Now the Government is to Save AIG

[mnskydiver688 0]

You know where a lot of that high risk debt came from that AIG was having to deal with? Foreign countries. So foreign countries should be thanking us, the american taxpayers for taking their mistakes off their hands. On the bright side this might have earned the U.S. some IOU's overseas. Or not.

Sky Canyon Wingsuiters

[jcd11235 0]

Why am I not surprised that the libertarian Cato Institute and the Jewish Policy Center favor private healthcare, available to everyone that can afford it?

From the Cato Institute:

The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.

From the Jewish Policy Center:

Domestically, the JPC also believes that Jewish Americans must break with the past. The JPC supports smaller government, lower taxes, free trade, and other issues.

In other words, both organizations have agendas inconsistent with universal healthcare, biasing their published conclusions.

Here is an enlightening paper,The U.S. Health Care System: Best in the World, or Just the Most Expensive?, from the Bureau of Labor Education at the University of Maine. (Sorry, no excerpts, file is copy protected.) Here are some highlights:

The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world, both per capita and as a percentage of GDP.

In 1994, administration expenses accounted for 34%, 24.5%, and 22.9% of total dollars spent on healthcare in for profit, non-profit private, and public hospitals, respectively.

The US and South Africa are the only two countries in the developed world that do not provide healthcare for their citizens.

In 1996, the US ranked 26th among industrialized countries for infant mortality.

Among high income OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development), the US ranks 24th for disability adjusted life expectancy.

The US ranked lowest for all OECD countries for Fairness in Financing.

The World Health Organization ranked the US 37th in the world for performance.

From Quality and Price Transparency as an Element of State Health Reform the NationalGovernors Association:

The opaque nature of the U.S. health care system’s third-party payment structure contributes to patient disengagement, dysfunctional health care markets, and a disconnect between price and quality of health care. Health care spending represents 16 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—a far greater share than in any other industrialized nation. On a per-capita basis, Americans spend $5,635 for health care—53 percent more than citizens in any other country. Yet, the United States does not enjoy higher levels of health care quality than its lower spending counterparts.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mpohl 1]

I am still pondering the depths of wisdom and knowledge contained in that short line. This is an absolute jewel...and I really mean it.

Quote

We need all of the nonsense that we can get ... This is what makes us the USA!!! :)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

In other words, both organizations have agendas inconsistent with universal healthcare, biasing their published conclusions.

Prove it. PROVE that the information is biased - especially since a fair amount of it came from the Lancet - something you might have noticed if you'd actually *READ* the papers linked insteaded of fishing for a political ideology statement so you could dismiss the information.

Quote

In 1996, the US ranked 26th among industrialized countries for infant mortality.

Many of those underweight infants would not even be counted in infant mortality rates in other countries - the fact that these babies survive birth at all in many cases is due to the quality of American healthcare.

Quote

The World Health Organization ranked the US 37th in the world for performance.

Perhaps you should look at their 'criteria' for the rankings.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Prove it.

I showed that the organizations were biased.

Quote

In 1996, the US ranked 26th among industrialized countries for infant mortality.

Quote

Perhaps you should look at their 'criteria' for the rankings.

Sure, Mike. The Cato Institute knows more about the world's healthcare than WHO. Sadly, you probably actually believe that nonsense.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Erroll 49]

Quote

The US and South Africa are the only two countries in the developed world that do not provide healthcare for their citizens.

Define 'developed' and 'healthcare' in this context.


South Africa is regarded by most as a developing nation.
To my knowledge every South African child up to the age of 6 is entitled to free primary healthcare.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Prove it. PROVE that the information is biased - especially since a fair amount of it came from the Lancet - something you might have noticed if you'd actually *READ* the papers linked insteaded of fishing for a political ideology statement so you could dismiss the information.

The mention of The Lancet cited data piqued my attention.

The first piece, “The Pitfalls of Socialized Medicine,” notes

“An article published last year in the British medical journal The Lancet strongly suggests that the United States is also outperforming the world when it comes to surviving diseases such as AIDS, heart disease, cancer, and pneumonia. For example, approximately 63 percent of Americans diagnosed with cancer survive for at least five years. This tops the survival rates in countries with state-run national health care, including Italy, Spain and Great Britain.”

