Destroying Healthcare in America

[Bujin]

Originally Posted by Woof

What data? that's an opinion. Where did I say the data was invalid?

Please look at your response to the Harvard study. (http://forums.precentral.net/1901703-post2470.html)

How about you provide any substantiation that shows that those with no insurance don't have higher mortality than those with insurance, rather than post snarky responses? Can you do that?

"The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors and baseline health. We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes and heart disease - but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications."

You accused the study of being "opinion, designed to stir up emotion". So where's your data to show that there isn't a higher risk of death?

[Bujin]

Originally Posted by groovy

You still run with this line but never address the point I was actually trying to make. I notice there's a lot of that going around.

Honestly, groovy, I wasn't responding to you at all.

I don't know what point you were trying to make, or even if you were making one. You stated in your post to me your belief that (a) most people avoid health care because of work/career, and simultaneously (b) that people who have free health care will get inappropriate treatments. I don't know if you notice the inconsistency here.

And, of course, that's your opinion, backed up by no data whatsoever - and yet you simply take potshots at Harvard's study with no backup whatsoever. As Perry Gluckman said: "unless you have data as a backup, you're just another person with an opinion".

[chicagonettech]

Originally Posted by Woof

. . . as my math teacher used to say, Show Your Work.

While I do not agree with the rest of this post, ie, managed healthcare = capitalism, the point of "as my math teacher used to say, Show your Work" is an excellent point. In not only the healthcare issue, but in every other issue that has anything to do with our finances, [read us paying more in taxes as Americans] no one ever ponies up the actual basis for their calculations and how they were arrived at.

Between trying to keep the lobbyists happy, get themselves re-elected, and line their pockets in whatever manner they can, ALL of the politicians in DC, and even in the local state, county and city governments, have become very good at playing a game of “hidden numbers.”

As my mother used to say, “a good statistician can make numbers say anything he wants them to.” She was right. As I learned in my college math classes, while there is only one true outcome to any mathematical problem, depending on how you state your problem and present your case to your audience, in this case, the American Peoples, you can perform a lot of under-handed magic to get your outcome.

It’s not just about finding a solution for healthcare, but about finding a way to make our elected officials, in total, accountable to their constituents and fiscally accountable in their actions.

Set real campaign limits – say no more than $50.00 per person, company, not-for-profit, special interest group. A HARD LIMIT of $50.00 PER CAMPAIGN – PERIOD. No more unions, churches, businesses, lobbyists, or anyone else giving multi-million dollar campaign contributions. That will take the wind out of the sale of the special interest groups of all kinds.

Let’s see the work behind the calculations and proposed bills BEFORE they are voted on in the House and Senate. Let’s have a discussion of the content before the propaganda mongers twist everything out of shape and distort the actual content of a bill.

Knowledge is power. If the American people are knowledgeable about what is actually going on in Congress – the truth, not the lies and rumors, then they will hold their elected officials accountable.

[groovy]

Originally Posted by Bujin

I don't know what point you were trying to make, or even if you were making one.

The point I was making was that a cursory review of the countries listed above us in the WHO health care raking shows that they failed in their attempt. This is not the same as saying US health care is "better" than everyone else, as you implied.

You stated in your post to me your belief that (a) most people avoid health care because of work/career, and simultaneously (b) that people who have free health care will get inappropriate treatments. I don't know if you notice the inconsistency here.

I said the biggest single reason people avoid medical care is work/career. And I don't see an inconsistency since that claim is not universally applied to all people. Under the proposed reforms, people who avoid medical care because of work will, in all likelihood, still do so.

And, of course, that's your opinion, backed up by no data whatsoever - and yet you simply take potshots at Harvard's study with no backup whatsoever. As Perry Gluckman said: "unless you have data as a backup, you're just another person with an opinion".

