Opponents of US Healthcare Reform Lose Battle on Merits; Resort to Tantrums/Theatrics

[bascule]

I'm still yet to see any of the people spouting platitudes about how the government can't do anything right actually presenting any evidence that private healthcare systems are better (or even comparable) to public systems. The WHO survey is topped by public systems.

 

Believe it or not, it's possible for the government to do certain things better than the private sector.

[iNow]

What indicator are you using for quality? I thought he said "we do not recieve the worlds highest quality health care".

This was already addressed above. Please pay attention. Here it is again for your reference:

 

 

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html

WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

 

 

 

 

I agree, there are problems in US health care, higher administrative and treatment costs from tort rulings, our products and services are more expensive, questionable profits from CEOs and lobbyists. But then we have a more comprehensive use of high cost, high tech equipment, R&D of new drugs all leading to revelutionary health care, which is vital to progress.

This is not a valid explanation of why the costs in the US are higher than everywhere else. We have the same products and services as other nations, including nations with government run programs. We have the same high tech equipment, and the same pharmaceuticals all available to us as do the other government run systems. And yet... they are not facing the same sky rocketing costs we are.

 

The cost increase is best explained by the capitalist nature of our current system, and the lack of protections for patients (such as denial of coverage issues and pre-existing condition limitations). Folks need to recall that health insurance companies are, first and foremost, a business (JohnB expressed this brilliantly over here a little while back). Their bottom line is dollars earned, not patients helped. They maximize their bottom line by increasing premiums and decreasing payouts... They maximize their income by raising rates, and they decrease their costs/expenditures by refusing payment of services. If insurance companies could do what they wanted... and if we take this suggestion to its logical conclusion... they'd all be charging as much as they can and never paying out a cent. They've been heading in that direction for several years now already, and this is not a great example of a system for you to describe as "the best in the world."

 

Further, you have suggested that our current system is required for innovation and is vital to progress. Well, you may be shocked to hear that other countries... countries with government run healthcare... innovate all of the time, and make significant progress in the medical industry. Countries like Germany, Japan, Singapore, and Australia are all innovators... so basically, what you've described above is quite plainly divorced from reality.

Edited August 13, 2009 by iNow

[navigator]

I don't see any merit or productive discussion in the above post at all, navigator. Looks like shooting the messenger. If you have something specific to call attention to, do that please. Ridicule is not an argument, whether it comes from you or from someone else.

 

 

Your absolutely right, that was uncivil behavior, my apologies to both of you.

 

I should have just said I would like to see the unedited videos for context, because I assert that they would have a much more thumb up view.

 

ABC News made an interesting point in tonight's broadcast, saying that supporters of health care are spending twice as much as opponents, which would seem to go to the question of whether these town hall meetings are being unevenly influenced by the right. Unfortunately they haven't posted a source for that or an article saying it on their web site yet.

 

I heard that too. I also heard it was partially due to a much more vigoruous media campiagn. I am not sure if it has caused an influx on the right, but I would say an increase due to people getting more concerned, more involved, and changing their mind, regardless of their political leaning.

 

Some would say it is due to fear mongering. The HR 3200 thread would be a good place to determine if thats true.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This was already addressed above. Please pay attention. Here it is again for your reference:

 

 

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html

WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

 

No, try again. What gives the World Health Organization more credibility than Cato? That may seem absurd to you, but honestly, their political leanings? The merits of the arguement in the analysis disqualifying the who assement as an objective view of health care ratings. Its quite obvious the way the Who study was conducted. Socialized programs were given advantages while our system was at a disadvantage, due to patients paying for health care themselves based on desire and available funding and not a tax rate, was put at a disadvantage. The study inherently puts countries with socialized health care at an advantage.

 

 

 

 

 

This is not a valid explanation of why the costs in the US are higher than everywhere else. We have the same products and services as other nations, including nations with government run programs. We have the same high tech equipment, and the same pharmaceuticals all available to us as do the other government run systems. And yet... they are not facing the same sky rocketing costs we are.

