People are dumb as rocks

[EasyEJL]

"The polling data backs up our subjective view that to make health care reform work, you need a public option," said Schumer.

The same polling data that showed that more than half the obama voters didn't know which party was in control of congress. Or well, pick your choice of things, the same public group that isn't smart enough to read the "Truth in Lending" disclosures with their loan? Thats data that shows we "need" a public option in healthcare? all it will do is make healthcare less affordable.

[bigrobbierob]

It reminds me of this done during the election...

YouTube - How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters

And Glenn Beck did something similar. He just came out with a new book called "Common Sense", the idea here was to send a reporter with no identifying logo's (so people wouldn't know he was from FOX) and find people that identified themselves as liberal/left. The reporter read excerpts from the book and asked if they agreed or disagreed. Well...

YouTube - Is Glenn Beck's Common Sense Non-Partisan?

[CDB]

The same polling data that showed that more than half the obama voters didn't know which party was in control of congress. Or well, pick your choice of things, the same public group that isn't smart enough to read the "Truth in Lending" disclosures with their loan? Thats data that shows we "need" a public option in healthcare? all it will do is make healthcare less affordable.

You don't understand, it's all a matter of obedience. All we need to do is elect the right people and have them say, "Let there be..." and follow that with whatever we want, and magically it will appear. Free health care, well manicured lawns and houses for everyone.

In large part, this is what happens when you give the government default control of the education system and let net tax consuming leaches teach kids that the government is the source of all good things. Hard work, productivity, and property rights? Bah! What good has any of those things done us in the past...

[EasyEJL]

I wouldn't have expected much common sense in NYC honestly.

[duffmt6]

(cant post links yet so manually quoting)
"url

And Glenn Beck did something similar. He just came out with a new book called "Common Sense", the idea here was to send a reporter with no identifying logo's (so people wouldn't know he was from FOX) and find people that identified themselves as liberal/left. The reporter read excerpts from the book and asked if they agreed or disagreed. Well...

url"

these are extreme examples and occur on both sides of the political spectrum. believe it or not, public opinion is pretty important in the legislative process

[EasyEJL]

If you believe that, I have some land to sell you. The problem with congress and senate is that if you vote for something that is good for your local constituency, no matter HOW bad it is nationally, you get re-elected. This is what pork barrel and other favoritism spending is all about. So as long as you make the morons in your home district feel good, thats all that counts.

[saludable24]

If you believe that, I have some land to sell you. The problem with congress and senate is that if you vote for something that is good for your local constituency, no matter HOW bad it is nationally, you get re-elected. This is what pork barrel and other favoritism spending is all about. So as long as you make the morons in your home district feel good, thats all that counts.

And no term limits on the morons helps the whole process too. Also, the fact that they are a "self regulating" body. Talk about a conflict of interest.

Also isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing again and again expecting a different result? The rediculousness of our government's actions will not cease until we stop electing the same morons into office.

I suppose there will be no rediculousness or conflicts of interest in any of the insane proposed government programs coming like cap and trade, government health care, and card check. Oh no, everything will be different this time, they promise...

[JDK5386]

The same polling data that showed that more than half the obama voters didn't know which party was in control of congress. Or well, pick your choice of things, the same public group that isn't smart enough to read the "Truth in Lending" disclosures with their loan? Thats data that shows we "need" a public option in healthcare? all it will do is make healthcare less affordable.

Although I share your concerns about the potential pitfalls of health care reform, I'm relieved that we're at least addressing the problem. We have by far the least efficient health care system in the world. It needs reform, as at the moment our system has managed to combine the worst of both socialist and market systems.

I personally don't particularly care whether we reform in the direction of planned health care or market health care, but the current system is a total cluster****:



Note that this is from 2001 and 2002, most disparities have widened considerably since then.

[EasyEJL]

Although I share your concerns about the potential pitfalls of health care reform, I'm relieved that we're at least addressing the problem. We have by far the least efficient health care system in the world. It needs reform, as at the moment our system has managed to combine the worst of both socialist and market systems.

I personally don't particularly care whether we reform in the direction of planned health care or market health care, but the current system is a total cluster****:



Note that this is from 2001 and 2002, most disparities have widened considerably since then.

But you have to consider we have the highest teen pregnancy rates, the highest obesity rates, high number of premature births (which in many of those other countries would be marked as stillborn), high average miles driver per day, and high gun related incidents. 1 infant born at 22 weeks can cost over a million its first year.

Teen births and obesity are by choice activities, no change to a healthcare system will change those. so you can't compare $ spent in healthcare in a vacuum. And do you realize that the expansion in health care costs has largely come with (gasp) an expansion of medicare, medicaid and other government programs ?

