Mysterio

Depends on who you ask, but accord to the study, a 10% over the course of the study means about 45000 people will die every year. Just sustain that 100% daily growth rate for a month and I'll be exceedingly happy. :hyper: Well now that I've read it more carefully, it does look it considers people with no insurance. However, it only considers the ones that visit the doctor at least once in the last two years. It's not clear from the paper that that is a representative sample of the uninsured. Common sense tells us it couldn't be, because the whole issue with the uninsured is that they hardly visit the doctor except in emergencies. Even so, the uninsured still had the second worst level of health care, very slightly above private non-managed care.

Kill the MK_letters. Give Lincoln real names. :hyper:

Well I guess we're in general agreement here. It was not my intention to say the May letter precluded any possibility of adding to the deficit. Just that it wasn't a clear statement that it will add to the deficit, so the letter could mean nothing at all when related to the deficit. I still stand by the claim that the original estimates in March are most credible estimates. As for the"doc fix," I don't doubt it could add the deficit as it was written in the House. I don't doubt your numbers either. But since it hasn't pass the senate, it isn't law yet, assuming it does eventually passes the senate unchanged. However, since it is a future event, we should wait till actually passes before discussing it, since it is fully possible it changes before it passes. You've misread that paragraph. "Bias our estimate toward the null" means those groups are making the null hypothesis more likely, i.e. they are reducing the effect between insured and uninsured. This is because some people were only part-time insured, but were mark as fully uninsured. Either way, they try their best to eliminate such that effect by removing people in which they have missing data. Indeed, the paper goes on to state: Indeed, earlier analyses suggest that the true effect of uninsurance is likely larger than that measured in multivariate models.13,40 In addition, Hadley found that accounting for endogeneity bias by using an instrumental variable increases the protective effect of health insurance on mortality.40 In other word they are stating that health insurance is potentially an even bigger protector of health than they are saying, but they are not willing to do so due to insufficient information. Going from 3.0% to 3.3% is a 10% increase(.033/.03-1), not a 0.3%. 2.3% to 3.3% is a 43.5% increase(0.033/0.023 - 1), not 1.0%. More important is the conclusion they drew from the increase in the fatality rate. The conclude that lack of health insurance is significantly associated with dying: Results. Among all participants, 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]=2.5%, 3.7%) died. The hazard ratio for mortality among the uninsured compared with the insured, with adjustment for age and gender only, was 1.80 (95% CI=1.44, 2.26). After additional adjustment for race/ethnicity, income, education, self- and physician-rated health status, body mass index, leisure exercise, smoking, and regular alcohol use, the uninsured were more likely to die (hazard ratio=1.40; 95% CI=1.06, 1.84) than those with insurance. 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. Let me highlight this phrase for you: "among those with at least minimal access to care." That is, among people who actually have insurance. This is not a study between the insured and the uninsured, because the uninsured have no access to care in the context of that paper and were never part of the survey. Are we clear on this yet?

No. The death of Mercury couldn't come soon enough. If they have waited they would have merely delayed the inevitable.

It was an update to the their previous analysis AFAICT. There were no updates to the actual bill in May. The only amendment to the original health care bill was the reconciliation act, also passed in March. There was another CBO report on that, showing no increase in the deficit. Look, you're just chasing down a rabbit hole. Time to call it quits. http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage It's a peer-reviewed study and published. He is speculating with no direct facts and he has no credibility. Which one do you believe? And it's there's a big possibility the 3 models have been rigged in some way to produce a desired outcome. Exactly what you would expect from people with a history of potentially fraudulent studies. I expect people with a working knowledge of their research before doing studies. Otherwise, they are charlatans. Cite another peer-reviewed research paper that has been published in a major scientific journal. Then I'll believe you. Then I am wrong then. It's not relevant to the debate. I've said this already, it's not a debate regarding the deaths from lack of health care. It's a study between people who have high deductible coverage and people with free care. The uninsured were never considered. And I say again, it's an update to the original study. It doesn't show that the bill has actually lost more money. There are holes in their argument, as I have pointed out. Just because I've criticized their lack of credibility (and high possibility of fraud) doesn't mean they are automatically right.

