[FLOMOUSLY]

[q=Kidicious;5663578]Straybow posted: "The only scarcity is in places like Canada and UK."

See Lori's post in the first thread. Scarcity for health care exists in every nation. Health care is one of the most important services produced. The problem is that resources are often diverted to less important areas of the economy.[/q] I did. What that site didn't address is the scarcity of assigned resources. For example, how many MRI or CAT machines per 100k population, or how funding for other laboratory analysis facilities per 100k population. See also Steyn's example of the British friend whose doctor was not allowed by policy to run routine tests that would easily have detected gout, and instead this poor woman suffered for nearly a decade with the pain.

"The rising cost of health care isn't a problem."

1) People are struggling to pay their bills.
2) Many people can't afford insurance.
3) People forgo recommended care.
4) Less employers offer health care benefits as the cost increases.
5) The federal and state governments have strained budgets due to healthcare costs.

You can't be serious dude. We have a 19% death rate for prostate cancer, while UK has a 57% death rate and Canada a 35% death rate. We are getting what we pay for, and if someone you love died on a waiting list in CA or UK, or you were waiting on such a list yourself and facing the likelihood of death before your number were called, you'd agree. You'd have a point if we weren't getting measurably better results in many areas, and anecdotally better results like Steyn's friend.

Whether or not people can "afford" insurance is a matter of perspective. Many people don't understand the economics of insurance and think they should only pay out as much as the routine medical attention they receive, but that isn't the purpose of insurance. That's exactly how the Dems are trying to sell this crap, by preying on those who are ignorant of the economics.

As for employers providing insurance, my employer had to drop insurance. Instead he offers to cover a portion of premiums and co-payments on whatever policy we can get for ourselves. I'm paying $200/mo out of pocket to be on my wife's insurance. I don't do so because I expect to have $2400 in medical exams and tests this year.

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait 'til it's free from the government!"

"The costs rise because we're getting better diagnostics and treatments over time."

That's only a small part of the reason. But the increased cost of those treatments must be justified by both the benefit of them and the implications for the whole health care system and the economy. It's not enough to just say costs have increased because health care is now better than it was before. Yes, it is.

If you want to forego the latest and greatest healthcare, you can. Just sign up for a cheap insurance policy that doesn't cover that kind of stuff, and shut your piehole when you don't get effective treatment.

If you want government to improve medicine and treat everything on somebody else's tab, you're in for a rude awakening when your diagnosis comes years down the road. "We'd have been able to treat you back in the day, but now everyone wants to save the taxpayers expenses. We don't have enough XYZ to do that now. You're on a waiting list, hope you live that long."

"More hospitals with MRI and CAT machines."

Again. Sure that's better because a patient doesn't have to travel as far to get to one of these machines, but does the increased cost justify this? And can we as a society afford these costs. No, the limited number of machines means that they can't do all the tests really needed to care for the patients. Patients in the UK or Canada are simply denied the test if they fall outside the group judged to benefit the most from their artificially scarce resources. That those who are given the tests may have to travel to another hospital is not so big a deal, if that resource were sufficiently funded that it was more widely available. But it isn't, and even those who get the tests have waiting lists of months or years.

Again, if that's what you want, you can buy an insurance plan that doesn't cover those kinds of tests. Just don't complain when you don't get what you aren't paying for.

"More effective drugs."

Indeed. The inflation rate for prescription drugs far exceeds the general inflation rate. Same point does the benefit exceed the cost. Once again, anyone can opt to make do with older drugs that are less effective but less costly.

Note also, anyone who has financial difficulty paying for drugs can apply and receive drugs steeply discounted from almost any manufacturer in the US.

"The most serious obstacle to availability in this country is the enormous tort insurance burden placed on doctors and hospitals, which none of the Dems are addressing."
Source? Try KH's source: "Mr Baker calculates that this means an average annual premium (in 2003) of around $12,000 per doctor"

I dunno about you, but if my employer had to pay $12k per year for professional liability for my work, I'd be out of a job. He'd be out of a job, too.

[ultimda horaf]

****, it even has its own Wikipedia entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_time_bias

[offinoNem]

****, it even has its own Wikipedia entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_time_bias

Suppose you are correct in positing that lead time bias is at work, can you demonstrate that lead time bias is responsible for all the difference in death rate?

Note also, lead time bias can only change the statistics for the period of time the patient is still alive. Once the patient dies, the lead time no longer matters. Unless the study is conducted over a period of time that is not long compared to the lead time differential, there is little effect on the result.

[fashikn]

NYE, the point is a bit subtle but important.