[CDB]

Highest spending doesn't mean least efficient. If a country has twice as many carrots as another and people spend more on carrots there, does that mean their market is inefficient? No, it means higher supply leads to more spending on the good overall. One of the reasons there's so little 'spending' in foreign countries is because there's so little supply, and because there are price controls. Now we can institute price controls here on X, Y, and Z in the health care market, watch supplies fall through the floor, and as a result we'll spend less on health care. I doubt our system would rate as more efficient or that people would be better off though.

You are right though when you say we've managed to implement the worst of pboth systems, though I'd say fascism and lefty socialism. We've got a hefty single payer portion of the system, and the rest is on balance controlled by the suppliers with the consumer getting squat in terms of representation.

Although I share your concerns about the potential pitfalls of health care reform, I'm relieved that we're at least addressing the problem. We have by far the least efficient health care system in the world. It needs reform, as at the moment our system has managed to combine the worst of both socialist and market systems.

I personally don't particularly care whether we reform in the direction of planned health care or market health care, but the current system is a total cluster****:



Note that this is from 2001 and 2002, most disparities have widened considerably since then.

[JDK5386]

But you have to consider we have the highest teen pregnancy rates, the highest obesity rates, high number of premature births (which in many of those other countries would be marked as stillborn), high average miles driver per day, and high gun related incidents. 1 infant born at 22 weeks can cost over a million its first year.

So your argument is that obesity, teen pregnancy and gun related incidents are what explains the fact that the US spends about twice as much per person on health care as the international developed country average? What about smoking? Its the single most expensive personal choice from a health care perspective, and the US has one of the lowest smoking rates in the world.

Although I think poor personal choice partially explains the disparity, I'm pretty skeptical that its doubling average world costs.

Teen births and obesity are by choice activities, no change to a healthcare system will change those. so you can't compare $ spent in healthcare in a vacuum. And do you realize that the expansion in health care costs has largely come with (gasp) an expansion of medicare, medicaid and other government programs ?

Government spending in the US on health care has been and is flatly dumb. Its all been about creating ever-higher levels of demand when supply is almost nearly perfectly inelastic. That one government's intervention in the market has been dumb does not mean that intervention is generally dumb, as it seems to me that Europe is getting a comparable product for substantive health problems for about half the price. The only losers in European systems relative to ours are hypochondriacs and insurance companies.

Highest spending doesn't mean least efficient. If a country has twice as many carrots as another and people spend more on carrots there, does that mean their market is inefficient? No, it means higher supply leads to more spending on the good overall

Ceterus paribus, higher levels of supply means lower prices and more output. We are seeing roughly double the median international developed expenditure. I don't think we're getting anywhere near double the output, hence "world's least efficient."

We've got a hefty single payer portion of the system, and the rest is on balance controlled by the suppliers with the consumer getting squat in terms of representation.

I agree with this statement, hence why I feel reform is needed.

[EasyEJL]

So your argument is that obesity, teen pregnancy and gun related incidents are what explains the fact that the US spends about twice as much per person on health care as the international developed country average? What about smoking? Its the single most expensive personal choice from a health care perspective, and the US has one of the lowest smoking rates in the world.

Although I think poor personal choice partially explains the disparity, I'm pretty skeptical that its doubling average world costs.

like with any system where there is a curve though, its the outliers who cost the most. a 22 week old infant delivered costs into the millions of dollars. That happening here, where in another country the child is listed as stillborn makes a $5,000 dollar difference per person over the next 2,000 people... And teen births are far more likely to be premature, underweight and have other issues. You simply can't compare just average overall cost per person. Try cost per a specific set of 10 procedures that are the most common procedures, something along those lines - wellness checkup, standard annual blood test, etc. Otherwise its like using a study on elderly castrated men to prove that a supplement would help build muscle in bodybuilders

[AE14]

If you believe that, I have some land to sell you. The problem with congress and senate is that if you vote for something that is good for your local constituency, no matter HOW bad it is nationally, you get re-elected. This is what pork barrel and other favoritism spending is all about. So as long as you make the morons in your home district feel good, thats all that counts.

and they all do it, regardless of party (sadly)

[CDB]

Ceterus paribus, higher levels of supply means lower prices and more output.

Yes, higher supply does mean lower prices. However double supply does not mean half price. The two aren't in direct proportion to one another. Especially if you have an inflationary economy.

We are seeing roughly double the median international developed expenditure. I don't think we're getting anywhere near double the output, hence "world's least efficient."

According to the WHO report, when you sift through the BS, we have some of the best survival rates and the best responsiveness. That means, for the most part, if you're sick you're usually better off here, and you on balance get care much quicker. Couple that with lifestyle issues Easy mentioned and higher supply, you start to lose the ability to be truly indignant about the cost.

[CDB]

Try cost per a specific set of 10 procedures that are the most common procedures, something along those lines - wellness checkup, standard annual blood test, etc.

I would VERY much like to see that study if it exists.