There hasn't been any comprehensive cost analysis since the March report. In other words you still don't know what the May one is really saying. For all we know, the savings have increased. Anecdote is not data BTW. There are 60 million people in Britain and I believe most of them are happily living. And the part where he basically made up stuff? He drew sources that only vaguely support his position, and speculated the rest. Meanwhile, he shows like 5 sources at the top of his entry clearly stating tens of thousands of people dying every year due to lack of health insurance. So what do you want to believe, his own sources or his speculation? At least wikipedia doesn't contradict its own sources. You know the old saying, "lies, damn lies, and statistics." There's a lot of potential statistical manipulation in this article. For one thing does the author know that for many people who are uninsured, they simply can't buy insurance because they have poor health? Not accounting for this group would definitely make a big difference in your final numbers. Perhaps not surprisingly the author removes that group from consideration in his final model, the "M3". Using their own "controls" they bring the fatality rate from around 11% to 1.7%, assuming I've read that right. In other words, they may have unfairly removed some of the biggest factors harming people without insurance. They also aren't considering their so-called "involuntary uninsured" at all in that model, AFAICT. That's a pretty sizable hole in their model. Not being a statistician nor an health expert myself, you shouldn't take what I said above as irrefutable, or even close to that. However, I will claim that I have pointed out some very basic flaws in the study's reasoning Not to make an obvious logical fallacy myself, but... It isn't a published paper in any major peered reviewed science journal, the authors are economists, not doctors, and the sponsors of the article have substantial conflicts of interests. By the strict standards of scientific studies, that article should not even be considered in the discussion. The only reason we are even using it is because this is a informal online discussion. Meanwhile, the 45000 death per year study is in a published, peer-reviewed science journal (linked again for reference), who's credentials cannot be easily dismissed. Besides, it's a bit obvious one shouldn't blindly accept studies from people with a history of very fraudulent studies and have never been published, AFAIK. Otherwise, one must accept that smoking is safe, drunk driving is safe, obesity is healthy, etc. And you have your opinions as well. Since neither of us have the power to decipher the meaning of this study, I will defer to someone else: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/23/6/107.pdf The RAND HIE randomized families to health insurance plans that varied their cost sharing from none (“free care”) to a catastrophic plan that approximated a large family deductible with a stop-loss limit of $1,000 (in late-1970s dollars), which was scaled down for the low-income population. Like I said, the studies was one between different types of insurance coverage. An important debate, but not relevant to this one. PS: It's not from the RAND Corporation. The name of the experiment is "RAND Health Insurance Experiment". I'd be laughing if the Rand Corporation actually wrote a health care paper. Rand doesn't say that. EPI does, and they're not believable (nor should ever be believed, if sanity is your goal) because they are not published and have a history of fictional studies. The cost reductions I've already demonstrated with the original CBO estimate from March. Hem and haw all you want, but you have not meaningful refuted it in all way. As for the coverage improvements, that's also in one of the CBO estimate from March: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/AmendReconProp.pdf Effects of the Legislation on Insurance Coverage CBO and JCT estimate that by 2019, the combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would be to reduce the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured by about 32 million, leaving about 23 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants). Under the legislation, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent currently to about 94 percent. Not just inaccurate, but if you're being scientific you wouldn't never consider them in the first place, given their total lack of credibility. But feel free to believe those sources all you want, and reject my warnings as mere ad hominems in your mind. I certainly won't stop you. Besides, when have corporate sponsored propaganda ever lied?

Now that I've thought about it, no way. Ford doesn't need a discount brand, because the Chinese will destroy that segment very soon. And even in tn the meanwhile it will exist only to undermine Ford's own brand value by being a "Ford" for less.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-05-30/story/fact-check-health-care-law-still-applies-congress The bill applies to everyone, even to Washington D.C lawmakers. PS: It's also my anecdotal evidence that Japanese people smoke and drink a shed-load, though they are not as obesed as Americans.

That's not what that May CBO report was about. It was just about an update in cost estimates, as requested by Congressman John Lewis. I've already defined it as a significant improvement over the current system and at a lower cost. It was not about achieving perfection. My statement hasn't changed. That's a blog first of all. He cites hardly any sources (and a mountain of sources that specifically refute his own position strangely enough) and apparently made-up or speculated most of his argument. Given that he's a libertarian economist and not a doctor of any kind, this link doesn't mean much if anything at all. Perhaps your understanding of statistics is insufficient? Correlation does not imply causation, and it clearly states that Medicaid and Medicare for persons younger than age 65—have the highest mortality rates, presumably because access to those programs usually depends on disability status. Disabled people tend to have very high mortality rates, so it is not clear what your study is really showing. I also have doubts about the source of the study, EPI, given there known backing from the fast food and tobacco industry (source) and the founder of group, Richard Berman has a huge history of funding studies that favor big corporations. It doesn't relate to the subject we're discuss; it relates to groups that already have health care AFAICT. And since you're not a doctor, you likely don't know enough to make conclusions about the uninsured from this study. The golden mean fallacy may have a word with you. The "wash" outcome is no more likely to be true than any other. Given that the bill passed only requires people to buy insurance and subsidizes people who can't afford it, this is a totally extraneous statement. Also, this statement seems to be a stereotypical conservative accusation regarding government. Your sources are either misleading or blatantly false. You have yet to show otherwise. Like the previous statement, this is another stereotypical conservative accusation, this time regarding liberalism.

