Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Oddly it is the same surgeons who perform these very specialized operations. Perhaps they do more sloppy work when payment comes from government mandated insurance policies?
New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Oddly it is the same surgeons who perform these very specialized operations. Perhaps they do more sloppy work when payment comes from government mandated insurance policies?
Joe Joe Joe, this is the thing about peer reviewed science - you can write to the journal and ask for a retraction IF you find a flaw in the study.
By the way: The study evaluated 893,658 major surgical operations from around the country from 2003 to 2007, and normalized the results for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 background diseases.
Feel free to link some studies to back up that bullshit Joe - oh, and do be sure to compare apples with apples
We have been down this road many times before Michael. The last time you referenced a paper written by Koch brother political employees. It made some pretty outrageous and blatantly claims about regulation and GDP. Just because someone or some group writes something or says something it doesn’t make it true. That is where facts and reason come into play.
The fact is a honest study would have comparable control groups. The one you cited does not. Let’s for a moment ignore the blatant errors in reason and logic and let’s accept the author’s conclusions. And let’s ignore the fundamental statistical truth that correlation does not imply causality. Let’s ignore the fact the study makes an apples to oranges comparison. Let’s for a moment just mindlessly buy into what they are selling. The next question is why is it that who pays for the procedure affects the outcome. Is it because surgeons are practicing two kinds of medicine? If the payer is private, they do a better job? And if the payer is a government, they get sloppy. If that is the case, I know a number of lawyers who would love to see that study.
How do you normalize, when there is no control group in which to normalize? That’s one of the many problems you like to ignore.
Feel free to link some studies to back up that bullshit Joe - oh, and do be sure to compare apples with apples
It’s not like you haven’t seen this stuff zillions of times before. You just keep ignoring it and pretending it will go away.
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadia...zations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-efficient-health-care-countries
The study evaluated 893,658 major surgical operations from around the country from 2003 to 2007, and normalized the results for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 background diseases.
It's metadata analysis Joe. Perhaps it IS true that surgeons treat patients on Medicaid differently? That MAY be true. Or not true. That isn't a conclusion that was draw. What was draw is the fact that surgical patients on Medicaid are correlated with a 13% increase in likelihood to die compared to those with no insurance at all, and 97% more likely to die than those with private insurance ... this isn't going to change just because you worship and grovel around the feet of your political 'leaders'.
The facts are the facts.
Medicaid and Uninsured payer status confers increased risk of adjusted mortality. Medicaid was further associated with the greatest adjusted length of stay and total costs despite risk factors or operation. Possible explanations include delays in access to care or disparate differences in health maintenance.
Oh, and by the by, I see in Australia the Government is working on ways to shift Public Patients into Private Hospitals. Interesting. Expect the price to healthcare to rise along with all other taxes.
Central Planning (including the currency) DOES NOT WORK.
The ONLY reason Citizens excepted a Central Bank was because they were told it'd be 'The Rich' who would pay - not them. But it didn't work out that way. The ONLY reason the State wants a Central Bank is because it gives them the literal power of life and death in their crooked hands. We've wasted $8.5 TRILLION murdering women and children in Iraq, a nation that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 911. Nothing. And LOST!
So, I don't have to wonder how ObamaCare is going to work out - I know how it's going to work out. It'll be as useless as a Government "High" School and as safe as a Government Housing Slum. It'll be as immoral as the War on Terror and as "Good for Society" as the "Patriot Act". But, you're not going to use ObamaCare - so why would you care? Of course you don't. You want to wash your hands of community, you want to take the sick and sweep them under the rug right along with the poor you swept into housing slums and the functionally illiterate you sweep into government schools.
"I pay my taxes" is your mantra.
But get this, that isn't going to teach people to read, it isn't going to cloth the poor or provide them with jobs and it isn't going to heal the sick. Government does one thing in line with it's nature - initiation of Force against innocent people, IOWs: War. Healing the sick as antithesis to Government. Covering your ears with your hands and running in circles saying na na na na na na.... isn't going to change the facts about medicine and medical care.
Last edited:
LOl
Baaaa..... look, that one stepped out of the sheering line....
Baaaa .... what a kook.
