Important Health Care Announcement

That doesn't save your point. If you have evidence that Obamacare providers are to be lawsuit-proof, now would be a good time.

That doesn't save your point. You can't have America so low on the life expectancies axis, then claim that the alternative under universal health care in case of terminal illness is just 'dying off'.

Liberals love to mangle the language and that is a good example Medicare does not 'negotiate' ANY thing. They set prices and that's what the provider gets, like it or not... PERIOD. Liberals then try to call that 'negotiation' and if one were to allow they had any brains at all you'd be forced to call it a lie. Liberals used this same kind of blatant falsehood trying to sell the 'public option' as 'competition' when any idiot knows private companies can't tax the 'competition' nor can they tax everyone else, nor can they legislate what the 'competition' shall provide, nor mandate terms of service, nor can they infinitely borrow like government can, and does, and the so called 'public option' called for.

But liberals don't give a tinker's dam and if they think it will help get their way, and we make the dubious assumption they're not idiots, will gladly lie through their teeth, as they did in both the above cases.

And while they're lying why not fabricate stories of doctors lopping off body parts and ripping the tonsils out of unsuspecting children? And the 'negotiations' will all be televised on C-SPAN. "That's what I will do in bringing all parties together." Oh, wait, no they won't and neither will the unconstitutional bribes. According to Reid, if you didn't get a payoff you're a lousy Senator.

Thank goodness the process is so 'transparent'. Anyone got any idea who's writing the thing? Never mind reading it. Conyers explained that's useless.

Says the serial liar.

My point, as it was written, stands on it's own.

It's your falsehood that mandating what the 'private sector' does isn't government control that needs 'saving'.

The topic was the graph and 'Obamacare', whatever the hell that is (since it isn't written), isn't on it.

The 'point' doesn't need 'saving' but it does illustrate how you misrepreent things in claiming "The graphic is of life expectancies."

Yes you can, and that is precisely the 'plan' espoused by Obama's appointees.

So, it is your actual claim that government cannot be sued? lol

Not now, anyway, they prohibited it by law. lol

Next you will be telling us the VA does not 'negotiate'.

Oh, wait, you already did that. HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW

Wrong, and your lying ass snippage is just that.

Really?

Sure looks like you made the claim. lol

What was that about a 'lying ass'...?

Yes

Your lying ass snipping, cutting, and pasting out of context.

=A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

ny

There are multiple problems, all of which are fixed by simply restoring feedback--making sure the people (the patients) using the services are aware of how much they cost. Ideally, users would pay at least a portion.

Do that, and the system will optimize itself. Which drives down the cost of medicine, which makes it easier for everyone to afford everything.

One thing keeping down the cost of insurance is that, like anything else, if it costs too much many people won't buy it. Well, before Reid / Pelosi / Obamacare made them, that is.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

--

but

This addresses what she's repeating:

Prevention is more expensive. A scandinavian study established that, I think Swedish. Smokers actually cost less--they die early.

Ditto mammograms for younger women. Those save a few lives, but not many, and screening everyone to detect those costs more, naturally.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

it?

st --

, but

..

Perhaps. But this isn't what I was talking about. Going to see your doctor when you feel off-colour, rather than waiting until you've got blood coming out of some orifice or other, is the kind of difference that does save money in the long run.

Not to mention the PSA - prostate serum antigen - test for potential prostate cancer which happens to be essentially worthless, except as a revenue generator for doctors.

The are doctors who run the numbers for the cost-benefit for this kind of prevention (ever heard of quality-adjusted-years of life?) The American medical establishment does seem to be more interested in finding more dubious screening tests that they can charge for, than in working out what the test results are worth to the patient.

The way malpractice insurance works, American doctors are formally obliged to run lots of cover-your-ass tests of very dubious value, just to make life easier for the insuring company's defence lawyers if some patient is moved to sue.

-- Bil Sloman, Nijmegen

=A0 =A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

has

ks.

rge

any

nce

he

ews

Twaddle. The European systems that cost half to two thirds of what your system costs don't include any such provision. And many medical procedures aren't optional - I need a new aortic valve, and if I don't get it I'll be dead in a couple if years. How much the operation is going to cost doesn't really affect my decision - either I can afford it, and it happens or I can't and I die.

Less than ideal if you need the operation and can't afford that portion of the cost.

Dream on.

Funny how well the system works in France and Germany. But the system that Bismark invented is "socialist" (which would have surprised him) so it can't possibly be relevant.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

We've not established that. The claim is these countries spend 2/3rds as much of their GDP on health care; that doesn't automatically mean they're getting lower prices. They could simply be buying less care.

No, not if the OECD is using PPP (parity purchasing power) adjusted figures as Milton claimed. I don't know if the OECD's doing that, but it would make a very substantial difference. +45% in his example.

No, that's inadequate for the reason I gave earlier--Americans may simply be using more services. We're infamous for having lots of fancy equipment, and making it widely available.

A better measure would be direct comparison: how much it costs for a given procedure in each place, and how much is spent on a patient with a given problem in each place.

That's not easily done--it's hard to compare different cohorts--but that's what's needed.

ho

Yep.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

They almost certainly are, since they don't have to practice defensive medicine and administer every possible test to keep potential defense lawyers happy in hypothetical malpractice suits, but most commentators attribute the difference to America's ridiculously elaborate and extravagant health care administration costs

't

The OECD's figures line up with the usual percentage of GDP figures; you are just trying to confuse the issue.

ds

You didn't give any reason earlier - you just expressed rather unspecific doubt, which is to say you don't like the facts and want to ignore them.

As you are, because of your malpractice culture, amongst other things, but most commentators say you spend most of the excess on rococo=A0administration.

It has been done, and the US system doesn't deliver value for money

=A0Who

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

"Out of context" = pathetic lie. lol

Your mangling of posts and taking things out of context does indeed equate to "pathetic lie."

Poor floppy, once again, believes he is the only one here with a command of the english language. lol

That 'study' in no way compares matched cohorts. Quite the opposite-- it repeats, relies on, and amplifies a number of errors, including comparing unmatched cohorts. By that illogic a nation of fat people having higher heart disease rates would be their medical care's fault.

"...considers three health outcomes=97measures used to assess the health of a population=97including life expectancy at birth, infant mortality, and the incidence of cancer, to determine the extent to which Americans citizens derive health benefits from record-high outlays for medical care."

If that's the quality of your evidence, you're hopeless--we've already debunked the first two. They're wrong, yet you rely on them once again. So we come full circle. Further discussion seems pointless.

Have a nice day.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Whether or not I have a superior command of the English language is not the point nor relevant. What I say is what I say and you mangling it into something equates to a "pathetic lie."