Obamacare 5 years later. Crow, anyone?

[Emily's Cat]

You made a sweeping claim yourself a couple of pages ago, which I explained to you was completely wrong, and you refused to believe it (or even try to understand it) until Emily's Cat, showing amazing patience and perseverance, explained it to you in excruciating detail.

Somehow, I don't think you actually read the conversation between me and Emily's Cat.

I'm not taking sides here, you two can bicker all you want. But since I've been brought up, I would like to say that I didn't find Nihilianth's statements to be indicative of some dogmatically held belief. I interpreted them as statements made based on incomplete understanding of a very complicated topic.

I don't feel I showed any extraordinary patience. Rather, I can't refrain from being pedantic if given the change . I enjoy my work, and I enjoy sharing my knowledge with other people who also enjoy learning.

This isn't a case where I would personally expect a retraction or apology. The simple "thanks for explaining, that makes sense" that Nihilianth provided was more than sufficient for me, personally.

Of course, I've found that I view these threads as far more of a casual discussion between skeptics than as a formal debate. Your expectations may vary

 

[Nihilianth]

I found this Rand study, which I think is very interesting, and, if you trust their model (which is a big "if" of course), dispositive. It basically looks at what the effect of US government controls on drug prices would be, taking into account the long-term effect on R&D from reduced pharmaceutical industry profits. I cannot vouch for the model, but presumably they put some thought into it. Here is a summary of the results (my emphasis added):



Note that the same reasoning should apply to any medical technology, not just drugs. The market in the US leads to Americans being early adopters of new medical technology when the prices are highest, as well as paying the highest prices in general while the technology is still under patent. This provides added incentive to companies to develop new products.

Let me point out a key sentence in your diatribe:

"For instance, the researchers' best estimates suggest that life expectancy would fall by somewhere in the range of 0.2 years for Americans age 55–59 in 2010 and by approximately 0.1 years for Europeans in the same cohort and year."

I agree with Emily's Cat from our earlier conversation:

We spend far too much money on end-of-life care. Is it REALLY worth it to spend thousands of dollars extend your life by about a month or two? I'm not all that sure that it is. You do know that the life expectancy increase is very tiny, to almost non-existent, right?

I would also be interested to see the error factor on that. I would bet top dollar that those numbers fall within the range of error. Which means those numbers are meaningless. Therefore, you have not proven your own point. Like. At all.

I'm not taking sides here, you two can bicker all you want. But since I've been brought up, I would like to say that I didn't find Nihilianth's statements to be indicative of some dogmatically held belief. I interpreted them as statements made based on incomplete understanding of a very complicated topic.

I don't feel I showed any extraordinary patience. Rather, I can't refrain from being pedantic if given the change . I enjoy my work, and I enjoy sharing my knowledge with other people who also enjoy learning.

This isn't a case where I would personally expect a retraction or apology. The simple "thanks for explaining, that makes sense" that Nihilianth provided was more than sufficient for me, personally.

Of course, I've found that I view these threads as far more of a casual discussion between skeptics than as a formal debate. Your expectations may vary

And your explanations were very helpful. as I said before, I do appreciate the time you gave me with your explanations. Thank you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I apologise for the 'this might help', that was not supposed to be for you.

No worries then. No harm done. It wasn't the "this might help" so much as the "but I doubt it"

I'm sorry if this offends you but I simply don't agree that I should allow unsupported facts to be used duuring the debate without challenge. In fact, the whole damn place is dedicated to not letting unsupported facts go without challenge. Where would we be if we all did it?

I wouldn't expect you to let unsupported facts go without challenge. Mostly, I'm asking that you evaluate and try to determine if they're intended as fact, or if they're intended as belief or opinion and the poster simply failed to indicate such. It's not at all uncommon for someone to say "such and such is the case" when what they really mean is "I think such and such is the case because reasoning".

Perhaps you enjoy arguing, as opposed to discussing and debating. That's fine, to each his own. I've just found that if I give people the opportunity to provide their reasoning before I jump on them and demand proof... the interaction is a lot less antagonistic.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is not an important measure for two simple reasons. Firstly, we calculate sales globally (see here: http://www.pmlive.com/top_pharma_list/global_revenues ).

Secondly, R&D expenditure is not dependent on profit margins as firms tend to spend around 10-15% of revenue into R&D on average. However, some of the most profitable companies spend considerably less than others on R&D, Merck is a good example of this, it ranks 4 or 5th on sales globally, but only spends 5% on R&D.

