Sarah Palin: bat****, or howling-at-the-moon bat****?

[Ramo]

[q=Ramo;5663110] Dear lord, the 'tartitude here is epic. ...Jesus, I don't have the patience for this. At least Ben has a redeeming quality in being amiable. Have fun with your little paranoid fantasy.[/q] Yeah, that's being really amiable. So I guess you don't actually have a material response, and concede to my points? I'll repeat them here, since they're in the closed thread.

1. There is NO single payer in any of the pieces of legislation that might be passed.

Numerous Representatives, Senators and Mr. Pres himself have all stated that single payer is their goal, and whatever they pass will be an incremental application of that goal. The various drafts of the bill have included Procrustean means of virtually eliminating private insurance. Please take your head out of your nether orifice and smell the coffee.

2. The person in charge of the federal administration of health care is a gal. Her name is Kathleen Sebelius. The person in charge of getting health care through Congress is also a gal. Her name is Nancy-Ann DeParle. Zeke Emanuel is one of many advisers at the White House.

OK, I over-spoke his importance. Zeke is only an advisor to the Pres who says single payer is his goal. He advocates single-payer and portends a Malthusian "solution" to the economics of rationing and artificial scarcity of supply induced by single-payer.

3. Nowhere did Emanuel say anything about cutting services to downs syndrome kids. Money isn't infinite. Responsible people like Emanuel are interested in coming up with a fair and equitable way to distribute resources.

How 'bout leaving the market to find a way to meet the needs rather than trying to control the resources by command? Then he can use his great intellect to make sure the weakest members of society, like the Downs kids and the elderly, don't get left out. Instead he thinks he and other like himself are smart enough to control from afar how we spend our healthcare money. Such hubris is never rewarded.

It's nice that you failed to address (or even quote) a large part of my post. But Rep. Frank has expressed my thoughts pretty succinctly.

[Straybow]

Finally hunted down what that statistic is.

Which statistic are you talking about? I was explaining "Lead time bias" and how it should not effect mortality rates, unless the study is conducted over a period of time that is short compared to the lead time between the methods of detection.

Finally hunted down what that statistic is. It's the mortality rate divided by the incidence rate.

As in #deaths/100k divided by #cases/100k? And this is different from a death rate for the disease how? Differential detection time changes the number of cases, or the number of deaths, exactly how?

Oh yes, and Cite? Sorry, I haven't found the source of the 19% versus 57% either. I heard it on the radio. If you have found the source, please share. But if you've just come to call names...

****.

I know you are, but what am I?

[Straybow]

It's nice that you failed to address (or even quote) a large part of my post. But Rep. Frank has expressed my thoughts pretty succinctly.

Ah, yes. Avoid answering by ad hominem. Classic!

OK, I'll quote the part I skipped since you seem to need the validation, and address your points and arrive at the same conclusion, but step by step so you can connect the dots with your ideological crayon.
[q=Ramo;5662600]1. There is NO single payer in any of the pieces of legislation that might be passed. The public option envisioned by the House is expected by the CBO to have ~10 million people by the end of the decade. That is far less than the number of people currently enrolled in Medicare. Even if the public option became the dominant payer in the market, Caribou Barbie would still be able to purchase private insurance to cover her kid (see, i.e. the UK). Or she could pay for the treatment out of pocket.[/q]The argument isn't about whether the CBO numbers are right. Perhaps, in a complete economic, legislative, and regulatory vacuum they could be correct. I'm unconvinced.

The bill as written invokes taxation on companies that provide insurance through market sources to support the public option, bars private insurance from renewing or signing new customers under widely applicable conditions, etc. Changing jobs, which happens to almost 4% of the working adults in an average year, will force many more into the public option because of those parts of the law.

This bill, however, does not exist in a vacuum. Obama is on record saying that single payer is his goal. Madame DaFarge, er, Speaker Pelosi, is on record saying that single payer is her goal. Barney Frank is on record saying that he fully intends move health insurance to single payer, and that the public option in this bill is only the first step. I don't have a list of all the legislators who've publicly stated that is their goal. Then there are the labor unions who say they want single payer, and all the liberal know-it-alls like Rahm and Zeke.

In other words, either it is very naive of you to believe the line that this bill isn't single payer and therefore isn't conceived and engineered in almost every detail to lead to single payer, or you are in fact a believer in single payer and don't want anyone to know that is the goal.

"Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain!"

[Ramo]

With this continual stalking, I don't think that I'm the one looking for validation. Your posts are so replete with basic errors (logical and factual), I didn't feel like addressing them is worth my time. I suppose I can respond if it means so much to you.

The argument isn't about whether the CBO numbers are right. Perhaps, in a complete economic, legislative, and regulatory vacuum they could be correct. I'm unconvinced.

What the hell does that mean? "I don't trust the CBO's numbers, and instead am going with a lunatic bald assertion." As far as I know, no one but the CBO has tried to analyze the enrollment in the House's public option in a quantitative way (the Lewin Group and a few other institutions have looked at possible public options, but referred to options far broader than the House bill).