[EasyEJL]

I just want to add that when we go back to looking at lifespans and other measurements of quality of care, that single 22 week old that is delivered in the US, and only survives a few weeks vs delivered as stillborn in most other countries drops average lifespan by 1 year for the next 77 babies... Just goes to show how with averages you have to keep a sharp eye out for outliers. As with my cost of 10 common procedures, i'd like to also see average lifespans compared for adults already age 35. That would be a lot more representative i'd think, as its also beyond the average age of military service.

[JDK5386]

like with any system where there is a curve though, its the outliers who cost the most. a 22 week old infant delivered costs into the millions of dollars. That happening here, where in another country the child is listed as stillborn makes a $5,000 dollar difference per person over the next 2,000 people... And teen births are far more likely to bepremature, underweight and have other issues. You simply can't compare just average overall cost per person.

As populations are sufficiently large, yes you can. Your argument is that because there are some differences between US population and the rest of the world, the fact that we spend twice as much is meaningless per person. When it comes to comparing the effectiveness of industries - and thus the need for reform - its not.

I don't deny that population differences exogenous to the system are an influence, but its not the whole story.

Try cost per a specific set of 10 procedures that are the most common procedures, something along those lines - wellness checkup, standard annual blood test, etc. Otherwise its like using a study on elderly castrated men to prove that a supplement would help build muscle in bodybuilders

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=156022

The R-squared on unit hospital costs and income is pretty high - until you get to the US. Granted this is hospital use only and isn't health care generally, but its another piece of the puzzle.

Yes, higher supply does mean lower prices. However double supply does not mean half price. The two aren't in direct proportion to one another. Especially if you have an inflationary economy.

In a functioning market and with inelastic demand for health care, double the supply would mean a fraction of the price and lower total expenditure even at double the output. But then again, its not a functioning market, and supply isn't the issue.

And what WHO report are you referring to?

[EasyEJL]

As populations are sufficiently large, yes you can. Your argument is that because there are some differences between US population and the rest of the world, the fact that we spend twice as much is meaningless per person. When it comes to comparing the effectiveness of industries - and thus the need for reform - its not.

you are simply wrong. different population groups have different needs and you cant arbitrarily compared averages. How about average soy consumption, average cost of gasoline, average cost of a gallon of vodka. Supply, demand, and sevices rendered all have their effect. nobody can state what effect a 50% obesity rate has without specifically subtracting those effects. in the uk, doctors are not allowed to attempt to save or revive infants 22 weeks or younger. 1 such infant in the us can raise average cost significantly as its care is in the millions.

I don't deny that population differences exogenous to the system are an influence, but its not the whole story.

without being able to specifically account for the differences, comparing averages is only an emotional argument, not a logical one
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=156022

The R-squared on unit hospital costs and income is pretty high - until you get to the US. Granted this is hospital use only and isn't health care generally, but its another piece of the puzzle.

and if we have on average more advanced equipment in hospitals, and more available blood and other diagnostic tests, it will (gasp) cost more here

and did any of you who keep calling it double to cost look at that graph? we're double the lowest, only 50% more than most tho - again making mostly an emotional argument, not a real statistical or logical argument...

how about on that chart compare average post-federal taxation income with the healthcare costs? or average home ownership rates?

[CDB]

As populations are sufficiently large, yes you can. Your argument is that because there are some differences between US population and the rest of the world, the fact that we spend twice as much is meaningless per person. When it comes to comparing the effectiveness of industries - and thus the need for reform - its not. I don't deny that population differences exogenous to the system are an influence, but its not the whole story.

Yes, it is. One, looking at total cost is taking a budgetary look at the issue, which means one is assuming a central planning problem/solution to begin with. The relevant question vis a vi total cost is, is it high because people are being charged more than market prices? There answer to that here in the US is yes for several reasons, all of them due to government interventions. But the real issue is, two, having populations that are sufficiently large doesn't negate the massive effects that differences in population make up can cause, especially with regard to health outcomes because as Easy points out the outliers are where the major cost hikes are. A population with significantly large portions of young and old people will consume more health care services and thus cost more.

Is it the whole answer? No. But it's present enough to make the existing numbers essentially meaningless.

In a functioning market and with inelastic demand for health care, double the supply would mean a fraction of the price and lower total expenditure even at double the output. But then again, its not a functioning market, and supply isn't the issue.

And what WHO report are you referring to?

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Just out of curiosity, where do you come to the conclusion that demand for health care is inelastic?

[BodyWizard]

Highest spending doesn't mean least efficient. If a country has twice as many carrots as another and people spend more on carrots there, does that mean their market is inefficient? No, it means higher supply leads to more spending on the good overall.

Interesting that supply-side economics should fail so spectacularly without more general comment. I fear your remarks here are anti-economics.

We've got a hefty single payer portion of the system, and the rest is on balance controlled by the suppliers with the consumer getting squat in terms of representation.

By "suppliers" you mean of course the HMOs/insurance companies, not the actual health-care providers themselves - who are after all, only "labor"...and therefore a cost to be minimized.