Obamacare 5 years later. Crow, anyone?

[Nihilianth]

I have posted evidence throughout this thread.

You are lying like Bill Clinton over the definition of sex or "the' or whatever he was lying about.

Google it

Oh for crissakes, this is absurd.

 

[Meadmaker]

Besides, most advances in medicine....in fact, the vast majority of advances in medicine....have been due to people who either:

A) Are scientists by nature. They are driven by CURIOSITY. Not by GREED.

B) Care about how to heal the afflicted. They are driven by wanting to CARE for people. Not by GREED.

But I'll bet that a lot of them lately have been funded by people who are motivated by greed.

 

[Nihilianth]

But I'll bet that a lot of them lately have been funded by people who are motivated by greed.

Of course they are.

 

[RandFan]

I have posted evidence throughout this thread.

I have asked you for evidence repeatedly. I've listed the many times you made unsubstantiated claims.

 

[RandFan]

Canada and the UK have horrible health care systems.

My insurance is better than the two countries and we don't have a 100% government run system.

[citations missing]

Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction. While this may seem stupid, it's actually an easy trap to fall into and is quite common.

I apologize. I missed one of your fallacies.

Your logical fallacy is anecdotal

No it's not.

It's fallacy because A.) It is anecdotal and B.) It's just an assertion. It's less than worthless. It's fallacy.

Well let them keep their health care! In fact let everyone keep whatever care they want!

Tell them that since everyone gets the right to choose they are only going to be subsidized by others that participate in the program.

Let me know how that works out

You already know that the problems of Greece have to do with tax evasion so this is just willful dishonesty. Why?


Of course, I've provided the proof over and over and over and over and over and.... well, you can't force someone to look at facts.

I'd ask you for evidence but you know it doesn't exist. Now, here is the part where I post evidence and you ignore it or hand wave it away.

Index of Economic Freedom.

Social Progress Index.

Human Development Index.

Just a few examples of you refusing to provide evidence.

 

[Nihilianth]

Seems to me this thread has run its course. EG, I would like to request to see the sources you have posted previously, if you wouldn't mind to get this sucker back on track.

 

[sunmaster14]

Of course they are.

And yet you don't even try to contemplate the implications of that obvious fact.

 

[Nihilianth]

And yet you don't even try to contemplate the implications of that obvious fact.

I know this is going to sound shocking to a modern extremist Tea Party Conservative such as yourself, but:

People are motivated far more effectively through sheer curiosity and benevolence, than they are with greed. (Immediate danger to themselves or someone else is the #1 factor for motivation.)

Even Forbes magazine, which is a conservative source, has an entire article written about greed as a motivation:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/06/money-motivation-pay-leadership-managing-employees.html

It gives the likes of Bernie Madoff as an example of how greed corrupts. Then it gives the example of the Marine Corps. as an example of emotional attachment as a prime motivational factor. Madoff is in prison, the Marines have a long, proud tradition.

---------------

Most successful entrepreneurs say that their primary motivation has been to build something lasting, not to make a lot of money. Certainly great professional leaders like Marvin Bower, who built McKinsey & Co., John Whitehead, the former Goldman Sachs senior partner, and Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens would tell us that their motivation came from the work itself, and that the lasting respect of others was far greater than money as a measure of accomplishment. And very few great artists are in it for the money. Money is a byproduct, and usually a secondary one at that, for such achievers.

The bold is an old adage. And it's true.

And finally, look at NASA. Yes, that organization obtains a LOT of funding, but the equipment those scientists must use is VERY EXPENSIVE. An order of magnitude more expensive than the equipment that drug R&D departments use. The scientists themselves at NASA are extremely passionate about their work and desire to get it right. They are not pressured by a private bankroller to get it right.

The most excellent works in the world at all fields; art, science, engineering; are the results of passion and pride. Not of greed.

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

Just a few examples of you refusing to provide evidence.

My Quote:

Canada and the UK have horrible health care systems.

My insurance is better than the two countries and we don't have a 100% government run system.

My evidence:
Rate of death in English hospitals is 45% higher than American
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/09Septe...much-higher-in-English-than-US-hospitals.aspx

Its horrible because they can't choose the individual care they want to purchase. Its horrible because they are forced to pay astronomical taxes to fund it.

Those are statements backed by evidence

 

[Bob001]

.....
Because I have only a micro-fridge and a small pantry, I usually buy my day's food each day; but lately I've decided that every time I get groceries I will pick up a dollar's worth of either ramen or rice, and I try to go to the store a little less often by eating some of my carb foods in between.

My food stamps is up for re-cert this month... I think I might be losing them anyway, which would be bad, since my paycheck is only about $20 a week after my rent is paid. ugh.