I'm not seeing your reasoning here. Just because sales are calculated globally in the report you're looking at doesn't negate that a significant portion of those sales are made in the US, and are made at a higher price per prescription.

As far as R&D expenditure goes... you are correct, but your accuracy is misplaced. I made no mention of profit - I feel it is clear that I was speaking of revenue. If a company spends 10% to 15% of revenue on R&D, and revenue is reduced... what will happen to the amount available for R&D?

 

[Emily's Cat]

My goodness this shows appalling economic ignorance. I'm rushing out right now, but I hope to get to this later. Perhaps someone else who knows something about economics can field this?

You are wrong about this, and pretty much everything you have ever posted.

I am also unable to offer anything to support my assertion right now, but hope to get back to this later. In the mean time, can someone else do my work for me?

This demonstrates appalling ignorance. I'll explain later but right now I need to organize my sock drawer.

I suspect I'm missing a joke here?

 

[Nihilianth]

I suspect I'm missing a joke here?

lol, this is not the first time that sunmaster said someone is "ignorant," but "didn't have time to explain." It's at least the second time he did that in this thread. (He's also asked others to do his work for him a couple of times.)

Johnny Karate and RF were pointing this out.

ETA: This is my 3000th post! I'm now "Illuminator!" Woot! And just a day after my 32nd birthday too!

 

[3point14]

Perhaps you enjoy arguing, as opposed to discussing and debating. That's fine, to each his own. I've just found that if I give people the opportunity to provide their reasoning before I jump on them and demand proof... the interaction is a lot less antagonistic.

I should probably be a little more patient, however, when one party absolutely refuses to acknowledge that evidence is required and then goes on to tell me to go get it myself, I get a little riled, yes. It's the dishonesty that get to me. I try (I may not succeed) to debate in good faith. I get a little upset when it's very apparent that other are not.

I have now solved the problem and am a happier individual for it.

I'm still sorry though, particularly for the 'I doubt it.', totally not aimed at you and I should have made that clear.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I should probably be a little more patient, however, when one party absolutely refuses to acknowledge that evidence is required and then goes on to tell me to go get it myself, I get a little riled, yes. It's the dishonesty that get to me. I try (I may not succeed) to debate in good faith. I get a little upset when it's very apparent that other are not.

We need a hug smiley on this board. {{{3point14}}}

I find little utility in engaging at that level. I aim for patience and the benefit of the doubt, and if it becomes clear that they're sidestepping it... I try to point out that this is what's happening... and then I just let it go. Everyone reading can see what's happening. There's no need to force compliance.

Most of the time, I don't think the other person is intentionally arguing in bad faith. It's a matter of perspective. Most of the time, I'm fairly certain that the other person sincerely believes that their point is self evident, or they sincerely believe that they are remembering a fact correctly (eg, something seen on a TV program that was accepted as a valid source, but without a peer-reviewed paper to back it up ). It takes a lot to get me to come around to a conclusion of bad faith.

I completely understand getting riled, though. I've always had a hard time letting arguments go. It's been a long, hard, painful road to get to a point where I don't feel compelled to continue arguing about everything. Very slight OCD and a pretty good brain will do that to most people!

I'm still sorry though, particularly for the 'I doubt it.', totally not aimed at you and I should have made that clear.

No need to apologize - you already clarified. I don't hold grudges, and I always appreciate sincerity. I'm completely certain that I'll be unclear with a barb at some point in the near future too! I'm sure there are already examples of this attributable to me, even if I'm blind to them

 

[RandFan]

ETA: This is my 3000th post! I'm now "Illuminator!" Woot! And just a day after my 32nd birthday too!

That's adorable grasshopper.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You've got 10 years on Nihilianth, I'm sure s/he will catch up by the time they're your age!

 

[RandFan]

You've got 10 years on Nihilianth, I'm sure s/he will catch up by the time they're your age!

As Penn Jillette said to me one day over drinks, the two rules critical for social interaction are 1.) never pass up an opportunity to indulge one's ego in a plausibly innocent way and 2.) Never drop names.

Lincoln said don't trust what you read online

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

No. YOUR health care is not cheaper than CA or UK. I absolutely guarantee you this. How can I guarantee you this? Because if you spend even $1 in premiums or co-pays out-of-pocket, your health care is ALREADY more expensive than in CA or UK!