You're document still doesn't say what you think it does. It only describes the costs, not the additional revenue generated by HR3590. There's only one comprehensive analysis the CBO gave out and that was the one I pointed out earlier, and more legibly written on the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Deficit_impact The British system is no panacea, so it would be easy to find examples of it's shortcomings. But, as retro nicely pointed out our system is widely agreed to suck even harder than the British system. Something like 45,000 die every year due to inadequate health care. You're being pedantic. Which were red herrings...

Your source dates to March 19, not May 11. You focus to much on your "doc fix", which I'm not entirely sure ever came close to being implemented, or even exists as stated. 1/4 of 1% isn't a whole lot (35 billion in today's GDP). Doesn't even say whether it will actually send it into deficit. How many times must I say this: All nations that have implemented universal health care have lower health care costs. France, Japan, Britain, etc. have worse demographics than we do and still have better care and lower costs. I define that as a total success, and likely this will be no different. You consistent sound like it's coming from ideology. I've yet see you demonstrate otherwise. Red herring. The Iraq war is Bush's fault, period. No one's going too far. BP has more than enough assets to handle whatever liabilities coming their way. You already agree with this, so everything else you said are red herrings.

Time for a new third brand?

Like the Republican party, you're citing a technical document that basically means very little. Why don't you read the actual CBO report http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11439/WHCC_Presentation-4-12-10.pdf who says the bill will not increase the federal deficit? The track record of every nation that implemented universal health is one of total success in nearly all cases, and the people who created those programs are seen as nation heroes for generations to come. I can only assume you'll change your mind. Given your Ayn Rand references in your signature I suspect your cynicism has more to do with your ideology and not factual evidence. Also, two of those three incidents came from Republicans. Perhaps you have a problem with government when only Republicans are in charge? But that's irrelevant, like I've been saying. The war is Bush's fault and always will be, no matter what Obama does. It's pretty obvious since 2006 that the war was a disaster and everyone wanted out, regardless of party. Again, it's your innuendo. You agree with making BP pay for all costs, but you've also been implying that there's something wrong the Democrats when they say the same thing. Well, from the first link in google: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/08/new-report-reveals-bp-s-long-history-of-safety-problems.html The first set of reports center on the firm's Alaska operations, and were put together by an internal committee and external lawyers in 2001, 2004, and 2007. The 2004 report found "a pattern of the company intimidating workers who raised safety or environmental concerns" and that "managers shaved maintenance costs by using aging equipment for as long as possible." In 2006, the report points out, the 2000 Prudhoe Bay pipeline spill was blamed on a corroded pipeline. But the problems extended further than Alaska. In 2002 the firm was found to be falsifying inspections of fuel storage tanks in California. They settled a lawsuit by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for $100 million. In 2005, the ProPublica report found, in an investigation into an explosion at a Texas City refinery that killed 15 people, that "significant process safety issues exist at all five U.S. refineries, not just Texas City." In a pattern that now seems familiar, a BP spokesperson at the time said it would update its safety systems. "But last year, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined the firm $87 million for not improving safety at that same Texas plant." NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff and Michael Hirsh reported last month that Environmental Protection Agency investigators had wanted to charge top corporate officers who, "they were convinced, had knowledge of the safety deficiencies at Texas City and failed to take corrective action." That request was turned down by the Bush Justice Department—part of a pattern of lax oversight. As the NEWSWEEK report noted, BP has spent tens of millions on lobbying while it fends off accusations about poor safety practices. I'd say BP has a awful safety record, and the award was a joke that could be given to any company regardless of track record. Corporate awards like these often are jokes, and it seems like every company won something shortly before they F-up.

I know they are going to build the Taurus and the Fusion on CD4, or at least that's the speculation. So a MKS would be stretched MKZ/rebadged Taurus?

The link you gave is a Republican party source, who have an agenda to push. That source can't be taken seriously. Like you, if I were to dismisses any possibility of the reform bill working out, and just asserted that it will fail (with implications of personal ruin as well?), then I'd hate the bill too. On the hand, if it does fix the current system or even starts the process of fixing the current system, it will likely be seen as a huge long-term success. You may not be saying it directly, but you are obviously directing innuendo at Obama, especially when you were implying a very cynical view of Obama a few posts earlier. For the war, since Bush started it the blame should fall on him and so will its consequences. I don't see how you can imply Obama is either in agreement with Bush on the merits of the war, or is doing anything but to end the war. You're also implying Obama has bad intent when he is suggesting that BP should pay for it. Given the wealth of BP, all I'm saying that BP can easily pay for all costs and that there is nothing sinister about suggesting this. And seriously, an oil spill of this magnitude is a nuclear bomb going off. You can't ever, under any circumstances let one accidentally go off out of 30,000. If one does, like it is now, reforms are needed. Especially given BP's lousy safety record, and the fact they didn't use blow-out valves as I understand it.