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

[Oleg]

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.

Isn't comparing hypothetical health care scenarios for a GIVEN YEAR precisely comparing them in a vacuum?  What about health care up to that GIVEN YEAR?  Doesn't that matter?  Perhaps there were some sort of preventative measures that could have been taken up until that GIVEN YEAR that would have made the physical therapy and the MRIs unnecessary because you may not have gotten the herniated discs.

[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.

Isn't comparing hypothetical health care scenarios for a GIVEN YEAR precisely comparing them in a vacuum?  What about health care up to that GIVEN YEAR?  Doesn't that matter?  Perhaps there were some sort of preventative measures that could have been taken up until that GIVEN YEAR that would have made the physical therapy and the MRIs unnecessary because you may not have gotten the herniated discs.

Tell me how that changes my point that comparing per-capita spending on health care is a meaningless statistic without much, much more information.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Stock market up in the last year nearly 30% to over 10,700.

Jorbless claims down.

Leading indicators up a little, but still up.

Interest rates low.

30 million people about to get health insurance.

The deficit projected to be $1.1 trillion lower over the next 20 years.

Spring starts in 3 days.

It's morning in America, kids!

[Quality Start Machine]

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.

Not a fair sample size, since you get your prostate checked 3 times a week.

Fucking pervert.

[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.

Not a fair sample size, since you get your prostate checked 3 times a week.

Fucking pervert.

I just call that practicing ample preventive medicine.

[Quality Start Machine]

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.

Not a fair sample size, since you get your prostate checked 3 times a week.

Fucking pervert.

I just call that practicing ample preventive medicine.

How is the cigarette you have afterward any good for you?

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

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.

Not a fair sample size, since you get your prostate checked 3 times a week.

Fucking pervert.

I just call that practicing ample preventive medicine.

Your doc calls it "gauging the income elasticity of demand."

[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.

Not a fair sample size, since you get your prostate checked 3 times a week.

Fucking pervert.

I just call that practicing ample preventive medicine.

Your doc calls it "gauging the income elasticity of demand."

Unfortunately, it gets more elastic over time.

[Brownie]

Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe)...?

Why would you find it hard to believe that quality of medical care might be worse here than in Scandinavia?

BECAUSE AMERICA HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.

Because the reward for being a doctor is higher here.  INCENTIVES.

So what you're saying is that being a higher paid doctor means you're a better doctor?

Intrepid Reader: George Steinbrenner

Exactly. Why would anyone want to play for the Yankees as opposed to the Pirates or Royals? Money?

Intrepid Reader: Fidel Castro
We don't pay our doctors or ballplayers jack shit. And we have no problems of defectors in either field.

[CT III]

Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe)...?

Why would you find it hard to believe that quality of medical care might be worse here than in Scandinavia?

BECAUSE AMERICA HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.

Because the reward for being a doctor is higher here.  INCENTIVES.

So what you're saying is that being a higher paid doctor means you're a better doctor?

Intrepid Reader: George Steinbrenner

Exactly. Why would anyone want to play for the Yankees as opposed to the Pirates or Royals? Money?

Intrepid Reader: Fidel Castro
We don't pay our doctors or ballplayers jack shit. And we have no problems of defectors in either field.

Because you're TJ Brown, I'm going to assume you're joking.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe)...?

Why would you find it hard to believe that quality of medical care might be worse here than in Scandinavia?

BECAUSE AMERICA HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.

Because the reward for being a doctor is higher here.  INCENTIVES.

So what you're saying is that being a higher paid doctor means you're a better doctor?

Intrepid Reader: George Steinbrenner

Exactly. Why would anyone want to play for the Yankees as opposed to the Pirates or Royals? Money?

Intrepid Reader: Fidel Castro
We don't pay our doctors or ballplayers jack shit. And we have no problems of defectors in either field.

Because you're TJ Brown, I'm going to assume you're joking.