I went looking for that article. (Ya had to see that one coming, eh? ) I couldn’t find it. I'm not questioning that there was an article in The Lancet on the subject; I just can't independently verify the author's claims of what it said. And I do certainly hope the US is “outperforming the world” (not sure what the statistical meaningfulness of that is) in treatment of pneumonia, malaria, measles, whooping cough, diarrheal diseases, etc. We may be “outperforming the world” in treatment of heart disease and cancer due to more people (more demand) having those chronic ailments – those are ailments of rich countries.

The other piece, John Goodman 's (Cato Institute Newsletter) “Five Myths of Socialized Medicine” makes some very strong claims without any references:

“Among women who are diagnosed with breast cancer, only one fifth die in the United States, compared to one third in France and Germany, and almost half in the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

“Among men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer, fewer than one fifth die in the United States, compared to one fourth in Canada, almost half in France, and more than half in the United Kingdom.”

Those are really strong and powerful results … would very much like to know how that data was acquired? Is it statistical? Is it epidemiological? How and who? Can anyone point me to the source of those claims?

The chart on page 3 of Goodman's Cato Institute newsletter is also interesting, “Use of High-Tech Medical Procedures (per 100,000 people per year)” (which does include a reference: Gerard Anderson, et al., “It’s the Prices, Stupid: Why the United States Is So Different from Other Countries,” Health Affairs 21, no. 3 (May/June 2002): Exhibit 5.).

From the Health Affairs article & points that Goodman does not seem to address:

“This paper uses the latest data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to compare the health systems of the thirty member countries in 2000. Total health spending—the distribution of public and private health spending in the OECD countries—is presented and discussed. U.S. public spending as a percentage of GDP (5.8 percent) is virtually identical to public spending in the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan (5.9 percent each) and not much smaller than in Canada (6.5 percent). The paper also compares pharmaceutical spending, health system capacity, and use of medical services. The data show that the United States spends more on health care than any other country. However, on most measures of health services use, the United States is below the OECD median. These facts suggest that the difference in spending is caused mostly by higher prices for health care goods and services in the United States.”

“In the U.S. health system, for example, money flows from households to the providers of health care through a vast network of relatively uncoordinated pipes and capillaries of various sizes. Although the huge federal Medicare program and the federal-state Medicaid programs do possess some monopsonistic purchasing power, and large private insurers may enjoy some degree of monopsony power as well in some localities, the highly fragmented buy side of the U.S. health system is relatively weak by international standards. It is one factor, among others, that could explain the relatively high prices paid for health care and for health professionals in the United States.

“In comparison, the government-controlled health systems of Canada, Europe, and Japan allocate considerably more market power to the buy side. In each of the Canadian provinces, for example, the health insurance plans operated by the provincial governments constitute pure monopsonies: They purchase (pay for) all of the health services that are covered by the provincial health plan and used by the province’s residents.

“Even a pure monopsonist, of course, is ultimately constrained by market forces on the supply side—that is, by the reservation (minimally acceptable) prices of the providers of health care below which they will not supply their goods or services. But within that limit, monopsonistic buyers enjoy enough market clout to drive down the prices paid for health care and health care inputs fairly close to those reservation prices. It can explain, for example, why Fuchs and Hahn [published in the New England Journal of Medicine-nerdgirl] found that ‘U.S. fees for procedures are more than three times as high as Canadian fees [and] the difference in fees for evaluation and management services is about 80 percent.’”

How does one set aside that counter-explanation? I.e., it’s not quality of service but cost of US services? Our system costs more. Inherently higher costs are not a reason, imo, to necessarily abandon a system if the long term benefits are greater; it may even be a reason to accept initial costs.

The graph in Goodman's piece does *not* appear in the referenced Health Affairs article. I can easily see how Goodman (or a staff intern) extracted the coronary angioplasty & dialysis figures from this tabular data in the Health Affairs article. Goodman’s chart does not include spurious data on coronary angioplasty & dialysis, and copyright restriction would prohibit duplication of the original. Where Goodman got the coronary bypass data is not as clear. There’s also a lot more data that isn’t as seemingly straightforward in the Health Affairs table.