When a business purchases its employee's health insurance for him then that health insurance has some value to the employee. When a business (or employee) pays the taxes that arise from his salary, the employee sees absolutely no value from that. If the employee values his health insurance at the same price that the business paid for it (which is at least true to a first approximation) then there is no "wedge" between the the two; it's just compensation in a different form. When the employee values the taxes paid at 0 then there is a tax "wedge"; the business is paying more to hire the employee than the employee is seeing in total compensation.

Would you think that wages have to increase due to this perception of lack of value? Is there any data to suggest they do?

[syptopsygieds]

Would you think that wages have to increase due to this perception of lack of value?

It's not a perception; it's a truth. If I personally pay the government 1000$ extra in taxes then the value to me personally is minuscule (since my 1000$ extra is diluted among the entire population).

Is there any data to suggest they do?

This is literally what the entire field of tax incidence is based around, NYE.

[Olympicdreams]

Yes, but our 'extra taxes' pay for our entire system (or most of it). In the US you are still paying taxes for government healthcare (roughly GDP per person equal to our entire system) as well as paying for your own insurance for the rest of the system.

I'm not buying that Canada's system is an export killer, while the US system is not. Quite the reverse is my intuition, since many companies locate here for our educated, medicated workforce, and they do not have the hassles of the American system.

Is this where I ?

[paralelogram]

OK. I was not contending 'that comparing wages between two different countries would tell you anything about the effect of taxes on wages.'

I said as an aside, I would be interested in data on that subject.

I'd also be interested in data that taxes put pressure on wages that healthcare premiums, employment insurance premiums, CPP or Social Security premiums, etc, do not.

[Gscvbhhv]

Hmmm.

I get what you're saying, I'm just not buying in yet.

Can you direct to a good source that supports what you are claiming?

[CHEAPPoem]

Note also, lead time bias can only change the statistics for the period of time the patient is still alive. Once the patient dies, the lead time no longer matters. Unless the study is conducted over a period of time that is not long compared to the lead time differential, there is little effect on the result.

I have no idea what the **** this is supposed to mean. Maybe you should try to figure it out. It is written in Canadian-compatible English, with well-formed sentence structure, a premise, supporting content, and a conclusion.

[inchaaruutaa]

Finally hunted down what that statistic is. It's the mortality rate divided by the incidence rate. Crudely, it can be thought of as one over the "average" survival time with the disease from diagnosis to death (there are a couple of problems with this view, but it's not terrible as a heuristic).

You're a ****ing idiot, Straybow.



The "length of the study" has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Lead time bias is hugely important to this statistic. And saying that "the death rate for prostate cancer in the US is 19% while in the UK it's 57%" is simply idiotic.

Tard.

[Bounce]

Finally hunted down what that statistic is.

Which statistic are you talking about? I was explaining "Lead time bias" and how it should not effect mortality rates, unless the study is conducted over a period of time that is short compared to the lead time between the methods of detection.
Finally hunted down what that statistic is. It's the mortality rate divided by the incidence rate. As in #deaths/100k divided by #cases/100k? And this is different from a death rate for the disease how? Differential detection time changes the number of cases, or the number of deaths, exactly how?

Oh yes, and Cite? Sorry, I haven't found the source of the 19% versus 57% either. I heard it on the radio. If you have found the source, please share. But if you've just come to call names...
Tard. I know you are, but what am I?

[immewaycypef]

With this continual stalking, I don't think that I'm the one looking for validation. Your posts are so replete with basic errors (logical and factual), I didn't feel like addressing them is worth my time. I suppose I can respond if it means so much to you.

The argument isn't about whether the CBO numbers are right. Perhaps, in a complete economic, legislative, and regulatory vacuum they could be correct. I'm unconvinced.


What the hell does that mean? "I don't trust the CBO's numbers, and instead am going with a lunatic bald assertion." As far as I know, no one but the CBO has tried to analyze the enrollment in the House's public option in a quantitative way (the Lewin Group and a few other institutions have looked at possible public options, but referred to options far broader than the House bill).


The bill as written invokes taxation on companies that provide insurance through market sources to support the public option,

No, it doesn't. No bill "as written" taxes employer funded health insurance except for Wyden-Bennett, which is not on the table. The Senate Finance Committee is likely to put out a bill removing the employer tax exemption for expensive plans, but the revenues go towards ANY plan on the exchange, private or public.

bars private insurance from renewing or signing new customers under widely applicable conditions, etc.


Again. What the hell is that supposed to mean? The bills specifically PROHIBIT insurance companies from denying high risk individuals coverage. The goal is to make private insurers' risk pools as broad as possible. In fact, the public option wouldn't work otherwise.