 

The cost increase is best explained by the capitalist nature of our current system, and the lack of protections for patients (such as denial of coverage issues and pre-existing condition limitations). Folks need to recall that health insurance companies are, first and foremost, a business (JohnB expressed this brilliantly over here a little while back). Their bottom line is dollars earned, not patients helped. They maximize their bottom line by increasing premiums and decreasing payouts... They maximize their income by raising rates, and they decrease their costs/expenditures by refusing payment of services. This is not a great example to use as "the best in the world."

 

Further, you have suggested that our current system is required for innovation and is vital to progress. Well, you may be shocked to hear that other countries... countries with government run healthcare... innovate all of the time, and make significant progress in the medical industry. Countries like Germany, Japan, Singapore, and Australia are all innovators... so basically, what you've described above is quite plainly divorced from reality.

[iNow]

No, try again. What gives the World Health Organization more credibility than Cato? That may seem absurd to you, but honestly, their political leanings?

This is wholly irrelevant. Their political leanings have nothing whatsoever to do with the indicators they chose. You asked what indicators were being used, and I answered your question.

 

Why you felt the need to discuss ideology and absurdity is beyond me since I was merely offering a factual response to your request.

[navigator]

delete

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is wholly irrelevant. Their political leanings have nothing whatsoever to do with the indicators they chose. You asked what indicators were being used, and I answered your question.

 

IMO using the WHO study as an indicator is invalid, given the way it was conducted.

 

Why you felt the need to discuss ideology and absurdity is beyond me since I was merely offering a factual response to your request.

 

What facts have you given to show the analysis of the WHO report is wrong?

[iNow]

IMO using the WHO study as an indicator is invalid, given the way it was conducted.

 

What facts have you given to show the analysis of the WHO report is wrong?

 

Now you're moving the goal posts. You asked what indicators were used. I provided a factual answer.

That's all there is to it. There is no onus on me to discuss validity, nor rightness/wrongness of a report.

 

I truly wonder if you're paying attention. Would you have preferred if I did NOT answer your question, or perhaps you only asked to bait someone? I don't know, and I really don't care anymore.

 

You asked a question. I provided a factual answer. That's all there is to it.

[DJBruce]

No, try again. What gives the World Health Organization more credibility than Cato? That may seem absurd to you, but honestly, their political leanings? The merits of the arguement in the analysis disqualifying the who assement as an objective view of health care ratings. Its quite obvious the way the Who study was conducted. Socialized programs were given advantages while our system was at a disadvantage, due to patients paying for health care themselves based on desire and available funding and not a tax rate, was put at a disadvantage. The study inherently puts countries with socialized health care at an advantage.

 

As for the leanings of the World Health Organization I would have to feel that they would be fairly neutral. Also say the research they conducted and published was scientific I would have to say that if the researchers did have and bias or political leaning that they would put them aside be impartial in their research.

 

As for the study being favorable to countries with socialized healthcare, I have a question. The study took into account satisfaction and quality of care if socialized medicine is so horrible, as you have hinted at in the quotes bellow, wouldn't their scores in these sections be so miserable that they would score poorly overall. If your healthcare is miserable it doesn't matter if all your population is covered because they are all getting miserable care, so you would score lower, than a country were a good portion of the country receives good to exceptional care.

 

 

How many government health care plans, on the fed or state level, actually operate within their budget and do not make cutbacks in programs?

 

But what about medicare, medicaid and they many other state programs that struggle every year with budget shortfalls and program cutbacks?

 

So because one system works it invalidates the fact that there are numerous others that can't stay within budget and continue to make cutbacks? Also, there was the fiasco, a few years ago, regarding the terrible conditions at Walter Reed Med Center. If you go back further there have been other problems, IMO its not always been as good as you make it sound.

[navigator]

As for the leanings of the World Health Organization I would have to feel that they would be fairly neutral.

 

I disagree due to several ways the study gives an advantage to socialized programs.

 

Also say the research they conducted and published was scientific I would have to say that if the researchers did have and bias or political leaning that they would put them aside be impartial in their research.

 

If it was a scientific study it would have more credibility, but its not.