Should one not be asking *why* are health services costing more in the US? Should not costs be lower in a free market? If one uses services more (needed or not needed?) or has a larger overall volume of treatments, it would not be unexpected for a higher overall cost.

A state can decide that it favors higher cost for myriad of reasons. Lower cost is not inherently better. Otoh, it seems less than apparent that higher costs are *really* equaling better services.

At the end of the day, if the state and its people do value higher cost with maybe better services (anecdotally) because of political philosophy (which is completely acceptable), it still has to be paid for. How are we going to pay for it?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

The US and South Africa are the only two countries in the developed world that do not provide healthcare for their citizens.

Define 'developed' and 'healthcare' in this context.


South Africa is regarded by most as a developing nation.
To my knowledge every South African child up to the age of 6 is entitled to free primary healthcare.

According to a footnote in the linked source, "South Africa, while providing universal coverage in principle, has not extended universal access in practice to all of its townships." It is possible that South Africa has since fully implemented their universal coverage.

I'm not sure how Stephen M. Ayres, M.D., defined "the developed world" in his book.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Prove it.

I showed that the organizations were biased.

No - you asserted that they are biased - provide the proof.

Quote

Quote

In 1996, the US ranked 26th among industrialized countries for infant mortality.

Quote

Perhaps you should look at their 'criteria' for the rankings.

Sure, Mike. The Cato Institute knows more about the world's healthcare than WHO. Sadly, you probably actually believe that nonsense.

So, you haven't looked at WHO criteria and you haven't read the pages linked - gotcha.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Evidently the source was Lancet Oncology's August magazine, the Eurocare-4 study.

Some links for comparison:

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/surviving-cancer-us-vs-europe.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2296368.ece

We have a lot more advanced procedures and USE a lot more of those procedures as a country. The fact that access isn't rationed as in a socialized system probably accounts for the earlier (and better) treatment that Americans get as a whole.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

You know where a lot of that high risk debt came from that AIG was having to deal with? Foreign countries.

Where do you get that from? Most of the high risk debt came from the US housing market and associated credit swapping.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

No - you asserted that they are biased - provide the proof.

I pointed out the organizations' own words describing their agenda. Are you suggesting they lied? If so, why should we believe their articles? If not, how can we expect them to be unbiased in their assertions, when being unbiased on

Quote

Quote

In 1996, the US ranked 26th among industrialized countries for infant mortality.

So, you haven't looked at WHO criteria and you haven't read the pages linked - gotcha.

Did I read the entire WHO study? Nope. I haven't downloaded it yet. Did I read the pages you linked to? Yes. I just wasn't as impressed with them as you seem to be.

Perhaps you would prefer the CIA's latest data? According to them, the US ranks 42nd in infant mortality among all the countries for which they have data.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Evidently the source was Lancet Oncology's August magazine, the Eurocare-4 study.

Some links for comparison:

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/surviving-cancer-us-vs-europe.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2296368.ece

We have a lot more advanced procedures and USE a lot more of those procedures as a country. The fact that access isn't rationed as in a socialized system probably accounts for the earlier (and better) treatment that Americans get as a whole.

From your first link (emphasis mine):

A cancer epidemiologist would probably explain the data this way: In the U.S., we conduct far more tests, which turn up many more cancers. That in turn leads to higher survival rates because we wind up treating some cancers at an earlier stage. It probably even saves some lives that otherwise would have been lost to the disease.

But there's a downside to all those tests. They have relatively high false positive rates. In other words, they turn up minor cancers that may never have progressed to full-blown neoplasms. Yet, they are treated anyway since determining which ones will progress is impossible at that early stage.

In other words, the higher cancer survivor rates of the US compared to the EU include minor cancers that might not even need treatment to be survivable, biasing the survival rates in favor of the US.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Evidently the source was Lancet Oncology's August magazine, the Eurocare-4 study.

Some links for comparison:

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/surviving-cancer-us-vs-europe.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2296368.ece

We have a lot more advanced procedures and USE a lot more of those procedures as a country. The fact that access isn't rationed as in a socialized system probably accounts for the earlier (and better) treatment that Americans get as a whole.