I was not taking pot shots at the study because I've not reviewed it. I was only claiming that I hoped the scholarship would be better than those author's previous study on medical debt. That study, as I posted weeks ago, used flawed presuppositions and resulted in inflated numbers. Of course, after I posted that, the subject was again mysteriously dropped. Hey, we're busy people, it's understandable. Just seems like it happens a lot.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by Bujin

Please look at your response to the Harvard study. (http://forums.precentral.net/1901703-post2470.html)

How about you provide any substantiation that shows that those with no insurance don't have higher mortality than those with insurance, rather than post snarky responses? Can you do that?



You accused the study of being "opinion, designed to stir up emotion". So where's your data to show that there isn't a higher risk of death?

Excuse me but the good Drs. are trying to further their agenda. The made a statement and sold it as fact. The burden of proof is on them to substantiate their claim, not me to disprove it. This isn't a person accused of murder who is innocent until proven guilty.

Let's use newspaper stories as an example. If you state something in an article as fact, you are expected to show supporting information to prove it as fact. If you don't then it's called an editorial not a news story. Are you able to see the point?

You can say a lack of insurance can contribute to death all day long and I will happily agree with you. Because I understand the premise that having insurance can increase a persons access to healthcare. That's not the only way to get it but it will encourage the insured to get care by minimizing the fear of financial ruin if the illness./injury is catastrophic.

However you cannot say that a lack of insurance caused anyone's death. If that were the case the the reverse would be true as well. Having insurance would prevent death and it does not. People with insurance die everyday.

All you have to have is the definitions of the words and a grain of common sense to see this.

con⋅trib⋅ute
  /kənˈtrɪbyut/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-trib-yoot] Show IPA verb, -ut⋅ed, -ut⋅ing.
Use contribute in a Sentence
See web results for contribute
See images of contribute
–verb (used with object)
1. to give (money, time, knowledge, assistance, etc.) to a common supply, fund, etc., as for charitable purposes.
2. to furnish (an original written work, drawing, etc.) for publication: to contribute stories to a magazine.
–verb (used without object)
3. to give (money, food, etc.) to a common supply, fund, etc.: He contributes to many charities.
4. to furnish works for publication: He contributed to many magazines.
—Idiom

Look at number five.

cause
  /kɔz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kawz] Show IPA noun, verb, caused, caus⋅ing.
Use cause in a Sentence
See web results for cause
See images of cause
–noun

2. the reason or motive for some human action: The good news was a cause for rejoicing.
3. good or sufficient reason: to complain without cause; to be dismissed for cause.
4. Law.
a. a ground of legal action; the matter over which a person goes to law.
b. a case for judicial decision.
5. any subject of discussion or debate.
6. a principle, ideal, goal, or movement to which a person or group is dedicated: the Socialist cause; the human rights cause.
7. the welfare of a person or group, seen as a subject of concern: support for the cause of the American Indian.
8. Philosophy.
a. the end or purpose for which a thing is done or produced.
b. Aristotelianism. any of the four things necessary for the movement or the coming into being of a thing, namely a material (material cause), something to act upon it (efficient cause), a form taken by the movement or development (formal cause), and a goal or purpose (final cause).
–verb (used with object)

—Idiom
10. make common cause, to unite in a joint effort; work together for the same end: They made common cause with neighboring countries and succeeded in reducing tariffs.

Look at 1 and 9.

I'll say it again, lack of insurance does not cause death, but could contribute to it. Just the same as a glass of water doesn't cause a flood but could contribute to it.

[1thing2add]

Originally Posted by Woof

Excuse me but the good Drs. are trying to further their agenda. The made a statement and sold it as fact. The burden of proof is on them to substantiate their claim, not me to disprove it.

What the good doctors' analysis demonstrates is that their conclusions can be reproduced with no less than 95% reliabilty by another researcher. No one, including you, has shown how their analytical methods are flawed to support your ultimate claim that their confidence intervals of 95% are in error. Please show them the error of their ways!