The bill as written invokes taxation on companies that provide insurance through market sources to support the public option,

No, it doesn't. No bill "as written" taxes employer funded health insurance except for Wyden-Bennett, which is not on the table. The Senate Finance Committee is likely to put out a bill removing the employer tax exemption for expensive plans, but the revenues go towards ANY plan on the exchange, private or public.

bars private insurance from renewing or signing new customers under widely applicable conditions, etc.

Again. What the hell is that supposed to mean? The bills specifically PROHIBIT insurance companies from denying high risk individuals coverage. The goal is to make private insurers' risk pools as broad as possible. In fact, the public option wouldn't work otherwise.

Changing jobs, which happens to almost 4% of the working adults in an average year, will force many more into the public option because of those parts of the law.

Really? How many?

This bill, however, does not exist in a vacuum

We are not talking about your delusional fantasies of future Obama proposals, but this one (the House Ways and Means bill, the House Energy and Commerce bill, the Senate HELP bill, and the yet to be released Senate Finance bill). That's the subject of the debate. There is actual proposed legislation that any member of the public can analyze.

Obama is on record saying that single payer is his goal.

Again, there are single payer systems like the NHS where private supplemental insurance exists. Canada is unique in its application. If we magically get the British system with a tax payer funded universal public insurer, Wolflady can get private insurance for her kid. Or pay out of pocket.

As in #deaths/100k divided by #cases/100k?

If a case is not diagnosed over a long time period, don't you think that affects the statistics somewhat? Hint: use google.

The various drafts of the bill have included Procrustean means of virtually eliminating private insurance.

OK, I over-spoke his importance.

Nice euphemism. You mean, you lied or were grossly misinformed?

He advocates single-payer and portends a Malthusian "solution" to the economics of rationing and artificial scarcity of supply induced by single-payer.

Malthusian solution? WHERE did he talk about killing down's kids and the elderly?

Edit: Here's an interesting article that Zeke Emanuel wrote arguing against legalized euthanasia.

Then he can use his great intellect to make sure the weakest members of society, like the Downs kids and the elderly, don't get left out. Instead he thinks he and other like himself are smart enough to control from afar how we spend our healthcare money.

What? The elderly are already almost universally enrolled in public insurance. It's called Medicare. A huge portion of down's kids, I'd wager, are on the public tab too (SCHIP, Medicaid).

[ShaneWalter]

I don't have much to add, except to say I think the argument that people back with anecdotal evidence about poor access to diagnostics under socialist healthcare is ridiculous.

Sure, there may have been an elderly lady that was misdiagnosed in the UK and was diagnosed correctly in the USA (though personally I think the story was entirely made up). If the story was true, it isn't a case of the system not allowing her access to diagnostics, but rather her doctor not allowing the access, and this is a major difference. The same thing could occur in socialized or privatized health care. If you have private insurance, would they even pay for diagnostics that a doctor says are unnecessary? If you are in a private system, and you have no insurance would you be willing to pay out of pocket for diagnostics which a doctor says are not necessary?

I have never, ever, heard of a doctor wishing he could get diagnostic tests for a patient but being unable to because the system wouldn't allow it. I have heard, occasionally, of a doctor misdiagnosing something, and therefore not getting the correct diagnostics done, but that is a completely separate issue that could occur in socialist or privatized healthcare.

[Dinner]

The world's dumbest failed governor is at it again. Palin's latest claim is that the VA is printing "death books" and plans to murder elderly vets in order to save money!

The so called "death book" is in fact a booklet the VA hands out to patients advising them of their legal rights and advising elderly patients to make sure they inform their family members of what their wishes are WRT living wills, do not resuscitate orders, and/or things like feeding tubes. The whole point is that patients should make their wishes clear before a crisis so that their wishes can be respected. Palin however claims it is a secret plot by Obama to murder old people. What a nut.

[Kidlicious]

Again, if that's what you want, you can buy an insurance plan that doesn't cover those kinds of tests. Just don't complain when you don't get what you aren't paying for.

If I were to use that kind of reasoning then maybe I wouldn't by insurance at all, but then that's not the same thing, is it. And you haven't responded at all to the assertion that the rising cost of health care is ruining the economy, except to post a link to an article, with no extract, claiming that malpractice insurance is the most significant factor in the extreme cost of health care in the US.

[Kidlicious]

NYE:

Sweetheart, I have no idea what you think you're responding to.

In the US employers largely "pay" for the health care of working individuals. In actuality, employees fully bear the costs of health care through lower wages. Businesses make hiring decisions based on the total cost of hiring. With or without employer based coverage the business has the same demand curve for total hiring cost.

Tell us something we don't know.

...

Now if a business is paying for health insurance for it's employees and the government starts paying for them instead. That's a subsidy. Got it?

[ShaneWalter]

Tell us something we don't know.

...

Now if a business is paying for health insurance for it's employees and the government starts paying for them instead. That's a subsidy. Got it?

No, I think KH is correct.

