Health care victory

[FlashLackey]

I'm sort of P.O.'d at the idea that I'd have to buy health insurance. Even though I do buy health insurance.

Hanratty makes a point that his company is going to report his health plan as taxable income, which is a good one. I'm wondering what it will do to a freelancer like me, on an independent plan. From the talking points, it looks like it could be a decent safety net; like if I have a bad year, I might qualify for a tax break / subsidy / whatever, and I could buy my insurance on their exchange. Does anyone know how that actually is supposed to work? Like, say I have a private Blue Cross plan and I have a down year where I make less than 80k. Will I get some kind of tax refund?

Actually, as I'm typing this, I'm kind of answering my own question. "Yeah right"...

Here is a calculator that will tell you what subsidy (if any) you would get and how much a health plan bought through the exchange would cost: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

When I was single, I had a basic plan for $900 a year. According to this calculator, the cost for someone in the same circumstance will be three times as much.

The figure it gives me for my current family of four is also more expensive than what I currently pay through a private company. The problem is that, based on other new requirements, my rate at the private company is undoubtedly going to go up.

The bill is designed to bankrupt private insurance companies so that Democrats can gain a foothold for what they really want: single payer health care and a national VAT tax. Not because it creates better health outcomes for our country but because it is politically advantageous to Democrats to create larger public sector industries.

cancerinform is right. It's not about health care for Democrats. It's about gaining political power.

[Loyal Rogue]

I did not say that just because it came from a conservative source that it was false.
All that the source itself proves is the motive for a particular outcome.
What's at question is the method used to arrive at that outcome.

The paper and your argument is that by eliminating all patients that end up dying because they were either involved in violence or an accident makes the overall number more accurate because those deaths are not related to the quality of healthcare that those patients receive.
However, the author never really attempts to make the number more accurately reflect the premise by distinguishing between patients that received healthcare and those that didn't.
He simply eliminates a very large group of patients from the equation entirely.
Since those patients are obviously younger than the average age of life expectancy this naturally skews the overall number in a favorable direction.
This is called "Cherry-picking".

The same could easily be done with infant mortality rates.
We could argue that we should eliminate all woman who have natural childbirth from the equation because they could have given birth at home, in an elevator, or in the back of a taxi and therefor if their baby dies it is not a reflection on our healthcare system and should not count toward infant mortality rates.
(I wonder how long it will be before this idea shows up as a talking point in some rightwing thinktank "study"...)

If we could arbitrarily cut out a large portion of infants from the equation and only count those born via C-section then naturally our infant mortality rates would then appear to be the lowest in the world.
However, that would be just as dishonest as the methodology used in the paper you cited because murder fatalities, traffic fatalities and infant mortality rates are not based on those that died before receiving medical care.

Likewise, we could do other "statistical backflips" like above by arbitrarily eliminating all deaths due to diabetes, and/or AIDS, lung, and liver disease from the equation and see how it affects the numbers.
If it skews the totals in a way that's favorable to the political outcome we're looking for then it ends up in our thinktank paper, if not then we just keep looking until we find something to eliminate that does... like homicide and traffic.
Again, that's known as "Cherry-picking".

The only way that paper could not be considered statistical gymnastics and cherry-picking is if we accept their premise that people who get shot, stabbed, beaten, or are involved in accidents don't ever go to the hospital.
I don't know about where you live, but if you go to my local hospital ER you will see a constant stream of accident and violence victims being treated in our healthcare system.

The bill is designed to bankrupt private insurance companies so that Democrats can gain a foothold for what they really want

Careful FL.
You are getting dangerously close to losing the "conservative" label and being moved into the paranoid delusional teabagger camp.

How else could you describe the view of not only subsidizing a private industry with public money but also forcing everyone to buy their product, as trying to bankrupt that private industry?!?
If that's true then I hope to God that Uncle Sam tries to bankrupt me by giving me billions and forcing everyone to buy my products too!
(By your reasoning, I guess you believe Bush/Cheney were trying to bankrupt Halliburton as well?)

As I'm sure our resident Wall Street expert will attest to, after the signing of the healthcare bill, insurance stocks and pharmaceutical stocks went up, not down.
Apparently, investors and analysts don't agree with your assessment that this is a bad thing for the private healthcare industry... quite the opposite.

Wow, how often does that happen?
Wall Street agreeing with a liberal instead of the conservative?
Are you SURE you're still a conservative?