[Bujin]

Originally Posted by groovy

The point I was making was that a cursory review of the countries listed above us in the WHO health care raking shows that they failed in their attempt. This is not the same as saying US health care is "better" than everyone else, as you implied.

Why would a cursory review show that WHO failed...other than your opinion that we are "better" than those other countries? Other than national pride, what data are you using to support that our system is better than those that WHO scores as higher?

It sounds to me as if you're simply saying - "well, Cuba scored higher than us, and everyone knows we're better than Cuba, 'cause we're America." If you have some data to refute WHO's conclusions, that's great, but (as with the Harvard study), you seem to be disputing based upon your nationalistic opinion rather than any data.

The burden of proof is on them to substantiate their claim, not me to disprove it.

The study clearly states the data used to support their claim - but you seem willing to discount it simply because you disagree. So I'm not certain any amount of further substantiation will change your ideological viewpoint.

You can say a lack of insurance can contribute to death all day long and I will happily agree with you. Because I understand the premise that having insurance can increase a persons access to healthcare. That's not the only way to get it but it will encourage the insured to get care by minimizing the fear of financial ruin if the illness./injury is catastrophic.

Then maybe you can drop the semantic silliness, then. You've spent pages refuting the "causes" vs. "contributes" - the important point is that lack of insurance increases the rate of mortality. Not "can contribute", but "does contribute". The data is pretty clear on that.

[davidra]

Originally Posted by Woof

Oh I understand just fine. I got an A in statistical analysis too.

Do you have any substantiation of that? If not, I am skeptical.

[anthillmob]

Originally Posted by 1thing2add

What the good doctors' analysis demonstrates is that their conclusions can be reproduced with no less than 95% reliabilty by another researcher. No one, including you, has shown how their analytical methods are flawed to support your ultimate claim that their confidence intervals of 95% are in error. Please show them the error of their ways!

I was about to explain, again, why making statements like

"What the good doctors' analysis demonstrates is that their conclusions can be reproduced with no less than 95% reliabilty by another researcher."

is misleading, but then I looked again at the conclusions:

Conclusions. Uninsurance is associated with mortality. The strength of that association appears similar to that from a study that evaluated data from the mid-1980s, despite changes in medical therapeutics and the demography of the uninsured since that time.

and realised there is probably no point. Most of what we have been arguing about is what was in the press release (which I hope you will remember I don't rate as a source of information) rather than the meager portion of the actual article we have seen. The actual conclusions you quoted say only that there is an association between uninsurance and mortality and that his association appears to have not changed in the last 20+ years. I think most, if not all, here will agree there is some kind of association between uninsurance and death.
In fact, it is rather interesting that the published article/conclusions do not state that
"lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually." or that this is due to a failure to enact a system of universal health care. Perhaps the journal would not allow the publication of such a statement since it is not sufficiently supported by either the data or the analysis presented in the article?

[anthillmob]

Originally Posted by davidra

Do you have any substantiation of that? If not, I am skeptical.

Any particular reason you find it hard to believe Woof got an A? And you want to see woof's report card...... really?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by anthillmob

[...] Most of what we have been arguing about is what was in the press release (which I hope you will remember I don't rate as a source of information) rather than the meager portion of the actual article we have seen. [...]

This is a very important differentiation, and one I've tried to point out several times before. It's basic statistics on the 'ice cream causes shark attacks' level. Disputing what the article quoted says does not de facto dispute the data. Correlation/association does not equal contribution or cause. Without access to the original paper and the data and the methodology, none of us can really make informed opinions on the data. That's why when a Kaiser study supposedly confirmed a blurb about X, I asked for a direct link to the section of the Kaiser study since the one linked said _nothing_ about X. Of course, I don't happen to have a transcript handy, but I suppose I could take a snapshot of my Maggie P. Brannen plaque.