I think you may want to read up on what happened to the VA hospitals, then thank your REPUBLICAN leadership under Bush that screwed it all up to hell and back.

Well lets think about this. In the US I save a lot of money on taxes, right now I make >200K and pay about 40%.

So the point is I am saving thousands of dollars in taxes and those savings are >$700

On the VA, it is a nationalized system and look at it. This is what Obamacare is going to look like in a few years.

You nationalize anything and make it "free" you end up with a disaster. The examples, VA, CA & UK are too numerous to count.

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

Not that I'm aware of. What makes you think this is the case?

If someone goes to the hospital and they have cancer but no insurance the government pays. I don't know the specific program, its probably medicaid.

But the point is if you have a life threatening condition, I'm not talking about berast implants, the government pays for your coverage.

Emily, can you name a single person who has died because they couldn't afford insurance, and the hospital threw them out on the street? Well what does this tell you Emily?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well lets think about this. In the US I save a lot of money on taxes, right now I make >200K and pay about 40%.

This is completely irrelevant... but I question the veracity of this claim. What position do you hold, and for how many years have you been in this field?

 

[Emily's Cat]

If someone goes to the hospital and they have cancer but no insurance the government pays. I don't know the specific program, its probably medicaid.

This isn't true. If you have ESRD, you're covered through Medicare. Some other disabilities will be covered through Medicare as well. Medicaid only applies to people with low income, it has no consideration for health status. Some states previously had high risk pools, which were in part subsidized by the state, but the individual still had to pay a pretty high premium.

Some states have a degree of county funding to support the indigent and uninsured who end up in a hospital. But that program only provides for stabilization and immediate treatment of urgent/emergent care. IF you show up with pneumonia, they'll treat you... but if you show up with cancer they won't.

There is no federal program that provides coverage and treatment for life threatening programs.

But the point is if you have a life threatening condition, I'm not talking about berast implants, the government pays for your coverage.

I'm sorry, but this is not the case. You are mistaken.

Emily, can you name a single person who has died because they couldn't afford insurance, and the hospital threw them out on the street? Well what does this tell you Emily?

It tells me that I lack a personal anecdote, and that you don't understand logic.

That said, my dad died because of lack of access to health care. He was very low income, at a point of time when Medicaid simply didn't cover single men. He developed diabetes and congestive heart failure. There were no public programs to provide treatment for those illnesses. I know this, because I did a massive amount of research trying to find some way to get him help when I couldn't afford to support him. He ended up getting a strain of viral pneumonia because of his weakened immune system, and died because of it. Sure, the hospital admitted him - they didn't "throw him out" - but there was nothing they could do to save him.

Short story here is that you're just plain wrong. Whether you're listening to the wrong political points, or are merely misinformed... I suggest you educate yourself.

 

[RandFan]

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by theAmerican Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.

Well, what does THAT tell you?

ETA: The study does not claim a direct correlation.

 

[twinstead]

Even if the government DID have a program to pay for you if you had a life-threatening condition, how inefficient is that? Maybe instead of paying for poor people to be treated in trauma units for life-threatening situations, maybe it could pay for routine medical care to prevent some of those payments.

What a concept. A nation that takes care of it's own.

 

[RandFan]

2015 federal income tax calculator

Tax status: Single
No deductions:

|Gross income | |$200,000| |Qualified plan contributions | - | $0|
|Adjusted gross income |= |$200,000|
|Standard/Itemized deductions |- | $12,600|
|Personal exemptions |- | $8,000|
|Taxable income |= |$179,400|
|Tax liability before credits | | $37,284|
|Child tax credits |- |$0|
|Estimated tax liability |= |$37,284

Interest rate: 22.5335%

ETA: That does not include use taxes, VAT, state tax, etc. So I'm guessing ELF is right on overall taxes.

 

[slyjoe]

EG making crap up? I'm shocked.

Personal anecdotes? I make a lot more than EG says he does and I couldn't buy insurance at ANY price until the ACA due to a pre-existing condition.

So I'm quite happy with the ACA.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Well lets think about this. In the US I save a lot of money on taxes, right now I make >200K and pay about 40%.

I take it that is your total Federal and State income tax, plus payroll taxes? If so, that's kind of funny, because in the UK you would be paying about 38%. That would be your total income tax including National Insurance contributions, and that would include your health coverage.