To my understanding, the issue is that without government healthcare, if I apply for a job that pays $30 an hour and has health benefits, then I am thinking "Okay, I get $30 an hour, and I get healthcare." With government healthcare, if I apply for a job that pays $30 an hour, I'm thinking "Okay, I get a job that pays $30 an hour." The healthcare isn't considered, because even if I was unemployed, I'd still have healthcare. Therefore, the marginal wage where I would be willing to work is going to be higher (possibly quite a bit higher, as the income tax I am paying may be higher to pay for the government healthcare).

Now, OTOH, if this wasn't universal healthcare, but, say, a government sponsored healthcare plan that only applied to farm labourers that work on tomato farms, then it would be a subsidy.

[Kidlicious]

No, I think KH is correct.

To my understanding, the issue is that without government healthcare, if I apply for a job that pays $30 an hour and has health benefits, then I am thinking "Okay, I get $30 an hour, and I get healthcare." With government healthcare, if I apply for a job that pays $30 an hour, I'm thinking "Okay, I get a job that pays $30 an hour." The healthcare isn't considered, because even if I was unemployed, I'd still have healthcare. Therefore, the marginal wage where I would be willing to work is going to be higher (possibly quite a bit higher, as the income tax I am paying may be higher to pay for the government healthcare).

Now, OTOH, if this wasn't universal healthcare, but, say, a government sponsored healthcare plan that only applied to farm labourers that work on tomato farms, then it would be a subsidy.

But the point is, and I believe that KH agree's with this, is that if the government pays for the health care then business will hire more people. It's about employers' demand for labor. They will demand more labor with the subsidy.

[Guynemer]

The world's dumbest failed governor is at it again. Palin's latest claim is that the VA is printing "death books" and plans to murder elderly vets in order to save money!

I... don't know whether to believe this or not. I mean, she is that stupid, but...

link?

[ShaneWalter]

But the point is, and I believe that KH agree's with this, is that if the government pays for the health care then business will hire more people. It's about employers' demand for labor. They will demand more labor with the subsidy.

I don't see that as being intuitive.

I think there's a few issues here though. First of all, where healthcare is private, and my employer provides healthcare insurance to me, do I assign a value to the insurance that is equal to or greater than what the insurance cost my employer? Secondly, in a world where government pays for healthcare, will this cause my taxes to increase by an amount equal to or greater than what the cost of insurance would have been in a private system?

For example, imagine a scenario where healthcare is private. I get $30 an hour take home pay at my job, and my healthcare that is provided to me is worth $5 an hour to me (further, lets assume it also costs the company $5 an hour to provide it to me). To make the analogy easier, we'll assume there are no other benefits provided.

Compare this with a situation where healthcare is government funded, and taxes are higher. Everything else is equal, and I work at the exact same job. Because my employer does not pay for healthcare, he can afford to pay me $5 an hour more. However, due to the increase in taxes, I still only take home $30 an hour.

Both situations, my take home pay is the same. Both situations I have healthcare. Yet, the first situation is more attractive, because the total compensation is higher. If the first situation was the lowest marginal wage I was willing to work at, then the second situation would be a wage that I would not be willing to work at.

If you still don't understand, I'll try a different explanation.

Imagine a country where the government guarantees everybody decent living standards (food, housing, clothing etc). Let's say to do this, they give every adult a cheque for $2,000 a month. But to fund this, they have a regressive tax system, whereby the first $2,000 of income you earn every month is taxed at a 100% rate. How would this impact the supply of labour for jobs where the salary is less than $2,000 a month?

[ShaneWalter]

If a definition of a subsidy is simply that businesses will hire more employees, government healthcare may qualify, though I'm not even sure. I'm not convinced government healthcare would in and of itself allow businesses to hire my employees.

More to the point though, I don't think that "allowing a business to hire more employees" is an accurate description of what a subsidy is. The well maintained and efficient highway system we have in the USA and Canada, combined with the well funded police and legal system certainly helps trade and allows businesses to hire more employees, yet I don't think that is a subsidy.

[notyoueither]

No, I think KH is correct.

To my understanding, the issue is that without government healthcare, if I apply for a job that pays $30 an hour and has health benefits, then I am thinking "Okay, I get $30 an hour, and I get healthcare." With government healthcare, if I apply for a job that pays $30 an hour, I'm thinking "Okay, I get a job that pays $30 an hour." The healthcare isn't considered, because even if I was unemployed, I'd still have healthcare. Therefore, the marginal wage where I would be willing to work is going to be higher (possibly quite a bit higher, as the income tax I am paying may be higher to pay for the government healthcare).

I'm still not buying it.

What you would work for is irrelevant. As was observed by KH (that I agree with) businesses hire based on costs (cost of the employee, not just the wage). If you do not want the job because you do not appreciate the wage, someone else will most likely take it (assuming it is a reasonable rate).

In an economy where everyone is employing and employed under the same conditions (public health) employees are not going to factor that healthcare into decisions at all, and employers are going to fill jobs with people who are willing to work at the wages they budget.

[notyoueither]

The quality of healthplan would definitely be factored into decisions in the US, where people compare with friends, family, and neighbours.

Likewise, in Canada, some employees pay a lot of attention to the extras that are provided by some employers. Although not all employees do pay attention (many ignore pay stubs and just look at the amount on the cheque) those who are older or with families often base employment decisions on the quality of these plans.