Helping the uninsured by threatening them.

[DinoDoc]

Find a non-bull**** source that claims that.

How is it a bull**** source? Are the facts presented in error in some fashion? Or is there some other flaw in the thesis they present?

[Kuciwalker]

DD: [posts a link showing that a particular comparison is invalid]

Ramo: but [cites that comparison]!

Kuci: Did you read his source? It said your comparison is invalid.

Ramo: This other unrelated comparison is unfair!

Everyone else: Ramo, are you paying attention at all?

[Ramo]

See the link. I was referring to premiums.

[KrazyHorse]

I have no idea if medicare/non-medicare is a valid comparison, but it's not as simple as saying that mediare covers old people and old people are more expensive to cover.

[Kuciwalker]

Ramo, please apply some tiny amount of critical thought for just one moment. You're smart enough that that should be sufficient.

[Kuciwalker]

I have no idea if medicare/non-medicare is a valid comparison, but it's not as simple as saying that mediare covers old people and old people are more expensive to cover.

More precisely, DD's source claims that you can't compare the growth rates of Medicare and private insurance, because a large portion of the growth of private insurance is the direct result of a corresponding decrease in out-of-pocket spending. i.e. people are funding a lot of the same treatment they were getting before through their insurance company instead of directly, and this doesn't say anything about the ability of private insurance to control costs.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm actually surprised that out-of-pocket costs have decreased...

[Kuciwalker]

Assuming their data actually say what they claim it says (I don't care enough to verify that) then their conclusion is reasonable IMO.

[Ramo]

I only skimmed DD's link, but that is a ****ed comparison. They're saying that the average cost growth in expenditures for a person in Medicare (over 65) is 33% larger than people outside of Medicare (predominantly, under 65). And that's an indictment of Medicare? Seriously?

[Kuciwalker]

I only skimmed DD's link, but that is a ****ed comparison. They're saying that the average cost growth in expenditures for a person in Medicare (over 65) is 33% larger than people outside of Medicare (predominantly, under 65). And that's an indictment of Medicare? Seriously?

No, it's a direct response to a study of the form you posted, where you claimed that private insurance costs grow faster than Medicare's. If you're going to use a metric, you can't complain when someone else debunks your numbers.

[Kuciwalker]

THINK, Ramo. THINK. It even says in the goddamn article that they are responding to a study of the form you posted (may even be the same study, I don't know).

[Kuciwalker]

Paraphrasing the study so that you can understand it: "Recent studies claim that Medicare is better at controlling costs than private insurance, citing the growth of private insurance spending per-patient vs the growth of Medicare study per-patient. We should that these comparisons are flawed by including out-of-pocket expenses in the calculation, and showing that when the decrease of out-of-pocket expenses is combined with the increase in private insurance spending, the resulting per-patient growth rate is 25% less than the per-patient growth rate of Medicare."

[KrazyHorse]

Ramo, are being deliberately retarded?

You INITIALLY CLAIMED that the exact OPPOSITE argument (which ignored a large component of private health care spending) was PERFECTLY VALID as an argument that medicare was more efficient. Then when somebody demonstrates that your initial analysis was flawed and that a more complete analysis shows the opposite conclusion you begin to argue about the more subtle points like the fact that direct cost growth comparisons in two vastly different demographics is a bad idea (which I believe is true).

That's indicative of incredible intellectual dishonesty.

[Kuciwalker]

.

[Kuciwalker]

While we wait for Ramo to respond, here is a picture of an alpaca,: