US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[Sibirsky]

The most basic understanding of economics would lead you to believe that yes, the public option will be horrible, and more people joining it is horrible.

No, the most basic understanding of economics would cause you to look at working, successful models, like the UK, and realise that economies of scale can't realistically get any more pronounced than when the entire nation is negotiating for the goods or services.

Like their cancer surviver rates? No thanks.

Way to move the goalposts.

We're looking at an overall view of healthcare and costs, not specifics. The question at hand is whether or not overall health is improved by ensuring everyone gets medical care when they need it? The answer, according to every measurable criteria, is "yes." National systems, whether or not they outlaw private health insurance, meet the overall needs of the people better than strictly private health insurance systems.

The plan does not insure everybody. The plan does not address costs. In fact it increases cost of private plans. The plan fails in almost every criteria.

Which 'plan'?

I think it's funny that people can be discussing all the faults of a bill that doesn't have a unified version, yet. I think it's even more funny that they can discuss the faults in a bill that has been constantly dismantled by it's opponents.

That's not the 'humourous' funny, though - it's the 'ew, this tastes funny' kind of funny.

None of them. There are what 5 versions going around? Not a single one of them insures everybody or addresses costs. What is the problem? A bunch of uninsured people? To them, the problem is access. To me, the problem is costs. Address costs and the uninsured will be able to afford it.

[Sibirsky]

I bet typical wait times will go up by 96%

[Grave_n_idle]

The most basic understanding of economics would lead you to believe that yes, the public option will be horrible, and more people joining it is horrible.

No, the most basic understanding of economics would cause you to look at working, successful models, like the UK, and realise that economies of scale can't realistically get any more pronounced than when the entire nation is negotiating for the goods or services.

Like their cancer surviver rates? No thanks.

Why do you look at the survival rate? Why ignore the fact that something about America is causing a much higher incidence in the first place?

Oh I am not sure. Is this fact? Incidents of caner are higher here?

Substantially.

Recent figures for UK cancer incidence (2001) show 224,000 cases - which is about .373%

Recent figures for the US (2004) show 1437180 cases - which is about .479%

That makes the US incidence about 25% greater than the UK incidence.


When you compare the 'cure' rates - it's about 50% in the UK, versus about 60% in the US... which is about a 20% increase.

So, statistically, you have a better chance of 'surviving' in the UK because you're less likely to ever become a (terminal) cancer patient.

[Treznor]

None of them. There are what 5 versions going around? Not a single one of them insures everybody or addresses costs. What is the problem? A bunch of uninsured people? To them, the problem is access. To me, the problem is costs. Address costs and the uninsured will be able to afford it.

Ironically, that's what we're agitating for: a means to reduce costs so everybody can get covered. Around the world, everyone that offers a public option enjoys lower costs. So much for your argument that a public option will raise them. Observable reality refutes your claim.

[Grave_n_idle]

The most basic understanding of economics would lead you to believe that yes, the public option will be horrible, and more people joining it is horrible.

No, the most basic understanding of economics would cause you to look at working, successful models, like the UK, and realise that economies of scale can't realistically get any more pronounced than when the entire nation is negotiating for the goods or services.

Like their cancer surviver rates? No thanks.

Way to move the goalposts.

We're looking at an overall view of healthcare and costs, not specifics. The question at hand is whether or not overall health is improved by ensuring everyone gets medical care when they need it? The answer, according to every measurable criteria, is "yes." National systems, whether or not they outlaw private health insurance, meet the overall needs of the people better than strictly private health insurance systems.

The plan does not insure everybody. The plan does not address costs. In fact it increases cost of private plans. The plan fails in almost every criteria.

Which 'plan'?

I think it's funny that people can be discussing all the faults of a bill that doesn't have a unified version, yet. I think it's even more funny that they can discuss the faults in a bill that has been constantly dismantled by it's opponents.

That's not the 'humourous' funny, though - it's the 'ew, this tastes funny' kind of funny.

None of them. There are what 5 versions going around? Not a single one of them insures everybody or addresses costs. What is the problem? A bunch of uninsured people? To them, the problem is access. To me, the problem is costs. Address costs and the uninsured will be able to afford it.

The plan doesn't have to insure everybody - it has to make sure that there is an option available for everyone that isn't already insured.

The whole point of a public option is to address the shortfall, and offer a competetive price (which does address costs).

If you don't think the bill will be able to do those two things, blame the people who keep weakening the bill.

[Treznor]

I bet typical wait times will go up by 96%

I bet your wife will get fed up with you beating her and leave.

[Grave_n_idle]

I bet typical wait times will go up by 96%

And your 'bet' is evidence of what?

[Sibirsky]

I bet typical wait times will go up by 96%

I bet your wife will get fed up with you beating her and leave.

Um, what?

[Treznor]

I bet typical wait times will go up by 96%

I bet your wife will get fed up with you beating her and leave.

Um, what?

Offering you a counter bet on equally invalid assumptions.

[Sibirsky]

I bet typical wait times will go up by 96%

And your 'bet' is evidence of what?

My bet is not evidence. It is based on evidence provided by the media, and simple math.

We have a bunch of doctors. And we have about 87% of the people covered by one program or another. 87/100 = 0.87 UOT (Unit of time). It is not a standard measure of time. It could be hours for an emergency. Or days, or weeks or even months for longer term planning, non emergency surgeries. 45% of doctors said they will contemplate retiring if this plan passes. The plan also will cover and additional 7% of the population. So you are left with 55% of the doctors, covering 94% of the population. 94/55=1.71 (UOT). 1.71/0.87=1.96. There you go. A 96% increase in wait times.

[Sibirsky]

I bet typical wait times will go up by 96%

I bet your wife will get fed up with you beating her and leave.

Um, what?

Offering you a counter bet on equally invalid assumptions.

Mine are valid.

[Milks Empire]

I bet typical wait times will go up by 96%

And your 'bet' is evidence of what?

My bet is not evidence. It is based on evidence provided by the media, and simple math.
We have a bunch of doctors. And we have about 87% of the people covered by one program or another. 87/100 = 0.87 UOT (Unit of time). It is not a standard measure of time. It could be hours for an emergency. Or days, or weeks or even months for longer term planning, non emergency surgeries. 45% of doctors said they will contemplate retiring if this plan passes. The plan also will cover and additional 7% of the population. So you are left with 55% of the doctors, covering 94% of the population. 94/55=1.71 (UOT). 1.71/0.87=1.96. There you go. A 96% increase in wait times.

Yeah, I'm gonna need credible sources for all of that.

[Sibirsky]

I bet typical wait times will go up by 96%

And your 'bet' is evidence of what?

My bet is not evidence. It is based on evidence provided by the media, and simple math.
We have a bunch of doctors. And we have about 87% of the people covered by one program or another. 87/100 = 0.87 UOT (Unit of time). It is not a standard measure of time. It could be hours for an emergency. Or days, or weeks or even months for longer term planning, non emergency surgeries. 45% of doctors said they will contemplate retiring if this plan passes. The plan also will cover and additional 7% of the population. So you are left with 55% of the doctors, covering 94% of the population. 94/55=1.71 (UOT). 1.71/0.87=1.96. There you go. A 96% increase in wait times.

Yeah, I'm gonna need credible sources for all of that.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199

http://www.qando.net/?p=5117

[Treznor]

I bet typical wait times will go up by 96%

I bet your wife will get fed up with you beating her and leave.

Um, what?

Offering you a counter bet on equally invalid assumptions.

Mine are valid.

Just as valid as mine, anyway.

[Sibirsky]

I bet typical wait times will go up by 96%

I bet your wife will get fed up with you beating her and leave.

Um, what?

Offering you a counter bet on equally invalid assumptions.

Mine are valid.

Just as valid as mine, anyway.

You got a source that says I beat my wife? I provided sources for my claims. Let me tell you, your source is lying. It is impossible for me to beat my wife, considering that I am not married.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

I bet typical wait times will go up by 96%

And your 'bet' is evidence of what?

My bet is not evidence. It is based on evidence provided by the media, and simple math.
We have a bunch of doctors. And we have about 87% of the people covered by one program or another. 87/100 = 0.87 UOT (Unit of time). It is not a standard measure of time. It could be hours for an emergency. Or days, or weeks or even months for longer term planning, non emergency surgeries. 45% of doctors said they will contemplate retiring if this plan passes. The plan also will cover and additional 7% of the population. So you are left with 55% of the doctors, covering 94% of the population. 94/55=1.71 (UOT). 1.71/0.87=1.96. There you go. A 96% increase in wait times.

Yeah, I'm gonna need credible sources for all of that.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199

Not a scientific poll. And even if it were, it doesn't say what you say it says.

[Sibirsky]

I bet typical wait times will go up by 96%

And your 'bet' is evidence of what?

My bet is not evidence. It is based on evidence provided by the media, and simple math.
We have a bunch of doctors. And we have about 87% of the people covered by one program or another. 87/100 = 0.87 UOT (Unit of time). It is not a standard measure of time. It could be hours for an emergency. Or days, or weeks or even months for longer term planning, non emergency surgeries. 45% of doctors said they will contemplate retiring if this plan passes. The plan also will cover and additional 7% of the population. So you are left with 55% of the doctors, covering 94% of the population. 94/55=1.71 (UOT). 1.71/0.87=1.96. There you go. A 96% increase in wait times.

Yeah, I'm gonna need credible sources for all of that.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199

Not a scientific poll. And even if it were, it doesn't say what you say it says.

True. But good enough evidence for me to state that wait times will increase. Maybe not double like I said, but increase non the less. Quality will decline.

[Milks Empire]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199

Information not backed. Source not credible. Try again.

http://www.qando.net/?p=5117

Only talks about one plan. Is a blog on top of that. Source not credible. Try again.

[Grave_n_idle]

I bet typical wait times will go up by 96%

And your 'bet' is evidence of what?

My bet is not evidence. It is based on evidence provided by the media, and simple math.

We have a bunch of doctors. And we have about 87% of the people covered by one program or another. 87/100 = 0.87 UOT (Unit of time). It is not a standard measure of time. It could be hours for an emergency. Or days, or weeks or even months for longer term planning, non emergency surgeries. 45% of doctors said they will contemplate retiring if this plan passes. The plan also will cover and additional 7% of the population. So you are left with 55% of the doctors, covering 94% of the population. 94/55=1.71 (UOT). 1.71/0.87=1.96. There you go. A 96% increase in wait times.

You're using Glenn Beck's specially doctored 'facts', are you?

Of 25600 surveys sent out, only 5% returned a survey at all - that means 95% of all those people surveyed expressed NO preference at all.

Of the 5% that DID respond, 45% responded positively to a question phrased "If Congress passes their health care plan, will you ... continue your practice, [or] consider leaving your practice or taking an early retirement"?

Beck conveniently 'forgot' to mention that all 45% of respondents COULD have been saying they'd be considering changing practises - which they MIGHT have done anyway.

Beck also conveniently ignored the fact that the survey was clearly labelled as an Investor’s Business Daily document, and that it was accompanied by an introduction that clearly described how the data gathered was going to be used in a press release. Beck ignores this bias in the polling.

Beck also chooses to ignore the leading nature of the survey - this has got a lot of attention, recently - polling groups conducting research with surveys that are NOT impartial and that trend the answers in a certain direction. Read the survey here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/doctor-survey/


It's clear that the bias, the nature of the poll, and the small sampling are significant - of the responses to the IBD poll, TWO-THIRDS of all the actual respondents to the IBD poll said they opposed the government's proposed healthcare plan. The Keyhani-Federman survey found almost exactly the opposite - two-thirds of all respondents favour the plan.

So - why the massive discrepancy?


Basically - from a market research point of view... the IBD poll is very poor. It's not impartial, it has both pronounced bias AND leading questions, it prejudices an answer in an attached brief, it has a poor sampling protocol, it had VERY poor response.

And, on top of that Beck misrepresented the data when he presented it - just as every other rightwing extremist has when they've regurgitated Beck.

[Grave_n_idle]

True. But good enough evidence for me to state that wait times will increase. Maybe not double like I said, but increase non the less. Quality will decline.

Not good enough evidence for that claim, at all, actually.

If the 45% change practises, rather than retiring - there's no net increase in wait-time.

And that's assuming that the numbers are meaningful - which they aren't.

[Sibirsky]

True. But good enough evidence for me to state that wait times will increase. Maybe not double like I said, but increase non the less. Quality will decline.

Not good enough evidence for that claim, at all, actually.

If the 45% change practises, rather than retiring - there's no net increase in wait-time.

And that's assuming that the numbers are meaningful - which they aren't.

You are going to cover more people though. Even if not a single doctor leaves. Yes, the increases will be small compared to my earlier claim. But increases.

[Grave_n_idle]

True. But good enough evidence for me to state that wait times will increase. Maybe not double like I said, but increase non the less. Quality will decline.

Not good enough evidence for that claim, at all, actually.

If the 45% change practises, rather than retiring - there's no net increase in wait-time.

And that's assuming that the numbers are meaningful - which they aren't.

You are going to cover more people though. Even if not a single doctor leaves. Yes, the increases will be small compared to my earlier claim. But increases.

Unless the number of doctors increases, also?

Or, other efficiencies are found.

That's not even hard to imagine - if the number of patients increase by 7%, and doctors increase their hours per week from - let's say 37 hours, to 40 hours - that's an increase of more than 7%. Doctors putting in a few more office hours could more than make up for the shortfall.

Not that I'm advocating making doctors work longer hours - many of them already work long hours - I'm just saying, increased number of patients doesn't necessarily equate to longer wait times.

The best solution is to increase the number of doctors, thereby both reducing the number of patients per doctor AND the average work week of individual doctors - which would tend towards better care per patient. But that's a different matter.

[Saiwania]

I've heard about how this health care reform will cover illegal immigrants. Yes the bill supposedly states that illegals shouldn't be covered, however there is no enforcement mechanism to weed out citizens from non citizens in any of the bills. The Democrats defeated a Republican amendment that would've done just that. They were afraid of offending some of their advocacy groups. So despite all the claims that this won't apply to illegal immigrants, I believe the language in the bill is intentionally vague so as to indirectly allow some illegals to benefit at the expense of taxpayers.

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_ ... 37484.html
Obama Health Plan to cover 12 million illegals.

[Milks Empire]

*snip*
Source: http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_ ... 37484.html
Obama Health Plan to cover 12 million illegals.

Got a credible source for that? Newsmax is not credible.

[Trailers]

As an unemployed, and thanks to that uninsured, American who voted for Obama and still staunchly support him I have to say that the naysayers in my country only manage to demonstrate their selfishness and callus outlook as well as a lack of respect for the less fortunate citizens of their country. And people wonder why the US isn't 1st in the world for "Number 1 place to live" when our homeless population is growing exponentially.