Btw, having single-payer systems in other countries did not bankrupt their private healthcare industry either.
Some single-payer systems have kept both public and private options, and some countries just fund the private industries with public funding.
There are many different forms that a single-payer or public option can take.
I still have faith that America can find a solution that is a workable blend of social and capitalistic principles that will benefit more than the small handful our current system does without destroying the fabric of our society or causing Armageddon as the teabaggers would have us believe.

[Loyal Rogue]

On a side note, if anyone is even remotely interested in what I said above about methodologies/cherry-picking to arrive at a certain conclusion, then you will love "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre.

It's an excellent book by a British doctor and medical researcher that exposes dishonest methods that vitamin gurus, homeopaths, pharmaceuticals, and herbal remedy pushers use to promote non-existent benefits of their products and to make claims that a certain product is good for you even when it's been shown in clinical studies that your chance of survival is greater if you don't use that product.

What "Food Inc." did to expose the hidden side of our food industry, "Bad Science" does to the health supplements industry.
I can't recommend it highly enough.

[cancerinform]

Here is a calculator that will tell you what subsidy (if any) you would get and how much a health plan bought through the exchange would cost: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

When I was single, I had a basic plan for $900 a year. According to this calculator, the cost for someone in the same circumstance will be three times as much.

I put in "final legislation", $80,000/year, age 25, single adult, no empl. coverage, regional cost factor:highest, and I get Actual annual plan premium: $3,165, which is 263.75 per month. I don't know what your circumstances are.

[Frets]

When were you single? You most likely were much younger then you are today. When you were single medical costs were lower. When you were single you most likely did not have the same coverage you have today.
Rates have gone up dramatically since you were single. For that you can blame insurance companies and hospitals.

[gerbick]

I find it funny how people are up in arms over the expenses of healthcare; yet aren't rioting over the costs of these two wars in equal amounts.

Perhaps I'm missing something.

[Loyal Rogue]

Personally, I find it very sad.

Certain people have no problem bankrupting the country and mortgaging their great-grandchildrens' future in order to kill other people and blow stuff up, yet are ready to riot over spending any money to help heal their own sick and poor.
The real irony is that most of them likely have a "Jesus fish" proudly displayed on the back of their car... hmmm, I wonder how Jesus would feel about that?

As for the actual costs of healthcare in the future, according to the analysts I've been listening to today, the best indicator for health costs under the new plan is the cost of insurance today.
FL and the conservatives get their wish for insurance companies to compete across state lines like he's mentioned dozens of times.
They also get their wish that there will be no "government takeover" of healthcare.
Only private insurance companies will be participating in the new insurance exchanges.

Liberals will be happy that there is no penalty for those that either make too little to owe income tax, or that can't purchase an insurance policy through the exchanges that is lower than 8% of their income.
They will also be happy that those in low income brackets can qualify for subsidies to help pay part of their insurance premiums.

Both sides should be happy with the lifting of denial for pre-existing conditions.
Likewise both sides should find positives in the insurance companies coming up with a low cost, standardized policy once the exchange plan kicks into affect and the pool of customers increase along with competition.

Personally, I won't be happy until we join the rest of the modern world and have a real public option to choose from along with all the private plans.

[gerbick]

I was joking with a friend earlier... and randomly said:

"I'm going to go around randomly stabbing folks and just nonchalantly say "Healthcare"..."

Now that's a plan if I've ever heard of one.

[FlashLackey]

I did not say that just because it came from a conservative source that it was false.
All that the source itself proves is the motive for a particular outcome.
What's at question is the method used to arrive at that outcome.

Association fallacy.

The source being conservative does not prove that they had a motive for a particular outcome. Maybe you are projecting the way that you think. That you want an outcome first and examine the facts second to see how they can fit with your desired outcome.

The paper and your argument is that by eliminating all patients that end up dying because they were either involved in violence or an accident makes the overall number more accurate because those deaths are not related to the quality of healthcare that those patients receive.

No. That isn't the argument. The argument is that unadjusted life expectancy statistics do not accurately reflect quality of health care. The authors have clarified that point on multiple occasions.

The one adjustment they made was never intended to demonstrate "THE" accurate statistic for determining health care quality. Their point was that significant differences between nations affect life expectancies for reasons completely unrelated to quality of health care.

Since you misunderstood the argument, much of your other commentary is rendered moot.

However, the author never really attempts to make the number more accurately reflect the premise by distinguishing between patients that received healthcare and those that didn't.
He simply eliminates a very large group of patients from the equation entirely.
Since those patients are obviously younger than the average age of life expectancy this naturally skews the overall number in a favorable direction.
This is called "Cherry-picking".