 

As for the study being favorable to countries with socialized healthcare, I have a question. The study took into account satisfaction and quality of care if socialized medicine is so horrible, as you have hinted at in the quotes bellow, wouldn't their scores in these sections be so miserable that they would score poorly overall. If your healthcare is miserable it doesn't matter if all your population is covered because they are all getting miserable care, so you would score lower, than a country were a good portion of the country receives good to exceptional care.

 

A partial answer would be the study placed more importance on everybody paying the same percentage of income on health care vs a wide gap. The smaller the gap the better the rating was given. That has nothing to do with the quality of health care.

 

There are several answers to your question, but the analysis explains it much better than I can.

 

 

The other three factors are even worse. “Financial fairness” measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the “percentage” of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same “percentage” of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system. This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior. It rewards countries that spend the same percentage of household income on health care, and punishes those that spend either a higher or lower percentage, regardless of the impact on health. In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking, whereas a country where the amount paid for health care is based on use of the system, but delivers excellent health care will rank poorly. To use this factor to justify more government involvement in health care, therefore, is using circular reasoning since this factor is designed to favor government intervention.

 

“Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution” measure inequality in the other factors. In other words, neither factor actually measures the quality of health care delivery, because “inequality of delivery” is independent of “quality of care”. It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets “excellent” health care, but a minority only gets “good” health care. This system would rank more poorly on these measures than another country that had “equal”, but poor, health care throughout the system.

[bascule]

What gives the World Health Organization more credibility than Cato?

 

Perhaps the fact that they're the world's leading authority on health issues, they specialize in health issues, they consist of doctors, etc.

 

Also, the CATO analysis doesn't corroborate your assertion that America has the best healthcare system in the world.

 

It would seem to support the assertion that the grain of salt the WHO survey must be taken with is that it factors in things like efficiency and costs. Other than that, I don't see them challenging the survey's conclusions, just how they were reported, which is always an issue.

[navigator]

Now you're moving the goal posts. You asked what indicators were used. I provided a factual answer.

That's all there is to it. There is no onus on me to discuss validity, nor rightness/wrongness of a report.

 

I have not moved the goal posts, the level of objectability used to construct your indicator is highly questionable.

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Perhaps the fact that they're the world's leading authority on health issues, they specialize in health issues, they consist of doctors, etc.

 

Maybe, but nobody wants to address whats in the analysis.

 

Also, the CATO analysis doesn't corroborate your assertion that America has the best healthcare system in the world.

 

The Cato analysis was only used to high light the lack of objectability in the WHO study. My assertion is that it is the best because it is the highest quality money can buy.

 

It would seem to support the assertion that the grain of salt the WHO survey must be taken with is that it factors in things like efficiency and costs. Other than that, I don't see them challenging the survey's conclusions, just how they were reported, which is always an issue.

 

It had nothing to do with how it was reported, its how the study was conducted.

 

In summary, therefore, the WHO ranking system has minimal objectivity in its “ranking” of world health. It more accurately can be described as a ranking system inherently biased to reward the uniformity of “government” delivered (i.e. “socialized”) health care, independent of the care actually delivered.

[iNow]

I have not moved the goal posts, the level of objectability used to construct your indicator is highly questionable.

None of that changes the fact that an accurate and valid answer was provided to the question you posed. Why it's taking more than three posts for you to understand this is not my problem

[DJBruce]

I disagree due to several ways the study gives an advantage to socialized programs.

 

If it was a scientific study it would have more credibility, but its not.

 

A partial answer would be the study placed more importance on everybody paying the same percentage of income on health care vs a wide gap. The smaller the gap the better the rating was given. That has nothing to do with the quality of health care.

 

There are several answers to your question, but the analysis explains it much better than I can.

 

How is the study not scientific, it seems to meet all the requirements to be, it set objective criteria and then measured how countries compare against this set of criteria using subjective data and evidence.

 

You pointed to two out of the four criteria used in the study, so even if countries with socialized healthcare benefit in those two categories. They would have been crushed in the other two categories which are the population's overall health and the health systems responsiveness. Which according to your post would be miserable in a socialized health system. I would also like to point out that part of responsiveness is, " autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health" so the socialized health systems with their "death panels" would completely fail part of responsiveness.