Do you use a public food pantry or something similar? Many communities have operations sponsored by churches and other charitable organizations to give away food, often out-of-date but still ok stuff gathered from restaurants and supermarkets, and often canned or packaged goods that don't need to be refrigerated. Some places are open to all, others require some kind of proof of need, but if you're already getting food stamps you would certainly qualify.
http://www.foodpantries.org/ci/oh-cincinnati
http://freestorefoodbank.org/get-help/agency-relations/

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Rate of death in English hospitals is 45% higher than American
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/09Septem...hospitals.aspx

I wonder, did you actually read that link? Or just latch on uncritically to the headline? Because if you read it then you must realize that, aside from the fact that the "study" in question was not peer reviewed and has not in any way been independently confirmed, it doesn't even actually say what you are claiming it says.

Its horrible because they can't choose the individual care they want to purchase. Its horrible because they are forced to pay astronomical taxes to fund it.

I have private insurance here in the UK which extends what is provided by the NHS, and provides me with a level of coverage that no private health insurance plan in the US offers for any price. And it has already been pointed out to you that your own stated income tax in the US is only slightly less than what you would be paying in the UK. In fact, unless the amount you are paying for health insurance, plus any out of pocket medical expenses you have, comes to less than about $6000 a year, you are actually paying more in the US than you would be in the UK.

So tell me, Elf Grinder, how can the taxes used to fund healthcare in the UK be "astronomical" when the tax rate for even people who make several times the median income are only slightly higher than in the US?

Those are statements backed by evidence

No, those are statements easily refuted by evidence.

 

[Architect]

My Quote:



My evidence:
Rate of death in English hospitals is 45% higher than American
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/09Septe...much-higher-in-English-than-US-hospitals.aspx

Its horrible because they can't choose the individual care they want to purchase. Its horrible because they are forced to pay astronomical taxes to fund it.

Those are statements backed by evidence

I don't think you read the article very well.

Note, for example, the section on life expectancy, or the comments on expenditure.

 

[Architect]

Oh, look:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...misses-unreliable-claims-over-nhs-death-rates

 

[RandFan]

Those are statements backed by evidence

Really? Did you bother to read the article?

 

[Nihilianth]

I wonder, did you actually read that link? Or just latch on uncritically to the headline? Because if you read it then you must realize that, aside from the fact that the "study" in question was not peer reviewed and has not in any way been independently confirmed, it doesn't even actually say what you are claiming it says.


I have private insurance here in the UK which extends what is provided by the NHS, and provides me with a level of coverage that no private health insurance plan in the US offers for any price. And it has already been pointed out to you that your own stated income tax in the US is only slightly less than what you would be paying in the UK. In fact, unless the amount you are paying for health insurance, plus any out of pocket medical expenses you have, comes to less than about $6000 a year, you are actually paying more in the US than you would be in the UK.

So tell me, Elf Grinder, how can the taxes used to fund healthcare in the UK be "astronomical" when the tax rate for even people who make several times the median income are only slightly higher than in the US?


No, those are statements easily refuted by evidence.

Yeah, you;re right. I just went back and triple-checked the calculator I posted earlier. I see exactly what I did the first time:

I was dividing the 116,585lbs by the 200,000; not realizing the bottom line on that column was "Take Home." I thought it was the sum total of the national health tax, and income tax; without looking at those two numbers very closely.

The sum total of the two taxes comes to 83,414.30 lbs. Divided by 200,000 = 41.7%.

It should inevitably be an even lower percentage than that, once write-offs are taken into account. I would expect the end result to be very close to what a US citizen would expect to pay after the income tax, SS, state tax, local tax, etc.

If you were to add a national health care tax for a single-payor system UK-style here in the US, a person's tax burden would end up only slightly higher than a person in the UK. There would be the additional savings of not having to pay those premiums, co-pays, and any other out-of-pocket expenses that a single-payor system would cover; but depending on circumstances, some people may not save any money at all, and would in fact, just cancel eachother out. In the end, I would expect about a 38 - 40% total tax on a healthy single individual making $200,000.

So a healthy person making $200,000 would see no significant loss of income. Not that I can gather. But someone who is not healthy and with a family, would see tremendous savings in single-payor from not having to pay higher premiums, or all those deductibles that a healthy individual wouldn't accrue in a private insurance scheme.

Very rough estimates of course, and I am by no means a tax expert. So take that with a grain of salt. You may clarify things a little more if this is your field of study.