And again, you're arguing against your own apparent belief. In fact, your underlying point is the same one that the authors of this exercise are making. That Life Expectancy includes substantial amounts of data that changes the value despite quality of health care. In other words, using it to evaluate health care quality is cherry-picking because it ignores data (different rates of non-health care related fatalities and behaviors).

The same could easily be done with infant mortality rates.
We could argue that we should eliminate all woman who have natural childbirth from the equation because they could have given birth at home, in an elevator, or in the back of a taxi and therefor if their baby dies it is not a reflection on our healthcare system and should not count toward infant mortality rates.

Similar to before, you seem to think that there is some rule requiring that certain statistics must be accepted. If a statistic doesn't accurately explain something, nothing horrible has occurred. We just need to adjust it or look for other data that more accurately clarifies something.

The argument you describe here would be a valid one in the sense that the problem is nuanced. Specifically, based on the context you create, it could suggest that the quality of care that we have is very good. But, access is not.

Of course, as we know from previous discussions, the problem with infant mortality rates are that they are not consistently measured the same between nations and that there are other mitigating reasons why one nation would measure lower despite superior care (ie. being able to keep younger babies alive for longer).

If it skews the totals in a way that's favorable to the political outcome we're looking for then it ends up in our thinktank paper, if not then we just keep looking until we find something to eliminate that does... like homicide and traffic.

Exactly the same, a person can use a statistic of a large sweeping criteria that supports their political view despite known nuances that change the outcome. That is what is being done when someone tries to argue that comparing Life Expectancies accurately compares quality of health care.

How else could you describe the view of not only subsidizing a private industry with public money but also forcing everyone to buy their product, as trying to bankrupt that private industry?!?

Apparently, you aren't familiar with the terms of the bill. Though, that's not surprising. Few are. There are severe limits placed on how they can spend revenue. Forcing people to buy a companies product doesn't do them much good if another requirement is that they can't make a profit on the service.

As I'm sure our resident Wall Street expert will attest to, after the signing of the healthcare bill, insurance stocks and pharmaceutical stocks went up, not down.
Apparently, investors and analysts don't agree with your assessment that this is a bad thing for the private healthcare industry... quite the opposite.

Umm... Look again:

http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=WLP

Notice the "competitor" block. All down. They have all been going down for some time as passage of the bill became likelier.

The relatively small bump that occurred immediately after the bill passed is likely explained by a bunch of naive on-line investors not understanding the bill similar to how you describe it as being good for insurance companies.

Wow, how often does that happen?
Wall Street agreeing with a liberal instead of the conservative?
Are you SURE you're still a conservative?

Wall Street is and has leaned liberal for a long time. Follow the money.

Btw, having single-payer systems in other countries did not bankrupt their private healthcare industry either.

There is a massive difference between a private industry serving a nation and the boutique private health care companies scraping by on niche business in single-payer countries.

[Loyal Rogue]

Association fallacy.

The source being conservative does not prove that they had a motive for a particular outcome.

True.
The source being conservative does not prove motive, however the source being a conservative thinktank who's job is to promote conservative ideas and create conservative propaganda does.

Otherwise it's like saying a car manufacturer's motive is not to build cars.

As for the rest of your comments, if you want to change the argument this late in the game, so be it.
So now your argument is that neither the official statistics nor your singular piece of conservative propaganda are correct or matter one bit to quality of healthcare.
Fine.
In a world where you recognize no metrics you can even claim that the village idiot is a genius.
I guess if I voted for Bush and Palin I would dream about living in that kind of world also...

[FlashLackey]

I put in "final legislation", $80,000/year, age 25, single adult, no empl. coverage, regional cost factor:highest, and I get Actual annual plan premium: $3,165, which is 263.75 per month. I don't know what your circumstances are.

Yeah. I paid $75/month for my plan under similar circumstances, just 5 years ago. Obama's plan will cost people more than three times that per month.

When were you single? You most likely were much younger then you are today. When you were single medical costs were lower. When you were single you most likely did not have the same coverage you have today.
Rates have gone up dramatically since you were single. For that you can blame insurance companies and hospitals.

It was 5 years ago and the rates haven't changed.

https://www.blueshieldca.com/bsc/hom...%3Dblue+shield

Click on "get a quote". Enter 25 and use the zip code "90277". Where I was at the time.