*waves flag*
LOL, yes the facts are the facts, it's too bad you are either incapable of understanding them or unwilling to understand them. The Sun rises every day, and everyday people lie, therefore the Sun causes lying. That is basically on of the fallacious arguments you are making, not to mention comparing apples to oranges.
There is a term for what you and those like you are doing; it’s called the politicization of science. We have seen it many times before. Unfortunately it is not new. But the financiers of your particular ideology are carrying it to new heights or lows depending on how you choose to look at it.
“The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science
http://www.tampabay.com/news/busine...ns-at-florida-state-university-raises/1168680
If true, I don’t see how it is relevant.
Do you even know what the term means Michael? Because I don’t think you do. You keep misusing it and ignoring corrections when others give them to you.
And who told them this Michael? Central banks are profit centers for governments. They make their money, loaning money to banks. They are the banker’s banker. The money central bank comes from other banks. And as been repeatedly pointed out to you the US central bank has returned nearly 100 billion dollars a year now for several years to the US Treasury.
LOL, my you have an active imagination.
"
Well actually I don’t have a mantra. I am pragmatic. I do what works. If I touch something hot and it burns my fingers, I don’t do it again. Basically what you are arguing for is, if your finger gets burned, don’t worry put your entire hand on it and ignore the pain. The pain doesn’t exist. The pain is just some evil nebulous central planner conspiracy.
Well here is your problem that is not what the data says. I suggest you read my previous post.
HA!
So you're going to give me a lecture on the problem of induction? Go for it. I LOVE that topic area of discussion. I'm curious, how do you suppose the major premise is derived if not through some form of inductive reasoning? How is syllogism possible without empirical knowledge? How do you KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow Joe? Do tell.
Yes, Joe - here we AGREE. Central Banks are ONE of the ways the Central Government initiates force against free people. Income Tax is another. Of course, the two go together like hand-in-glove.
Appeal to Convenience fallacy.
Yes you do!
$8.5 TRILLION dollars wasted on MORE made up phoney Wars - only this time in the middle east.
$ 50 BILLION dollars waste each year on the MASSIVE beuracracy "The Department of Education" and with NO GAINS since it's inception in 1979. According to YOUR OWN LOGIC we must end it.
The Federal Reserve CAUSED the GFC under the auspices of Alan "Bubbles" Greenspan, it then BAILED OUT the richest 0.001%, yet there are you pom-poms in hand as the rest of the country sinks into the abyss. Hell, you said it yourself, maybe there's some good slum-houses to be had in these depressed neighborhoods. Does that sound like "your brother's keeper" Joe?
The Central Government wasting $8.5 TRILLION dollars losing two more phony wars is a FACT.
The Central Government using the NSA to spy on Americans is a FACT.
Government Housing SLUMS exist all over the nation - this is a FACT.
Government Schools DO graduate functionally illiterate students, this is a FACT.
You're the one who wants to stick your hand in fire. You ignore all of history. You ignore facts and data right in your face. Why? You are literally brainwashed to believe Central Planning works. The Central Government is a cancer. It IS the initiation of force. Is IS the ring in the Lord of the Rings. Something that must be destroyed by fire. Like a witch, or a Senator
This IS empiricism Joe - you know "Science". Do you have some OTHER conclusion to draw from the data? If so - do it.
As I said, Government Healthcare will be as useless as Government "High" Schools diploma and as safe as a Government "Housing" slum. AND, you don't care. Why would you? You don't have to go to a Government hospital. You'll use private insurance. Happily sweeping the poor, illiterate and sick under the rug of "I pay my taxes". Welcome to the middle class Joe. Ever wonder why Republic's all ultimately fail? See: mirror.
You are obfuscating. If you cannot or will not understand how to use statistics you shouldn’t use them.
No we don’t agree. Fiscal and monetary policies are two distinctly different animals. Central banks are not police agencies. And has been demonstrated to you umpteen times over the years, everyone has and continues to benefit from central market activity. That’s why every government with a thriving economy has one.
LOL, no it is a fact.
No I don’t. If I did, I would still be working for a living like you.
As we have discussed many times, that is a load of crap. If you are concerned about fiscal responsibility and how Washington operates, change the way we elect our representatives. That is the only way to get government to work for the people and not the special interests. But you have no interest in election reform. You would much rather get up on your stool and preach demagoguery.