He's been a dad for a week now.  Lack of REM sleep needs to be considered as a possible factor.

[MikeC]

Stock market up in the last year nearly 30% to over 10,700.

Jorbless claims down.

Leading indicators up a little, but still up.

Interest rates low.

30 million people about to get health insurance.

The deficit projected to be $1.1 trillion lower over the next 20 years.

Spring starts in 3 days.

It's morning in America, kids!

I guess when your pumping out 1.2 trillion in debt in 2009 and 1.56 trillion in debt in 2010, its gonna be pretty cool that in 20 years you get back Obama's first year spending. In 2008, Bush's last year the budget deficit was at a whopping 488 Billion. But one thing Obama continued to campaign on and still talks about today is that he was going to cut spending by 50%, he just never was gonna tell you he was going to triple deficit spending and then cut it. So even if he cuts it by 50% by 2013, he is still at 750 billion dollars a year in the hole, far out stripping what people were complaining about Bush when he left office.

Obama was elected to cut spending from the Bush levels, not tack on trillions more thats why people are in the streets and pissed at this administration. But lets attack a few more myths of Health Care Reform. Part of its going to be paid for through eliminating 100 billion in fraud and waste from Medicaid. Nice dream though, won't happen. Investigating further the 100 billion claim is a bit off due to various factors. It might be closer to 20 billion but its being pimped off into the CBO projections as a method of payment for Health Care Reform. We aren't going to get a 100 billion in cash to use to pay for health care were going to see atleast a 20 billion dollar shortfall or more. So the accounting is gonna be off by a 120+ Billion right off the bat.

One other factor that Democrats don't want to talk about is how taxes will start right away but services wont start till 2013 or 2014. Its the only way to get the bill in under a trillion dollars. But thats not the true cost of the program, i know that you know that, everyone knows that. Its a budget gimmick to make people like Chuck to Chuck go ohhhh wow its awesome! You aren't going to have a 2-3 year head start in taxes every decade to pay for health care. So now your looking at anywhere between 200-500 billion in costs that are being hidden because of a head start in taxes.

Then there is the whole process of counting medicare money twice in Obamas idea of Health Care reform.

The president and his advisers always tout one major selling point of the health care reform bills -- that they'll reduce the deficit -- in part by cutting almost $500 billion from Medicare, which the president argued in a speech in Strongville, Ohio will only strengthen the program.

n fact, more than half the total financing for health care reform comes from the $500 billion or so in Medicare cuts ($467 billion), which the president insists will be dedicated to shoring up the programs solvency. "This proposal makes Medicare stronger, makes the coverage better, and makes its finances more secure, he said during a speech in Ohio. "Anyone who says otherwise is misinformed - or is trying to misinform you."
Actually, there are many who say it is the president himself who is misinformed -- and that he is misleading others because the almost 500 billion in cuts from Medicare are counted as helping its survival, even though the money is siphoned off and spent on other programs.

A lot of budget gimmicks, fuzzy math, and bold faced lies with Health Care reform. You can have blind support like Chuck to Chuck and think your going to get some money back in 20 years or look at the facts and how the bill is put together and go, "My god, this thing is going to cost an astronomical amount of money." But for the dead-enders its Health Care or bust to save whatever fleeting image they have of their dear savior Obama whose popularity has sunk to Bush 2008 levels.

[ChuckD]

But for the dead-enders its Health Care or bust to save whatever fleeting image they have of their dear savior Obama whose popularity has sunk to Bush 2008 levels.

I'm on the way out the door, but I just wanted to thank you for making me LOL.

[R-V]

Instead of reading MikeC's post, take a look at a couple charts comparing the reconciled bill to the House and Senate bills.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/18/new-cbo-score-recon/

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1737-How-Does-the-Reconciliation-HCR-Bill-Compare-on-the-Numbers-

[Oleg]

I'm just pissed that MikeC is getting better stuff than I am.  Fucker.