Changing jobs, which happens to almost 4% of the working adults in an average year, will force many more into the public option because of those parts of the law.

Really? How many?


This bill, however, does not exist in a vacuum

We are not talking about your delusional fantasies of future Obama proposals, but this one (the House Ways and Means bill, the House Energy and Commerce bill, the Senate HELP bill, and the yet to be released Senate Finance bill). That's the subject of the debate. There is actual proposed legislation that any member of the public can analyze.

Obama is on record saying that single payer is his goal.

Again, there are single payer systems like the NHS where private supplemental insurance exists. Canada is unique in its application. If we magically get the British system with a tax payer funded universal public insurer, Wolflady can get private insurance for her kid. Or pay out of pocket.

As in #deaths/100k divided by #cases/100k?

If a case is not diagnosed over a long time period, don't you think that affects the statistics somewhat? Hint: use google.

The various drafts of the bill have included Procrustean means of virtually eliminating private insurance.



OK, I over-spoke his importance.

Nice euphemism. You mean, you lied or were grossly misinformed?

He advocates single-payer and portends a Malthusian "solution" to the economics of rationing and artificial scarcity of supply induced by single-payer.

Malthusian solution? WHERE did he talk about killing down's kids and the elderly?

Edit: Here's an interesting article that Zeke Emanuel wrote arguing against legalized euthanasia.

Then he can use his great intellect to make sure the weakest members of society, like the Downs kids and the elderly, don't get left out. Instead he thinks he and other like himself are smart enough to control from afar how we spend our healthcare money.

What? The elderly are already almost universally enrolled in public insurance. It's called Medicare. A huge portion of down's kids, I'd wager, are on the public tab too (SCHIP, Medicaid).

[Jwskwhdo]

The world's dumbest failed governor is at it again. Palin's latest claim is that the VA is printing "death books" and plans to murder elderly vets in order to save money!

The so called "death book" is in fact a booklet the VA hands out to patients advising them of their legal rights and advising elderly patients to make sure they inform their family members of what their wishes are WRT living wills, do not resuscitate orders, and/or things like feeding tubes. The whole point is that patients should make their wishes clear before a crisis so that their wishes can be respected. Palin however claims it is a secret plot by Obama to murder old people. What a nut.

[Lauramalina]

NYE:

Sweetheart, I have no idea what you think you're responding to.

In the US employers largely "pay" for the health care of working individuals. In actuality, employees fully bear the costs of health care through lower wages. Businesses make hiring decisions based on the total cost of hiring. With or without employer based coverage the business has the same demand curve for total hiring cost.

Tell us something we don't know.

...

Now if a business is paying for health insurance for it's employees and the government starts paying for them instead. That's a subsidy. Got it?

[pMJWFoAWD]

No, I think KH is correct.

To my understanding, the issue is that without government healthcare, if I apply for a job that pays $30 an hour and has health benefits, then I am thinking "Okay, I get $30 an hour, and I get healthcare." With government healthcare, if I apply for a job that pays $30 an hour, I'm thinking "Okay, I get a job that pays $30 an hour." The healthcare isn't considered, because even if I was unemployed, I'd still have healthcare. Therefore, the marginal wage where I would be willing to work is going to be higher (possibly quite a bit higher, as the income tax I am paying may be higher to pay for the government healthcare).

Now, OTOH, if this wasn't universal healthcare, but, say, a government sponsored healthcare plan that only applied to farm labourers that work on tomato farms, then it would be a subsidy.

But the point is, and I believe that KH agree's with this, is that if the government pays for the health care then business will hire more people. It's about employers' demand for labor. They will demand more labor with the subsidy.

[Enalsebeerkawl]

If a definition of a subsidy is simply that businesses will hire more employees, government healthcare may qualify, though I'm not even sure. I'm not convinced government healthcare would in and of itself allow businesses to hire my employees.

More to the point though, I don't think that "allowing a business to hire more employees" is an accurate description of what a subsidy is. The well maintained and efficient highway system we have in the USA and Canada, combined with the well funded police and legal system certainly helps trade and allows businesses to hire more employees, yet I don't think that is a subsidy.

[Maryjasmine]

The quality of healthplan would definitely be factored into decisions in the US, where people compare with friends, family, and neighbours.

Likewise, in Canada, some employees pay a lot of attention to the extras that are provided by some employers. Although not all employees do pay attention (many ignore pay stubs and just look at the amount on the cheque) those who are older or with families often base employment decisions on the quality of these plans.