From your first link (emphasis mine):

A cancer epidemiologist would probably explain the data this way: In the U.S., we conduct far more tests, which turn up many more cancers. That in turn leads to higher survival rates because we wind up treating some cancers at an earlier stage. It probably even saves some lives that otherwise would have been lost to the disease.

But there's a downside to all those tests. They have relatively high false positive rates. In other words, they turn up minor cancers that may never have progressed to full-blown neoplasms. Yet, they are treated anyway since determining which ones will progress is impossible at that early stage.

In other words, the higher cancer survivor rates of the US compared to the EU include minor cancers that might not even need treatment to be survivable, biasing the survival rates in favor of the US.

By Jove, you're right!! I suppose we should wait until a melanoma has metastasized until we start testing/treatment so we can be fair to the rest of the world. By all means, continue to support an ideology that has been shown to REDUCE availability of advanced care. There's a reason why the cartoon attached was made - care to guess why?

Since you're going to use this tack, go ahead and provide the evidence that cancers that might not even need treatment to be survivable WEREN'T included in the Euro stats.

Perhaps you missed the part where he said "In the U.S., we conduct far more tests, which turn up many more cancers. That in turn leads to higher survival rates because we wind up treating some cancers at an earlier stage."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

go ahead and provide the evidence that cancers that might not even need treatment to be survivable WEREN'T included in the Euro stats.

Did you read your own source? That's where the information came from. It's funny how you think a source is infallible until someone points out that it doesn't imply what you think it implies, and after that it is of questionable credibility.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

go ahead and provide the evidence that cancers that might not even need treatment to be survivable WEREN'T included in the Euro stats.

Did you read your own source? That's where the information came from. It's funny how you think a source is infallible until someone points out that it doesn't imply what you think it implies, and after that it is of questionable credibility.

Try again, counselor - you said:

"In other words, the higher cancer survivor rates of the US compared to the EU include minor cancers that might not even need treatment to be survivable, biasing the survival rates in favor of the US."

I asked you to prove your statement by showing that the same sort of cancers were NOT included as part of the Euro stats.

Instead, you throw out this strawman:
"Did you read your own source? That's where the information came from."

Let's see - from the Times article:
"In The Lancet Oncology, the group publishes two analyses, one covering patients whose disease was diagnosed between 1995 and 1999, and the second covering those between 2000 and 2002. In general, five-year survival (generally a proxy for “cure”) is highest in Nordic Countries and Central Europe, intermediate in southern Europe, lower in the UK and Ireland, and lowest of all in Eastern Europe. "

And

"Europe’s survival rates are lower than in the US, where 66.3 per cent of men and 62.9 per cent of women survive for five years, compared with 47.3 per cent of European men and 55.8 per cent of women. These figures may represent earlier diagnosis."

Nope - nothing about "only fatal cancers" in there. Looks like the only criterion was 5 year survival.

So - provide your evidence, counselor. Show where only fatal if untreated cancers were part of the Euro stats.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,623]

From the CIA factbook:

Rank Country Life expectancy at birth
(years) Date of Information
1 Macau 84.33 2008 est.
2 Andorra 82.67 2008 est.
3 Japan 82.07 2008 est.
4 Singapore 81.89 2008 est.
5 San Marino 81.88 2008 est.
6 Hong Kong 81.77 2008 est.
7 Australia 81.53 2008 est.
8 Canada 81.16 2008 est.
9 France 80.87 2008 est.
10 Sweden 80.74 2008 est.
11 Switzerland 80.74 2008 est.
12 Guernsey 80.65 2008 est.
13 Israel 80.61 2008 est.
14 Iceland 80.55 2008 est.
15 Anguilla 80.53 2008 est.
16 Cayman Islands 80.32 2008 est.
17 New Zealand 80.24 2008 est.
18 Italy 80.07 2008 est.
19 Gibraltar 80.06 2008 est.
20 Monaco 79.96 2008 est.
21 Liechtenstein 79.95 2008 est.
22 Spain 79.92 2008 est.
23 Norway 79.81 2008 est.
24 Jersey 79.65 2008 est.
25 Greece 79.52 2008 est.
26 Austria 79.36 2008 est.
27 Malta 79.30 2008 est.
28 Faroe Islands 79.29 2008 est.
29 Netherlands 79.25 2008 est.
30 Luxembourg 79.18 2008 est.
31 Germany 79.10 2008 est.
32 Belgium 79.07 2008 est.
33 Guam 78.93 2008 est.
34 Virgin Islands 78.92 2008 est.
35 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 78.91 2008 est.
36 United Kingdom 78.85 2008 est.
37 Finland 78.82 2008 est.
38 Isle of Man 78.80 2008 est.
39 Jordan 78.71 2008 est.
40 Korea, South 78.64 2008 est.
41 Puerto Rico 78.58 2008 est.
42 Bosnia and Herzegovina 78.33 2008 est.
43 Bermuda 78.30 2008 est.
44 Saint Helena 78.27 2008 est.
45 Cyprus 78.15 2008 est.
46 United States 78.14 2008 est

