Riddle me this Lib’s

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

More typical liberal Democrat behavior.

 

[Pookie]

So, let's talk logic.

Let's talk weak minds.

Let's talk false cause.

Recent studies have shown preventative care to have little or no effect.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs.html

There are sufficient doubts about the approach the CBO analysis takes. There are legitimate complaints regarding how the CBO factors in prevention costs and savings. Preventive care isn't as simple as figuring diagnostic costs, which is basically the CBO's methodology.

As an example ...

"You don't get the benefit in CBO of cost-savings with prevention programs,” Dodd said. They'll tell you how much an anti-smoking program may cost. They don't tell you the benefit occurs when a number of people stop smoking."


Try again.

 

[Pookie]

Dumbass

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661

It doesn't show what Rob asks for ...

From the study ...

Of course, our review reflects a selected sample of studies in the peer-reviewed literature and does not cover all possible opportunities to spend resources to improve health. In addition, there may be inconsistency among the studies in terms of the methods used. Still, our analysis is based on a large and diverse set of studies that used recommended metrics for cost effectiveness analysis, and we believe that it offers important lessons.

Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading.

Such analysis could identify not only cost-saving preventive measures but also preventive measures that deliver substantial health benefits relative to their net costs



Sir, did you even read the links you posted?

Again. Try again.

 

[firespin]

It doesn't show what Rob asks for ...

From the study ...

Of course, our review reflects a selected sample of studies in the peer-reviewed literature and does not cover all possible opportunities to spend resources to improve health. In addition, there may be inconsistency among the studies in terms of the methods used. Still, our analysis is based on a large and diverse set of studies that used recommended metrics for cost effectiveness analysis, and we believe that it offers important lessons.

Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading.

Such analysis could identify not only cost-saving preventive measures but also preventive measures that deliver substantial health benefits relative to their net costs



Sir, did you even read the links you posted?

Again. Try again.

WHy did you edit out this sentence in your recap?

'These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

 

[Pookie]

All the ones that don't offer anybody any benefits over existing options, put in the "worse" pile, since they are worse. That's the only criteria for being in the worse pile...nobody wants them.

My point was that you'd expect precisely zero plans over there. I have no earthly idea why you are trying to insist that some "worse" plans would in fact be better for somebody, since if they were, they wouldn't be in the "worse" bucket to begin with.

There wouldn't even be many in the "about the same" bucket...if the public plans were just the same, then we haven't helped anybody very much. (If somebody WAS helped a lot, then the plans wouldn't be "about the same".)

Again, your whole premise is nonsensical. What is "worse" to one person my be "better" to someone else. There are all kinds of private plans out there now. New private plans appear all the time. Some have more restrictions than others. Some cost more than others. All of them have subscribers, or they would be out of business. Now add in a "public option" alternative, and you pull out the buckets and make up your rules for categorizing them. Your wanting to put them in neat piles of worse, same, and better is just plain asinine. It shows a real detachment on your part with how insurance exists today.

So...the goal of the public option is to help some people a lot...lower costs, fewer restrictions, yes?

Sure, those are some of the goals. Does the public option have to be the cheapest with the least restrictions to be successful in promoting coverage to those that don't have it. Or to lower costs?

 

[Pookie]

WHy did you edit out this sentence in your recap?

'These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

Because the study admits it is a real limitation to their analysis. They acknowledge the limitation of what they did. The article admits to a lot of speculation based on limited information. It clearly doesn't say what AJ claimed it did by providing it as evidence to Rob.


Again ...

Of course, our review reflects a selected sample of studies in the peer-reviewed literature and does
not cover all possible opportunities to spend resources to improve health.

 

[firespin]

Does the public option have to be the cheapest with the least restrictions to be successful in promoting coverage to those that don't have it. Or to lower costs?

If a public option was not the cheapest for a set of restrictions acceptable to at least SOME people (and granted, different people value different things), then it would have zero effect in promoting coverage for those who don't have it, or lowering costs. The uninsured aren't looking for higher-priced competition.

 

[firespin]

The article admits to a lot of speculation based on limited information.

I think that's to their credit. Were you thinking there were studies with unlimited information, or that could forecast the effects of differences in health care approaches without some degree of speculation?

The prevention topic is not provable one way or ther other. Some prevention ideas are great, like vaccinations. Others are bad uses of resources, like going to the doctor for a simple viral infection like a cold. (Even routine dental X-rays are not cost-effective in terms of reducing treatment expenses.) Which is which is subjective, unless (like these doctors did), you try to analyze the available data.

The one non-economic point you can make is that if any early diagnostic activity finds something, then that person achieved some benefit in terms of finding the problem sooner. If the care was free, that would be a great idea, but it's not free. People don't get CAT scans and blood work every month to try to get the earliest possible detection of conditions, even though it theoretically could help their health if they did. (I'm guessing this last abstract argument is not going to be very successful either, but had to give it a try.)

Even people with limited income can make decisions that improve their health...many cities have clinics that offer vaccinations at cost, for example. Smoking, obesity and alcoholism are more prevalent in lower income populations, and all these things are more expensive than not doing them, with risks that are well known to the people engaging in the behaviors. To suggest that making preventative care free would result in major impacts on health is to engage in a lot of speculation, and that's really all anybody can do at this point.

 

[Pookie]

If a public option was not the cheapest for a set of restrictions acceptable to at least SOME people (and granted, different people value different things), then it would have zero effect in promoting coverage for those who don't have it, or lowering costs. The uninsured aren't looking for higher-priced competition.