 

[twinstead]

So I pay way more for health care than the UK so I don't die in the Hospital? I'm confused

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

So I pay way more for health care than the UK so I don't die in the Hospital? I'm confused

Well, to be fair, in the US when you are seriously ill or have just had surgery that can lead to life threatening complications, they tend to send you home from the hospital much sooner than in the UK. And because of the high out-of-pocket expenses involved, people who do suffer complications are less likely to go to the hospital. So I guess that would tend to push the odds of dying in a hospital in a place like the UK up a bit.

As a nice anecdotal example, several years ago my mother and I (coincidentally) had the same surgical procedure done to remove lymphatic tissue from the back of our throats. My mother had the procedure in the US, and I had the procedure in Germany (not the UK, but with a similar health care system).

They kept me in the hospital for ten days after the surgery. As my doctor explained to me, the procedure can sometimes lead to bleeding in the back of the throat. Since this happens below the gag reflex, there is the danger that the patient might not realize that anything is wrong before they pass out. They could then bleed to death. So they kept me in the hospital and periodically tested my blood pressure.

They sent my mother home the day after the procedure. They advised her to keep an ice pack on her throat for a few days, and that if she started to feel light headed she should call 911.

From a purely cost based risk-benefit point of view, this is perfectly reasonable policy for the insurance companies. The extra cost of the occasional person who suffers complications out of the hospital, and ends up in the emergency room, is more than offset by the cost of keeping all those people who don't suffer complications those extra days. And of course those unlucky folks who die of complications at home don't cost the insurance company a dime.

 

[twinstead]

Well, to be fair, in the US when you are seriously ill or have just had surgery that can lead to life threatening complications, they tend to send you home from the hospital much sooner than in the UK. And because of the high out-of-pocket expenses involved, people who do suffer complications are less likely to go to the hospital. So I guess that would tend to push the odds of dying in a hospital in a place like the UK up a bit.

As a nice anecdotal example, several years ago my mother and I (coincidentally) had the same surgical procedure done to remove lymphatic tissue from the back of our throats. My mother had the procedure in the US, and I had the procedure in Germany (not the UK, but with a similar health care system).

They kept me in the hospital for ten days after the surgery. As my doctor explained to me, the procedure can sometimes lead to bleeding in the back of the throat. Since this happens below the gag reflex, there is the danger that the patient might not realize that anything is wrong before they pass out. They could then bleed to death. So they kept me in the hospital and periodically tested my blood pressure.

They sent my mother home the day after the procedure. They advised her to keep an ice pack on her throat for a few days, and that if she started to feel light headed she should call 911.

From a purely cost based risk-benefit point of view, this is perfectly reasonable policy for the insurance companies. The extra cost of the occasional person who suffers complications out of the hospital, and ends up in the emergency room, is more than offset by the cost of keeping all those people who don't suffer complications those extra days. And of course those unlucky folks who die of complications at home don't cost the insurance company a dime.

So like so many things it's apples and oranges

 

[sunmaster14]

I know this is going to sound shocking to a modern extremist Tea Party Conservative such as yourself, but:

I'm loving the condescension from somebody so old and so wise as yourself.

People are motivated far more effectively through sheer curiosity and benevolence, than they are with greed. (Immediate danger to themselves or someone else is the #1 factor for motivation.)

People are motivated by all kinds of things, although greed does not only apply to money. Somebody can be greedy for recognition or love or new experiences or political power. In a capitalist society, though, money is the common denominator - and it is often the thing which puts many of the other goals within reach. In any case, investors don't care about the other stuff. They care only about profit. If they didn't, they would be called philanthropists.

<snip>

The bold is an old adage. And it's true.

The entrepreneurs are motivated by a lot more than just money, but their financial backers aren't. Nor are their suppliers and vendors, nor most of their employees. Even the most idealistic, hard-working person still needs to eat and put a roof over his head.

And finally, look at NASA. Yes, that organization obtains a LOT of funding, but the equipment those scientists must use is VERY EXPENSIVE. An order of magnitude more expensive than the equipment that drug R&D departments use. The scientists themselves at NASA are extremely passionate about their work and desire to get it right. They are not pressured by a private bankroller to get it right.

The most excellent works in the world at all fields; art, science, engineering; are the results of passion and pride. Not of greed.

I wonder if you actually prefer capitalism to communism, and if you do, are you able actually to articulate some reasons why?

 

[sunmaster14]

By the way, I was hoping to get some feedback on the evidence I posted which shows that Canadians and Europeans are actually benefiting enormously from the drug development that Americans pay for. It is certainly ironic that these ungrateful freeloaders should turn around and castigate us for having high prices for medical care when those high prices are subsidizing their low prices.

Where are those people who wanted to see this evidence: 3point14? RandFan? Nihilianth? anduin? Bueller?