I find it funny how people are up in arms over the expenses of healthcare; yet aren't rioting over the costs of these two wars in equal amounts.

War is tragic in many ways, including the financial cost that could be used in other ways. However, it is sometimes necessary. Indeed, it has become essential that the US maintain an expensive military since many other nations aren't contributing to military efforts and depend on us to do so. I'm not happy about that.

[FlashLackey]

True.
The source being conservative does not prove motive, however the source being a conservative thinktank who's job is to promote conservative ideas and create conservative propaganda does.

The motive is to research and articulate educated arguments. That has no logical bearing on whether or not those arguments are true, as you seem to imply. It's an ad hominem argument.

So now your argument is that neither the official statistics nor your singular piece of conservative propaganda are correct or matter one bit to quality of healthcare.
Fine.
In a world where you recognize no metrics you can even claim that the village idiot is a genius.

I didn't change the argument. It has always been the same. You simply misunderstood what it was from the beginning.

Metrics can often be useful when there are little or no mitigating factors left out. In the case of Life Expectancy and quality of health care, the authors I linked to substantiate that there are substantial mitigating factors left out.

Therefore, people who claim Life Expectancy is evidence of comparative quality of health care are either lying or naive.

[Loyal Rogue]

No. That isn't the argument. The argument is that unadjusted life expectancy statistics do not accurately reflect quality of health care. The authors have clarified that point on multiple occasions.

I didn't change the argument. It has always been the same. You simply misunderstood what it was from the beginning.

*cough* Bullsh*t *cough*

I didn't misunderstand anything.
Your earlier statement was quite clear.
You specifically equate your cherry-picked propaganda (that no officials or experts agrees with) to evidence of our quality of healthcare.

If you adjust for non health-care related deaths (car accidents, murders, etc.) our life expectancy is amongst the best in the world. We certainly have problems to sort out. However, the evidence indicates that quality of health care is not one of them.

[gerbick]

I don't care what whomever states; a protracted war is not necessary.

[FlashLackey]

I didn't misunderstand anything.
Your earlier statement was quite clear.
You specifically equate your cherry-picked propaganda (that no officials or experts agrees with) to evidence of our quality of healthcare.

I didn't specifically equate the study to evidence of our quality of healthcare. That would look something like this: "The study linked to here demonstrates that we have the best quality of healthcare."

That isn't what I wrote:

If you adjust for non health-care related deaths (car accidents, murders, etc.) our life expectancy is amongst the best in the world.

True statement. That isn't to say that other adjustments wouldn't be appropriate to reach a statistic more tied to quality of health care.

We certainly have problems to sort out. However, the evidence indicates that quality of health care is not one of them.

There is a lot of evidence unrelated to life expectancy that this is true. For example, the cancer survival rates that I have referred to multiple times here. "The evidence" is a reference to the evidence. You misunderstood if you thought I was meaning to say that the adjusted life expectancy statistic is the only evidence I was referring to.

Also, this argument you keep making about officials or experts agreeing with things is a logical fallacy: Argumentum ad populum. At one time, there was only one person in the world that believed that the earth is round. He was correct, no matter how many officials or experts came to different conclusions.

[david petley]

At one time, there was only one person in the world that believed that the earth is round.

...and that was you too, I suppose?

[FlashLackey]

...and that was you too, I suppose?

It would have been if I were alive then.

[Loyal Rogue]

...and now we've worked our way back to faith-based versus reality-based arguments.
The faith-based community refuses to acknowledge that water is wet because
A) it doesn't jibe with what they want to believe, and
B) back in the dark ages people were wrong and there's no difference between then and now.

On top of that you want us to believe that since you're the last person left that thinks the world is flat, that make you equal to the first person who thought the world was round?

And I'm the one using logical fallacies?

[Frets]

Seriously. It is past time to end the war. We as a nation have gained nothing from it nor will in the future.
For all we know OBL is dead from health related issues.or living comfortably in Saudi Arabia.

its time to support our troops by bringing them home.

[FlashLackey]

...and now we've worked our way back to faith-based versus reality-based arguments.
The faith-based community refuses to acknowledge that water is wet because
A) it doesn't jibe with what they want to believe, and
B) back in the dark ages people were wrong and there's no difference between then and now.

On top of that you want us to believe that since you're the last person left that thinks the world is flat, that make you equal to the first person who thought the world was round?

And I'm the one using logical fallacies?

Are you saying that the first person who believed the world is round did not have a reality-based argument?