[stereologist]

This has much more to do with the fact that demand for their services are down. With the advent of email, snail mail is less needed. This problem of "lower demand for services" will never apply to healthcare, so your analogy/comparison fails.

 

Since these issues with the PO occurred long before there was email you are completely wrong.

 

As I said... all it takes is one single example to prove you wrong, and I've already provided one example. Simply repeating an invalid assertion without adding any new information doesn't suddenly make it true.

 

Your example is false. It's not a pay as you go system.

 

Another baseless assertion.

False.

 

And you further assume it won't be the same if government is involved without any evidence that this is the case. Is there anything else you wish to make up to support your preconceived notions? Do unicorns and leprechauns enter into your logic at any point?

 

It seems you have nothing of importance to say - tedious, vacuous, dullness.

 

This is plainly false. They are listening, and you have no reason to suggest otherwise.

Representatives taking phone calls during these meetings. Once again you are completely wrong.

 

You continue making stuff up which has zero basis in reality, and it's rather tiresome.

A nice summation of your posts.

[iNow]

Since these issues with the PO occurred long before there was email you are completely wrong.

 

Your example is false. It's not a pay as you go system.

 

False.

 

It seems you have nothing of importance to say - tedious, vacuous, dullness.

 

Representatives taking phone calls during these meetings. Once again you are completely wrong.

 

A nice summation of your posts.

 

Care to back up any of those assertions with evidence, or are you content to just say it and move on, providing no evidence that you are correct, your assertions valid, or anything more than opinion?

[stereologist]

believe it or not, it's possible for the government to do certain things better than the private sector.

 

lol

[iNow]

lol

 

A nice summation of your arguments.

[stereologist]

Sheila Jackson Lee, a congress woman from Texas took a cell phone call during a town meeting while a person was trying to answer a question.

[navigator]

I'm still yet to see any of the people spouting platitudes about how the government can't do anything right actually presenting any evidence that private healthcare systems are better (or even comparable) to public systems. The WHO survey is topped by public systems.

 

Believe it or not, it's possible for the government to do certain things better than the private sector.

 

The majority of those with private health care are satisfied, while medicare, medicaid et al seem to be going broke requiring more funding or cutbacks in programs and sometimes both.

 

If the USPS was so good there would be no market for UPS, FedX IMO.

 

Today the Veterans Health Administration appears to be ok. A few years ago it seemed terrible and previous to that it was up and down. I see a pattern, as soon as there is sufficient funding things improve. But then, for example, people get lax, because their job is often not measured by productivity, and all of a sudden efficiency drops and more money is required.

 

I would like to hear some other examples though.

[iNow]

Since these issues with the PO occurred long before there was email you are completely wrong.

Doesn't change the fact that the Post Office is not a valid comparison to helath care.

 

 

Your example is false. It's not a pay as you go system.

Doesn't change the fact that I provided a counter example to your claim that "government run services are never as good as privately run services and are always more expensive. "

 

 

False.

If it's false, then prove that "insurance companies are easy to deal with compared to government bureaucracies. " I've had the exact opposite experience, and that alone shows your claim to be incorrect.

 

 

 

It seems you have nothing of importance to say - tedious, vacuous, dullness.

Is it okay if I don't trust your judgment on the matter?

 

 

Representatives taking phone calls during these meetings. Once again you are completely wrong.

Doesn't change the fact that your claim that "representatives are refusing to listen to constituents" is totally and completely without merit.

 

 

Perhaps much of this can be resolved by instituting a policy mandating debate class in schools. If this gets any more retarded, we'll all have to change our names to Corky.

[navigator]

How is the study not scientific, it seems to meet all the requirements to be, it set objective criteria and then measured how countries compare against this set of criteria using subjective data and evidence.

 

You pointed to two out of the four criteria used in the study, so even if countries with socialized healthcare benefit in those two categories. They would have been crushed in the other two categories which are the population's overall health and the health systems responsiveness. Which according to your post would be miserable in a socialized health system. I would also like to point out that part of responsiveness is, " autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health" so the socialized health systems with their "death panels" would completely fail part of responsiveness.

