Fuck its silent in here.......

[Gilgamesh]

So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?

No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

Don't forget the serial breeders.

That's why I would propose legislation to outlaw TLC forever.

Fucking Duggars.  And Gosselins.

[morpheus]

So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?

No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

Don't forget the serial breeders.

That's why I would propose legislation to outlaw TLC forever.

Fucking Duggars.  And Gosselins.

I think we can rustle up bipartisan support for such a motion.

[Wheezer]

No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

You've circled back on yourself. The question I posed of quantification was more about what this "value" stuff is made of.

[R-V]

Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?

With the insurance company steering you towards the doctors it wants you to see do you really know if you're getting the best doctor for the money you paid in premiums?

With the government controlling healthcare will you even be able to choose which doctor you go to?

If this were enacted here? Yes.

I'm trying to figure out how you wouldn't get to choose. This strikes me as fearmongering.

In a single payer system there would many more options to choose from and you would get to pick. That's how it goes with Medicare.

Um... that's how it goes with Medicare?  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

Sure.

So make Medicare the only entity who pays doctors. Problem solved!

[morpheus]

No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

You've circled back on yourself. The question I posed of quantification was more about what this "value" stuff is made of.

To make it simple, suppose that I spend $1,000 on health care in a given year, and I get a thorough physical exam, a prostate check, an open MRI on my two herniated discs (which took me 1 week to get and then I'm at the doctor's office the next day to tell me what's up), and some physical therapy out of it.  Now, suppose a Swede in similar health and age to me spends $1,000 on health care, and he gets a physical, a prostate check, an MRI that takes two months to get and another month to get a followup) and a cortisone shot.  Now, we both spent the same amount of $ (or $ per capita, if you will) but the value of the services we got are different.  You could reverse me and the Swede and the argument that per-capita spending doesn't tell you a lot would still hold.

All I'm saying is that per-capita spending on health care cannot be viewed in a vacuum.  You have to know what consumers are getting for that per-capita spending.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

[morpheus]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

Until now, my answer to the first question has been that while much of what the bankers did was reprehensible, it was perfectly legal. I still think this is the case—in finance, it is often the case that the biggest scandal is what you can get away with within the law—but the Valukas report raises the possibility that I was wrong, and that the big Wall Street firms were engaged in Enron-style accounting fraud. Spitzer and Black, who are both associated with the Roosevelt Institute, have been arguing for months that accounting fraud, and other wrongdoing, was pervasive on Wall Street. "If we are to prevent another, potentially more devastating financial crisis, we must understand what happened and who knew what," they write."We must stop the three card monte accounting practices that create the potential and reality of fundamental misrepresentation."

THI.  As any accountant-type around here could tell you, GAAP leaves an awful lot of room for manipulation anyway, but this report makes it clear there's at least enough 'there' there for further investigation.

I just hope they also decide at some point to take a better look at rating agencies (who fucked up beyond belief, yet seem to escape the public's interest), Fannie and Freddie, and of course the government's own role in the financial crisis.

[Quality Start Machine]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?

[morpheus]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?

Sure.  Because everyone knows that "deregulation" = "no regulation" and of course that's exactly what free-market advocates want.  No regulation at all.  No rules against fraud or other crime.  Just anarchy.[/sarc]

[CT III]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?

Sure.  Because everyone knows that "deregulation" = "no regulation" and of course that's exactly what free-market advocates want.  No regulation at all.  No rules against fraud or other crime.  Just anarchy.[/sarc]

MORE BETTER JOBS THROUGH DEREGULATION!

[Quality Start Machine]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?

Sure.  Because everyone knows that "deregulation" = "no regulation" and of course that's exactly what free-market advocates want.  No regulation at all.  No rules against fraud or other crime.  Just anarchy.[/sarc]

Bait-taking joke aside, THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS:

in finance, it is often the case that the biggest scandal is what you can get away with within the law

[morpheus]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?

Sure.  Because everyone knows that "deregulation" = "no regulation" and of course that's exactly what free-market advocates want.  No regulation at all.  No rules against fraud or other crime.  Just anarchy.[/sarc]

MORE BETTER JOBS THROUGH DEREGULATION!

Sooner or later, all problems can be solved through GEORGE HUTCHINS.

[SKO]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?

Sure.  Because everyone knows that "deregulation" = "no regulation" and of course that's exactly what free-market advocates want.  No regulation at all.  No rules against fraud or other crime.  Just anarchy.[/sarc]

MORE BETTER JOBS THROUGH DEREGULATION!

"I have a clear simple REAL SOLID PLAN to create more better jobs - better careers, throughout our North Carolina, and Nationwide, in present times,  which will benefit countless American Generations yet unborn."

"As a manager of a successful company, ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS, in a DEREGULATED, Less Hostile, Less Expensive to the Employer, work environment, I would hire anyone who would do a good legal honest job, no matter what their RACE, COLOR, or, validated RELIGION is, in respect to their honest legal efforts, which would assist the company, to create better products, and good customer service, which produces greater legal earned profits, for the entire company, {Corporation}."

==> "Most American Corporations, American Companies, and Americans do the same actions, as I do."

==> Many of our American Jobs have been driven over-seas, due to AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, PRIVILEGES BASED ON RACE, so-called ANTI-RACIAL DISCRIMINATION LAWS, which create a Hostile environment, due to endless countless EXPENSIVE unfounded complaints - lawsuits, which cause it, to be TOO EXPENSIVE to operate in American, for major American Corporations; where, it has become MUCH more less expensive, to operate overseas, in foreign nations, outside of U.S. Federal Law, where these so-called ANTI-RACIAL DISCRIMINATION LAWS, PRIVILEGES BASED ON RACE LAWS, and/or, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION RACE QUOTA LAWS, do NOT exist.

===> "Through a U.S. Constitutional Amendment, we need to remove these ridiculous, STUPID, so-called Anti-Racial Discrimination Laws, in order to, bring our corporate jobs back to American, in order to, establish a LESS Hostile, LESS EXPENSIVE FOR THE EMPLOYER, Work Environment by Law; for, more Better Paying Careers, and Good Paying Jobs, for ALL Americans, nationwide, on U.S. Soil."

[Quality Start Machine]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?

Sure.  Because everyone knows that "deregulation" = "no regulation" and of course that's exactly what free-market advocates want.  No regulation at all.  No rules against fraud or other crime.  Just anarchy.[/sarc]

MORE BETTER JOBS THROUGH DEREGULATION!

Sooner or later, all problems can be solved through GEORGE HUTCHINS.

He's managed to secure the sought-after Hockeenight endorsement.

[morpheus]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?

Sure.  Because everyone knows that "deregulation" = "no regulation" and of course that's exactly what free-market advocates want.  No regulation at all.  No rules against fraud or other crime.  Just anarchy.[/sarc]

Bait-taking joke aside, THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS:

in finance, it is often the case that the biggest scandal is what you can get away with within the law

Damnit.