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.

Quote Originally Posted by FlashLackey View Post
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.