 

I posted two analysis, its looking more and more like they were ignored. The other analysis was from a nuerosurgeon and professor at the U of Northwestern, I included his bio with a long list of credentials in the medical field.

[iNow]

The majority of those with private health care are satisfied, while medicare, medicaid et al seem to be going broke requiring more funding or cutbacks in programs and sometimes both.

Why are you applying different standards to the programs within the same sentence?

 

Recipients of medicare and medicaid are ALSO satisfied. If that is the criteria you are using for private health care, then why not use it for those programs?

 

 

If the USPS was so good there would be no market for UPS, FedX IMO.

This is a false assertion, and misses the point anyway. What it shows is that there is room for both government and private systems to provide services.

 

Interestingly, this is exactly what we are proposing with healthcare reform... Government program in conjunction with private care. Fancy that.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I posted two analysis, its looking more and more like they were ignored. The other analysis was from a nuerosurgeon and professor at the U of Northwestern, I included his bio with a long list of credentials in the medical field.

 

Appeal to authority is not a valid form of argument here.

[DJBruce]

I posted two analysis, its looking more and more like they were ignored. The other analysis was from a nuerosurgeon and professor at the U of Northwestern, I included his bio with a long list of credentials in the medical field.

 

I read your arguments, and they have not changed my opinions nor do they respond to my questions; so I will reiterate it here. If countries with socialized medicine have horrible care, ie: 50% of the study, how do the preform better than the United States who should crush them in this 50%?

[navigator]

Why are you applying different standards to the programs within the same sentence?

 

levels of satisfaction are greatly affected by limited funding and program cutbacks.

 

Recipients of medicare and medicaid are ALSO satisfied. If that is the criteria you are using for private health care, then why not use it for those programs?

 

The level of satisfaction is primarily due to private health care subsidies.

 

 

This is a false assertion, and misses the point anyway. What it shows is that there is room for both government and private systems to provide services.

 

Interestingly, this is exactly what we are proposing with healthcare reform... Government program in conjunction with private care. Fancy that.

 

If you redifine private health care, maybe.

 

Appeal to authority is not a valid form of argument here.

 

And ignoring the evidence is?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I read your arguments, and they have not changed my opinions nor do they respond to my questions; so I will reiterate it here. If countries with socialized medicine have horrible care, ie: 50% of the study, how do the preform better than the United States who should crush them in this 50%?

 

The care may not be horrible, but its not as good either.

 

We can not be certain without a more objective study, or at least an alternate study to make comparisons.

Edited August 13, 2009 by navigator
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

levels of satisfaction are greatly affected by limited funding and program cutbacks.

 

The level of satisfaction is primarily due to private health care subsidies.

Neither of these sentences address my actual criticism of your point. You said that people were satisfied with private health care, and then attacked medicare and medicaid on grounds which had nothing to do with satisfaction. I pointed out that people are ALSO satisfied with medicare and medicaid, so my point stands, and your response remains irrelevant.

 

 

We can not be certain without a more objective study, or at least an alternate study to make comparisons.

Your attempt to poison the well does nothing to support your claim that the WHO study was not scientific. You are merely back peddling now. You said it was not scientific. When asked why, and for what reason, you just responded that we cannot be certain and need more studies.

 

That neither supports your claim for which you were asked to supply support, nor does it show that the WHO paper was somehow not scientific. I've got news for you... It was.

 

You are very lacking in the basic quality of academic integrity, my friend.

[DJBruce]

The care may not be horrible, but its not as good either.

 

We can not be certain without a more objective study, or at least an alternate study to make comparisons.

 

If you cannot be certain about how the quality of care in other countries compares to the quality in the United States how do you state, "its not as good either?" Also how do you seem to state that our system is better than a single payer system?

 

Also you failed to show how the study is not scientific, you simply keep stating it favors countries with socialized medicine. Regardless of how a study turns out, if the researchers create specific criteria and then subjectively compare countries against this criteria it is scientific. Just because you disagree with the criteria of the study does not mean the study is not scientific.

Edited August 13, 2009 by DJBruce
Spelling