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

How much of that is due to healthcare, and how much due to the fact that Americans (taken as a whole) are sofa spuds eating from the 99 cent 'heart attack special' menu?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[normiss 622]

Now don't go trying to apply any level of logic to a CIA provided ESTIMATE!!!
Aren't they the organization that provided a lot of the information on Iraq that led to the decision to invade????

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

you said:

"In other words, the higher cancer survivor rates of the US compared to the EU include minor cancers that might not even need treatment to be survivable, biasing the survival rates in favor of the US."

Yes, I did. And, when I wrote it, I also quoted the relevant passage from your own source. Try reading that.

Quote

Instead, you throw out this strawman:
"Did you read your own source? That's where the information came from."

Perhaps while you're at it, you might take the time to learn what the term strawman means. Here's an example:

Quote

Nope - nothing about "only fatal cancers" in there. Looks like the only criterion was 5 year survival.

… Show where only fatal if untreated cancers were part of the Euro stats.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

You infer that the 'non-fatal' cancers skew the data in favor of the US, when you have NO proof that 'non-fatal' cancers were not included in the Eurocare study.

Provide your proof - or you could admit you were talking out of your ass - your choice.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Now don't go trying to apply any level of logic to a CIA provided ESTIMATE!!!
Aren't they the organization that provided a lot of the information on Iraq that led a cherry-picking CinC and his cronies to the decision to invade????

You left a bit out.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You infer that the 'non-fatal' cancers skew the data in favor of the US, when you have NO proof that 'non-fatal' cancers were not included in the Eurocare study.

No, I did not imply such a thing. Such a conclusion would be absolutely absurd considering none of the nations have a zero survival rate.

Your own source, however, implies that the survival rate in the US is biased due to including more cases that are treated that don't necessarily require treatment.

Like I said, it's funny how you thought the source was credible until it was pointed out that it does not imply what you think it implies, after which, you suddenly require more supporting sources.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[normiss 622]

Nah, you just interjected your perception and opinion.
As usual.

[billvon 2,400]

Was just thinking about the cost of this bailout in general terms. The number being bandied about is $700 billion, with some suggesting the final cost will be around $1 trillion. Let's take $700 billion. How much money is that?

If it were a stack of $1000 bills (largest bill I've ever seen) it would be a stack of money 46 miles high. If you tried to put it all on a ship, it would weigh 770,000 tons. The largest supertankers on the planet can carry around 550,000 tons of cargo. If we paid it by an evenly distributed tax, it would be $2300 for every man, woman and child in the US.

Now, why do they need $700 billion? Seems like a lot of money. Consider the following, though:

The U.S. Treasuries market is valued at about $4.5 trillion. Mortgage markets in the US: $7 trillion. US stock market total capitalization: $22 trillion. GDP (GPP?) of the entire planet earth: $65 trillion.

Size of the credit default swap market last year (which is just one of the "new age" financial instruments causing problems): between $45 and $70 trillion.

Now, how a market can move more money than the GDP of the entire planet aside, it worries me that there is such an incredible amount of totally imaginary money floating around out there. Imagine what even a bad solar flare that took out a country's banking system could do. We're about to dump almost a trillion dollars into a system that's working as designed - can you imagine what we'd have to do to recover from a serious failure?