True. They're looking for the coverage that best fits their needs at a reasonable cost. There is no one size fits all. That's why there are a number of private plans already. All plans offer something of value to someone, or they would be (or will be) out of business. Until we see what a public option would definitively offer, there's no way to evaluate it's effect. The assumption is it will be cheaper to buy with more coverage than a number of private health insurance plans that exist today. It may end up not being the cheapest or have better coverage if other plans lower their costs to remain competitive. Either way, it could be a win-win for the average person with or without insurance now.

 

[RobDownSouth]

More typical liberal Democrat behavior.

Yes, pointing out extremist right wing lies, such as the one you told earlier, appears to be exclusively a liberal Democrat behavior. Notice how very few of your buddies rallied to your defense on this issue.....even they have limits when it comes to supporting your dissembling.

Liar.

 

[RobDownSouth]

WHy did you edit out this sentence in your recap?

'These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

Firespin, my question had NOTHING to do with whether or not preventive medicine was cost-effective.

I took issue solely with AJ's claim that preventive medicine did not work.

Crisco Slug Esq has yet to supply proof backing up his claim.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

The DMV has no competitors.

True. But the point isn't that there's going to be an actual government takeover. It's that people think there is, and now there's no going back. Obama lost that battle by letting the "government takeover" lie take hold for way too long before addressing it.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It doesn't show what Rob asks for ...

From the study ...

Of course, our review reflects a selected sample of studies in the peer-reviewed literature and does not cover all possible opportunities to spend resources to improve health. In addition, there may be inconsistency among the studies in terms of the methods used. Still, our analysis is based on a large and diverse set of studies that used recommended metrics for cost effectiveness analysis, and we believe that it offers important lessons.

Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading.

Such analysis could identify not only cost-saving preventive measures but also preventive measures that deliver substantial health benefits relative to their net costs



Sir, did you even read the links you posted?

Again. Try again.

Yes, I read it and it points out that neither one of us can use it as proper justification for argument. In short, you can't prove that the uninsured are driving up premiums.

 

[RightField]

Yes, I read it and it points out that neither one of us can use it as proper justification for argument. In short, you can't prove that the uninsured are driving up premiums.

It's a difference of philosophy. You look at the the millions of young people with substantial incomes (0ver $75K) who elect not to have healthcare as exercising their choice and keeping a little more of the money they earned. The dems look at those people and believe that the money earned belongs to the government and it's up to them to decide how much those young people are allowed to keep (and they have no say in those "government" decision). It all breaks down to assumptions and dems assume that we're all in this country to serve them where as Republicans look at the country and see free and thriving people who don't need an uber-nanny.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It's a difference of philosophy. You look at the the millions of young people with substantial incomes (0ver $75K) who elect not to have healthcare as exercising their choice and keeping a little more of the money they earned. The dems look at those people and believe that the money earned belongs to the government and it's up to them to decide how much those young people are allowed to keep (and they have no say in those "government" decision). It all breaks down to assumptions and dems assume that we're all in this country to serve them where as Republicans look at the country and see free and thriving people who don't need an uber-nanny.

Well said.

 

[Pookie]

Yes, I read it and it points out that neither one of us can use it as proper justification for argument. In short, you can't prove that the uninsured are driving up premiums.

I didn't try to use it for anything. Yet you did try to use it to justify your argument with Rob. In short, you either didn't read it, or you had no fuckin' clue what you were reading.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I didn't try to use it for anything. Yet you did try to use it to justify your argument with Rob. In short, you either didn't read it, or you had no fuckin' clue what you were reading.

I'll go with both for $500, Alex.

Oh-oh...a daily double!!!

 

[miles]

You all take this place way too serious.

They don't have anything else to do with their smarmy little hands.

 

[miles]

. Yet you did try to use it to justify your argument with Rob.

Your statement begs the question: why would someone want to engage a slimy bottom feeder like Rob in anything?

 

[RobDownSouth]

I didn't try to use it for anything. Yet you did try to use it to justify your argument with Rob. In short, you either didn't read it, or you had no fuckin' clue what you were reading.

Well said.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Your statement begs the question: why would someone want to engage a slimy bottom feeder like Rob in anything?

"slimy bottom feeder"?

Geez Miles, you've hurt my feelings.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Your statement begs the question: why would someone want to engage a slimy bottom feeder like Rob in anything?

Where did you get the nerve to call anyone else that?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I didn't try to use it for anything. Yet you did try to use it to justify your argument with Rob. In short, you either didn't read it, or you had no fuckin' clue what you were reading.

I was in no argument with Throb. I merely pointed out that logically, you were engaging in false cause and Throb decided to become your champion and demand proof, of which I supplied ample proof of false cause, in short, I did the math.

Why can't you discuss things more politely?

Are you a winger?

 

[RobDownSouth]

I was in no argument with Throb. I merely pointed out that logically, you were engaging in false cause and Throb decided to become your champion and demand proof, of which I supplied ample proof of false cause, in short, I did the math.

Why can't you discuss things more politely?

Are you a winger?

You did nothing of the sort.

Recent studies have shown preventative care to have little or no effect.

Day 2: Still Waiting. Prove it.

Seems like such a simple request...why can't AJ back his words up?

Show us the "recent study" that preventative care has little or no effect...hell, show us ANY study that shows this.

 

[unregistered]