Quote: Original post by Eelco
No knowledge of the real absolute cost, no.

The real relative cost will be high.

Just curious....

do you believe your second declaration is any more credible, when it is still coming from someone who admits to not one iota of knowledgeable study on the topic?

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Here .... for those that are interested in some of the numbers, a few of those silly "Keynesians" at Harvard studied one aspect where we may be able to save hundreds of billions:

http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/study-shows-us-health-care-paperwork-cost-2943-billion-1999

Oh yes, its the 'paperwork' thats the problem.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Here .... for those that are interested in some of the numbers, a few of those silly "Keynesians" at Harvard studied one aspect where we may be able to save hundreds of billions:

http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/study-shows-us-health-care-paperwork-cost-2943-billion-1999

Oh yes, its the 'paperwork' thats the problem.

For someone who implies that he isn't presumptuous, your vague aspersions against the Harvard study are pretty strange.


If you knew anything about the productivity drained because of what healthcare providers have to go through in dealing with multiple private insurances and their myriad appeal processes, maybe you'd be less quick to levy your vague attacks.

But by all means ... please do continue not letting facts stand in the way of your ranting.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco
No knowledge of the real absolute cost, no.

The real relative cost will be high.

Just curious....

do you believe your second declaration is any more credible, when it is still coming from someone who admits to not one iota of knowledgeable study on the topic?

I dont remember any such admissions. Infact, i remember a whole bunch of arguments for increased costs, which you conveniently chose to ignore.

How would you rebut the findings of the Congressional Budget Office?

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Eelco
The quality of services is poor, in my opinion. Every stupid little thing, even a five minute consult, has a month of waiting for it, at least. If you have a real problem that will not directly kill you, expect to be waiting a lot.

And this surprises you how? If you're not suffering from something that sounds like it might kill you, then guess what. You can wait.

Thank you for making that decision for me; how kind of you, but i rather have you dont.

So, because you have more money, you should be able to out bid some dieing patient because you stubbed your toe and want the doctor to kiss it better for you?

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco
No knowledge of the real absolute cost, no.

The real relative cost will be high.

Just curious....

do you believe your second declaration is any more credible, when it is still coming from someone who admits to not one iota of knowledgeable study on the topic?

I dont remember any such admissions. Infact, i remember a whole bunch of arguments for increased costs, which you conveniently chose to ignore.

Uhhh.... posting your speculation isn't an "argument." Especially when you admit you have no specific knowledge of the topic.

Quote: Original post by EelcoHow would you rebut the findings of the Congressional Budget Office?

I'd probably raise the same questions that were already raised. Did they account for many of the savings aspects? We'll see when I get back....

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Here .... for those that are interested in some of the numbers, a few of those silly "Keynesians" at Harvard studied one aspect where we may be able to save hundreds of billions:

http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/study-shows-us-health-care-paperwork-cost-2943-billion-1999

Oh yes, its the 'paperwork' thats the problem.

For someone who implies that he isn't presumptuous, your vague aspersions against the Harvard study are pretty strange.


If you knew anything about the productivity drained because of what healthcare providers have to go through in dealing with multiple private insurances and their myriad appeal processes, maybe you'd be less quick to levy your vague attacks.

If you had anything but vague assertions, maybe i could bring myself to care.

Yeah, arbitration has a cost. I have no doubt it is blown out of proportion by all sorts of sillyness, but thats an argument against sillyness, not against private insurance.

Excuse me if i dont buy the 'competition only costs time and money let the government cut out the middle man and everything will be fine' mantra. Its old, it has been tried, and it hasnt worked.

I mean, think of all the time you could save if you didnt have to go shop for groceries, but if some bureocrat dediced what you should eat. Imagine the savings, and the resultant workers' paradise!

Oh wait.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote:
I dont remember any such admissions. Infact, i remember a whole bunch of arguments for increased costs, which you conveniently chose to ignore.

Uhhh.... posting your speculation isn't an "argument." Especially when you admit you have no specific knowledge of the topic.

I have no pretense of specific knowledge on this topic, thats what seperates you and me. And I dont need to, because supply and demand is universal.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by EelcoHow would you rebut the findings of the Congressional Budget Office?

I'd probably raise the same questions that were already raised. Did they account for many of the savings aspects? We'll see when I get back....

I see. The experts are always right, except when they disagree with you.

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Eelco
The quality of services is poor, in my opinion. Every stupid little thing, even a five minute consult, has a month of waiting for it, at least. If you have a real problem that will not directly kill you, expect to be waiting a lot.

And this surprises you how? If you're not suffering from something that sounds like it might kill you, then guess what. You can wait.

Thank you for making that decision for me; how kind of you, but i rather have you dont.

So, because you have more money, you should be able to out bid some dieing patient because you stubbed your toe and want the doctor to kiss it better for you?

The doctor is should be free to allocate his time as he pleases. If hed rather spend his time kissing my toe and this bothers you: put your money where your mouth is, and go to medical school.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
I see. The experts are always right, except when they disagree with you.

Reducing yourself to putting words in people's mouth doesn't further indicate your lack of an actual argument at all....

The difference here is that some of us actually look into the reports, instead of doing something silly like, say ... just taking Peter Schiff's word as gospel.



Anyways, let's see if there's anything more than your vague naysaying, and useless references to "supply and demand" once I get back.