[1thing2add]

http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/hea...-US-adults.pdf

[Woof]

Originally Posted by 1thing2add

Christian churches are teaching that the name "Barack Obama's" origin is literally "antichrist"?

Oh please prove that.

[1thing2add]

Originally Posted by Woof

Oh please prove that.

It was a question. A question related to the youtube video Palandri posted.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by 1thing2add

http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/hea...-US-adults.pdf

Fromm the article

Conclusions
Lack of health insurance is associated with
as many as 44789 deaths per year in the
United States, more than those caused by
kidney disease (n=42868).41 The increased
risk of death attributable to uninsurance
suggests that alternative measures of access
to medical care for the uninsured, such as
community health centers, do not provide the
protection of private health insurance. Despite
widespread acknowledgment that
enacting universal coverage would be life
saving, doing so remains politically thorny.
Now that health reform is again on the
political agenda, health professionals have
the opportunity to advocate universal coverage.

Now lets look at these two words.

Associate
* Main Entry: 1as·so·ci·ate
* Pronunciation: \ə-ˈsō-shē-ˌāt, -sē-\
* Function: verb
* Inflected Form(s): as·so·ci·at·ed; as·so·ci·at·ing
* Etymology: Middle English associat associated, from Latin associatus, past participle of associare to unite, from ad- + sociare to join, from socius companion — more at social
* Date: 14th century

transitive verb 1 : to join as a partner, friend, or companion
2 obsolete : to keep company with : attend
3 : to join or connect together : combine
4 : to bring together or into relationship in any of various intangible ways (as in memory or imagination)intransitive verb 1 : to come or be together as partners, friends, or companions
2 : to combine or join with other parts : unite
synonyms see join

Caused
* Main Entry: 2cause
* Function: transitive verb
* Inflected Form(s): caused; caus·ing
* Date: 14th century

1 : to serve as a cause or occasion of <cause an accident>
2 : to compel by command, authority, or force <caused him to resign>

— caus·er noun

Pretty clear they dont mean the same thing isn't.

Just the slow folks.... lack of heath insurance doesnt cause death.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by anthillmob

Any particular reason you find it hard to believe Woof got an A? And you want to see woof's report card...... really?

Because if I don't produce it he can still act like he is smarter. Funny thing, nothing I could post on here would prove it either way. How would anyone know whether it's mine or not?

Same reason no one really cares if he's really a doctor.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by 1thing2add

It was a question. A question related to the youtube video Palandri posted.

I watched the video. I'm not sure how the question follows from that video. There are Hal Lindsey type whackos all over. I remember Reagan being portrayed as the Anti-Christ (there were 6 letters in his first, middle, and last names) in some circles. I also recall hearing that Bill Clinton was going to set things up for the Anti-Christ in the new millennia (I suppose George Walker Bushie does fit 6-6-6 too, though). Now we have one guy saying that Barack Obama breaks down to meaning the Anti-Christ, and it's suddenly a reasonable question that Christian churches are teaching this? By those standards, it's completely reasonable to question President Obama on Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers.

[1thing2add]

The gentleman in the video obviously learned it somewhere. Maybe he read it on the internet?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by 1thing2add

The gentleman in the video obviously learned it somewhere. Maybe he read it on the internet?

Perhaps he did. He may have also heard it via a radical 'christian' sect such as an offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists that only represents an extremely small denomination of 'Christian churches'. It still does not mean that it is a reasonable question in the manner you phrased it. BTW, what's the article that goes with that picture?

[groovy]

Originally Posted by Toby

Perhaps he did. He may have also heard it via a radical 'christian' sect such as an offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists that only represents an extremely small denomination of 'Christian churches'. It still does not mean that it is a reasonable question in the manner you phrased it. BTW, what's the article that goes with that picture?

Apparently, the answer to the quesion on the marquee is no. While I disagree with this pastors theological point of view, at least he's making an attempt to address the issue (albeit, using the wrong forum, IMO).

http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=213827