foot. Even when they've already had an example from a previous election.

No. They'll have to stop hissing and spitting. But like I said some people just don't get it.

A group doesn't get it's way so they stomp their feet like little children and yell things that are at the best unprofessional and at worst like a common street mob. Yeah I want to vote for that group! Not even remotely close to the situation you've shown.

http://crooksandliars.com/node/35805

Tomato, tomaahto. Al Gore invented the internet. Kerry lied about his war medals.

Get over it and stop acting like an infant.

That is untrue.

Well, go ahead and refute it, then.... show some evidence that healthcare for anyone is cheaper now than it was in the 1990s when "HillaryCare" was being debated.

If you can't then you're just a......
(.... well, I really can't say, can I?)

But that's not what I have to refute. What would have to refute is the following unequivocal statement:


I don't think that would be so hard.

Have at it, then!

My (and my family's (not to mention those with whom I've discussed this in my extended family, friends, neighbors and co-workers)) healthcare is not "irrefutably worse in every respect."

Here's a hint, it will help you to be taken more seriously if you don't simply make outrageous, easily disprovable, unequivocal blanket and categorical statements like that.

So, how much time under one is too much? Hint: It isn't very long.

Five Great Reasons to Give Up UV Tanning in 2010


Statistics About Tanning Beds and Skin Cancer


FDA to discuss stricter guidelines for tanning beds due to skin cancer and other health risks


FWIW, I work around X-ray radiation all day (I'm in training to be a radiologic technician) and worked on nuclear reactors in the Navy, that doesn't bother me, but you won't catch me in a tanning bed any time soon.

Alcohol is taxed, cigarettes are taxed, why not tanning beds? They are just as much of a health threat.

If you've moved up to a better benefits package that reduced your personal OOP costs, or become healthier because you paid more to get treated with technology that didn't exist 12 years ago, I suppose that could be technically true.

However, splitting hairs over a sweeping generalization does not negate the overall point that the US healthcare system is in much worse shape now than it was 12 years ago.

You wanna refute me? Find a qualified person (an economist or industry analyst, not a talking head or a handful of personal anecdotes) who states that the US healthcare system is in better shape now than it was 12 years ago, and I will register for the blog that posted it and comment that the one line you cite is inaccurate.

Well, first that would mean that you would have to be taken seriously.

However, that will never be the case.

So are you backing down from your claim that "health care is irrefutably worse in every respect for every single person in the United States?"



You are the one making sweeping generalizations and categorical statements. Please provide proof for your statement that "health care is irrefutably worse in every respect for every single person in the United States" or back down from it. Furthermore I do not agree with your slightly revised claim that "the US healthcare system is in much worse shape now than it was 12 years ago" and would request your proof for it or back down from it.

Finally to the extent that is it worse (and yes, in some ways it definitely is), I would argue the cause has been too much government intervention into it, which will now become even greater.



The way this works is that the person who made the claim (that's you) is on the hook for the proof to support the claim. So go ahead...

They're not my words, I copied them from the blog (and included the link) where I saw them.

I apologize for not using the QUOTE tags, and will edit the post accordingly.

My previous point that the US healthcare system got worse over the 12 year period in question stands, as does the challenge to you to find even a single credible counter-claim.

I didn't realize those were not your words. The issue should still stand where you should be careful even quoting categorical statements like that which are so easily disproven. They sound hysterical and unbelievable (because they are).



Well, here you will need to be more specific. Worse in what specific way(s). You may well be right. Certainly things have gotten worse in some ways. But you are trying to soft pedal on a fairly broad categorical statement. What specific ways has it gotten worse, and what is, in your view, the cause of this worsening? And would be incredibly helpful if you provided your reasoning connecting the cause and the effects.

Oh look, I could be paying higher health insurance premiums next year due to this new bill:



And there will be less flexibility in the Flexible Spending Accounts:


ObamaCare is gonna be fu-uuun.

Tell me did they yell " Baby killer " on the house floor. Slice it however you want but the right hasn't been making a great show of how to be adult about things and yes people are noticing.

In other words you have no real response.

This is why you're not taken seriously.

If you actually read the whole sub-thread on that point then you could have saved your snarky comment for another time.

Everything following this line is a direct quote from the source linked at the bottom:

Increasing Health Insurance Premiums and the Decline in Insurance Coverage.

Chernew M, Cutler D, Keenan P; AcademyHealth. Meeting (2004 : San Diego, Calif.).
Abstr AcademyHealth Meet. 2004; 21: abstract no. 989.

Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health , 109 S. Observatory Street , Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029 Tel. 734.936.1193 Fax 734.764.4338

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE:
This paper examines the determinants of declining insurance coverage during the 1990s, with a focus on the role of rising health care premiums, relative to other explanations such as changes in employment patterns or state policies. In contrast to substantial media coverage linking rising premiums to declines in coverage rates, empirical evidence quantifying the extent to which higher premiums deter coverage is limited.

STUDY DESIGN:
We take advantage of wide geographic variation in changes in premiums and coverage rates to estimate the association between rising local health insurance costs and the falling propensity for individuals to have any health insurance coverage. We focus on coverage from any source (private or public), because some individuals may switch their source of coverage rather than become uninsured.

Using probit regression models and instrumental variable techniques, we analyze changes in coverage between two periods, 1989-1991 and 1998-2000, using the March Current Population Survey (CPS). We estimate the impact of changing health care costs, tax subsidies, Medicaid reforms, other state regulatory reforms, a rise in spousal employment and general economic conditions on declining coverage, controlling for changes in population demographics.

