Public Option dead!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Administrative Costs as % of total costs:

USA 20%
Canada 6%
France 4%
Japan 2.5%
Taiwan 1.5%

Which one of these have government-run systems?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2101778_2.html

That's the best correlation you can do? Please hand back your economics degree?

I'll give you some hints.

First, do any of those countries have similar histories of the development of their health care systems?

Second, given that the "data" comes from the Washington Post, it seems like to be biased and skewed. Are we comparing apples to apples in terms of administrative costs. My own personal comparisons in health care shows me no two countries account for "costs" in the same manner so this alleged disparity is a meaningless comparison.

Third, if we were to assume for one moment that we're comparing apples to apples, which is silly but I'll go with you for a moment, who's to say that our government has the same management efficiency working within an entirely different economic system can achieve the same or similar results? Who's not to say that private industry in those countries wouldn't be equally or more efficient if they had the US system?

Chino, you can do better than this.

As a practical matter, Republicans need to fashion a response to address the perceived concerns, because the system lacks good guiding forces, not government.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That's the best correlation you can do? Please hand back your economics degree?

I'll give you some hints.

First, do any of those countries have similar histories of the development of their health care systems?

Second, given that the "data" comes from the Washington Post, it seems like to be biased and skewed. Are we comparing apples to apples in terms of administrative costs. My own personal comparisons in health care shows me no two countries account for "costs" in the same manner so this alleged disparity is a meaningless comparison.

Third, if we were to assume for one moment that we're comparing apples to apples, which is silly but I'll go with you for a moment, who's to say that our government has the same management efficiency working within an entirely different economic system can achieve the same or similar results? Who's not to say that private industry in those countries wouldn't be equally or more efficient if they had the US system?

Chino, you can do better than this.

As a practical matter, Republicans need to fashion a response to address the perceived concerns, because the system lacks good guiding forces, not government.

I know you always bring up history and culture, but geez, how hard can it be to standardize "administrative cost" measures?

And the mechanism is simple: inefficiencies from government bureaucrats more than compensated by no marketing and no double payments.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Administrative Costs as % of total costs:

USA 20%
Canada 6%
France 4%
Japan 2.5%
Taiwan 1.5%

Which one of these have government-run systems?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2101778_2.html

Shhh. You definitely don't want to post on how efficient Medicare actually is compared to private insurance.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh. That poll question uses weasel words like "confidently" and "exactly". What a shock that people find it hard to be "confident" and "exact" about a target which is still moving.

If in truth 65% of people don't understand the public option (which I doubt), then the Democrats can count their blessings. The more people learn about it, the more they hate it.

Maybe you prefer this one.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...ic-option.html

Irrelevant now, as it isn't in the bill after the most recent compromise (and that compromise is far better than the version of the public option which was introduced).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

I know you always bring up history and culture, but geez, how hard can it be to standardize "administrative cost" measures?

And the mechanism is simple: inefficiencies from government bureaucrats more than compensated by no marketing and no double payments.

I don't believe it.

But comparisons are impossible.

For example.

Back when it was vogue to "establish" that French suffered less coronary disease, the French manner of ignoring coronary disease upon admission or death was missed. It turns out, if new comparisons are to believed, the French suffer from just as much coronary disease but report it differently.

And any time we audit these crazy statistics one finds out there's a reason for the comparisons. And how are the personnel accounted for? Do they include the lucrative retirement benefits? Did they include the French auditors?

And culture matters in that one culture will trend toward just popping pills, France, or innovative procedures in Britain or surgical intervention in the US.

[MikeWaters]

One has to be careful for all kinds of biases. If you don't look for something, you don't find it. But it's not accurate to say that it doesn't exist.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Maybe you prefer this one.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...ic-option.html

Irrelevant now, as it isn't in the bill after the most recent compromise (and that compromise is far better than the version of the public option which was introduced).

With the exception of a few Senate insiders, I don't think anyone has a clue what's going to end up being in this bill, so polls like this show an unsurprisingly confused electorate. On one thing they show a majority: they don't like it.

I don't believe anything Harry Reid says, so I don't believe there isn't some form of a public option still in the works.

[Tex]

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics this morning:

"Based on what you know about the health care reform legislation being considered right now, do you favor or oppose the plan?"

Oppose: 57%
Favor: 34%

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...s-health-care/

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

With the exception of a few Senate insiders, I don't think anyone has a clue what's going to end up being in this bill, so polls like this show an unsurprisingly confused electorate. On one thing they show a majority: they don't like it.

I don't believe anything Harry Reid says, so I don't believe there isn't some form of a public option still in the works.

So now it is "unspurprising" that the electorate is confused, whereas a page ago you "doubted" that people didn't understand the public option?

100% of the public is confused by your posts.

Regardless, I am amused at your inability to address the merits of health care reform. You constantly punt to what the public thinks (or seems to think) based on your pick of the day poll instead.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So now it is "unspurprising" that the electorate is confused, whereas a page ago you "doubted" that people didn't understand the public option?

100% of the public is confused by your posts.

Regardless, I am amused at your inability to address the merits of health care reform. You constantly punt to what the public thinks (or seems to think) based on your pick of the day poll instead.

You criticize Tex for pointing to public confusion over the Health Care reform. Correct?

Yet, when I state, and there are others who agree with me, a public option is not something I can ever favor. You wish to repudiate that by, "well others do."

So which is it, is public opinion on the issue important or not?

Personally I'm not too impressed with the pandering to the baser aspects of public opinion to impose a public option upon the constituents, and will gladly accept public opinion which opposes it but it is not the end-all, be-all for me.