Our contributions, relative to the existing literature, include more detailed controls for non-premium explanations for declining coverage, focus on any coverage (as opposed to employer sponsored coverage), use of geographic variation in cost growth (as opposed to national trends in cost growth that may be confounded by other factors), a broader measure of health care costs, and recognition of the endogeneity of cost growth.

POPULATION STUDIED:
The non-elderly population of the United States residing in 64 MSAs.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:
Over half of the decline in coverage rates experienced over the 1990s is attributable to the increase in health insurance premiums (1.6 percentage points of the 3.1 percentage point decline). Medicaid expansions led to a 1 percentage point increase in coverage. Changes in economic and demographic factors had little net effect. Effects of rising premiums on coverage declines are greater for individuals in families with lower as opposed to higher education, and for younger as opposed to older adults.

CONCLUSIONS:
As other studies have found, changing demographics and employment patterns explain little of the decline in coverage. Instead, much of the decline in coverage over the 1990s appears to be related to the rise in health care premiums.

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY, DELIVERY OR PRACTICE:
The uninsured population is likely to increase further if health care cost growth continues to exceed income growth. Initiatives aimed at reducing the number of uninsured must confront the growing pressure on coverage rates generated by rising costs. At the same time, while policy has traditionally focused on the need to limit the growth of costs, this may not be desirable if medical cost increases are buying valuable services. A careful examination of how to encourage optimal design of insurance policies and delivery of medical care is warranted.

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAb...103624023.html

Yeah, I thought it would be obvious with the inclusion of the link at the end. I should have used quote tags, or at least pointed out earlier in our discussion that it was a quote. Mea Culpa.


I'm willing to concede that the statement is overly categorical, if you're willing to concede that doesn't mean that the healthcare system isn't measurably and obviously in worse shape now than it was 12 years ago.


1. Overall quality of care
2. Overall and individual cost of care
3. Number and percentage of employed Americans with coverage

My reasoning is supported by dozens and dozens of articles and studies that I have read over the past several years, and conversations with friends and family members from the poorest and sickest and the recently-uninsured, to the most successful business owners and doctors.

I'll post a few more citations now.....

Everything following this line is a direct quote from the source linked at the bottom:

Report: U.S. health care system is a liability
Americans spend a lot more than top countries, but aren’t as healthy

A new report by the Business Roundtable says Americans in 2006 spent $1,928 per capita on health care, at least two-and-a-half times more per person than any other advanced country.

WASHINGTON - If the global economy were a 100-yard dash, the U.S. would start 23 yards behind its closest competitors because of health care that costs too much and delivers too little, a business group says in a report to be released Thursday.

The report from the Business Roundtable, which represents CEOs of major companies, says America's health care system has become a liability in a global economy.

In a different twist, the report took those costs and factored benefits into the equation.

It compares statistics on life expectancy, death rates and even cholesterol readings and blood pressures. The health measures are factored together with costs into a 100-point "value" scale. That hasn't been done before, the authors said.

The results are not encouraging.

The United States is 23 points behind five leading economic competitors: Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. The five nations cover all their citizens, and though their systems differ, in each country the government plays a much larger role than in the U.S.

The cost-benefit disparity is even wider — 46 points — when the U.S. is compared with emerging competitors: China, Brazil and India.

"What's important is that we measure and compare actual value — not just how much we spend on health care, but the performance we get back in return," said H. Edward Hanway, CEO of the insurance company Cigna. "That's what this study does, and the results are quite eye-opening."

Higher U.S. spending funnels away resources that could be invested elsewhere in the economy, but fails to deliver a healthier work force, the report said.

"Spending more would not be a problem if our health scores were proportionately higher," Dr. Arnold Milstein, one of the authors of the study, said in an interview. "But what this study shows is that the U.S. is not getting higher levels of health and quality of care."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29641091/

Trumpy Once again a protestor on the street is very different from a congressman on the House floor.

These two things aren't even remotely similar.

So once again you've supplied an uneven comparison. I'd say it was you who keeps supplying nonevidence for your claims that should be embarrassed. Another lame attempt. Oh well.

Everything following this line is a direct quote from the source linked at the bottom:

Government Reports Criticize Health Care System

Two annual government reports released Wednesday show that progress in improving the quality of health care and narrowing health disparities among ethnic groups remains agonizingly slow, and that patient safety may actually be declining.

One of the reports, compiled by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, found measurable improvement in fewer than half of the 38 patient safety measures examined, like accidental lacerations and catheter-associated infections. The agency concluded that one of every seven hospitalized adults on Medicare had experienced at least one adverse event, calling the finding disturbing.

Despite promising improvement in select areas, the health care system is not achieving the more substantial strides needed to close the gap or quality chasm that persists, the report concluded. Despite efforts to transform the U.S. health care system to focus on effective preventive and chronic illness care, it continues to perform better when delivering diagnostic, therapeutic, or rehabilitative care in response to acute medical problems.

A separate report on health care disparities noted some improvements in closing the gaps between ethnic groups but found little progress in addressing the most glaring differences. For instance, black Americans continue to be nearly 10 times more likely than whites to contract AIDS, little changed since 2005. They are twice as likely to have a leg amputated because of diabetes and pregnant black women are twice as likely not to receive prenatal care in the first trimester.

The agency found an average decline of nearly 1 percent in its patient safety measurements over each of the last six years. Contributing to the drop were increases in the rate of accidental punctures and lacerations during procedures and of infections and other complications stemming from the placement of central venous catheters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/us/07care.html