The Central Government wasting $8.5 TRILLION dollars losing two more phony wars is a FACT.
The Central Government using the NSA to spy on Americans is a FACT.
Government Housing SLUMS exist all over the nation - this is a FACT.
Government Schools DO graduate functionally illiterate students, this is a FACT.
You're the one who wants to stick your hand in fire. You ignore all of history. You ignore facts and data right in your face. Why? You are literally brainwashed to believe Central Planning works. The Central Government is a cancer. It IS the initiation of force. Is IS the ring in the Lord of the Rings. Something that must be destroyed by fire. Like a witch, or a Senator
No that isn’t fact, it’s demagoguery. If you are serious about reforming government, as I have told you many times before, you would reform the way we elect representatives and how they conduct themselves while in office. You would take the special interest money out of our politics. So those who represent us, really do represent us and not the special interests who fund their campaigns and line their pockets with perks and benefits.
But no, you want to hand over our government, carte blanche, to the special interests who brought us those wars you like to complain about and all of the Bush Junior fiscal profligacy. That is your solution. That is in no way practical or reasonable in this world.
It’s about as empirical as all the climate change debunker nonsense and all the cigarette industry made up empiricism which for more than a half century told us cigarettes were safe. It worked well for them until one of their key scientists developed a case of terminal morality.
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1996/05/wigand199605
Last edited:
You mean like Obama? "The People's" President. Just so happens to support the phony Wars in the ME. Just so happens to bail out the richest 0.001%. Just so happens to support NSA spying ON Citizens. Just to happens to support the War on Drugs. Just so happens to have overseen the largest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the richest 0.001% in history.
Government is BY DEFINITION immoral. The solution is to have as little of it as possible. Start by ridding ourselves of Income Tax. Then the Central Bank will either earn it's keep or collapse. In the mean time communities of people can work and trade using their own currencies. I'd suggest starting with State issued currency to all public "Servants" and working from there.
As for Government Healthcare, The facts are the facts, Medicaid and Uninsured payer status confers increased risk of adjusted mortality. Medicaid was further associated with the greatest adjusted length of stay and total costs despite risk factors or operation. Possible explanations include delays in access to care or disparate differences in health maintenance.
Oh, and you didn't say statistics, you said pragmatism. Two very different things. Also, empiricism doesn't solve the problem of induction - and I am an empiricist.
Except for the fact that those wars are not phony and except for the fact the NSA is not spying on citizens, and except for the fact that President Obama has not given deferential treatment to the richest .0001%, yeah. If you really want to address problems in our government, change the way we elect the people who make those decisions. Because until that happens, nothing changes, and I think it is pretty clear, with few exceptions, our government isn’t working for the people who elected our representatives. It is working for the .0001% and you would remove the few exceptions in favor of total control for the .0001%.
Yeah, now this is where you get in bed with your communist buddies. You both believe that magically if you just get rid of government, people stop acting like people. Human desire for power doesn’t go away with government. Government is a tool we use to solve collective problems. It’s like a hammer. We can use it well and for purposes for which it was intended or not. We can use it skillfully or clumsily.
Yeah, the facts are the facts. And you don’t like the facts. So you ignore them and you use blatantly flawed and partisan nonsense sourced from that .0001% ,which you like to complain, about as a substitute for fact and reason.
LOL, oh and you think that makes a difference? No Michael you are an ideologue and I think the only person you are fooling is yourself.
Last edited:
Here's some Empirical data Joe:
Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations
*Damien J LaPar, *Castigliano M. Bhamidipati, *Carlos M Mery, *George J Stukenborg, David R Jones, Bruce D Schirmer, Irving L Kron, MD, *Gorav Ailawadi, MD
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
Surgical patients on Government Insurance / Medicaid at a cost to the tax payer of $100 Billion every year are 13% more likely to die than those with no insurance at all, and 97% more likely to die than those with private insurance.
Now, ONLY an ideologue would conclude we need more Government in our healthcare when Government run healthcare equates to a 97% more likely to die than those with private insurance.
Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations
*Damien J LaPar, *Castigliano M. Bhamidipati, *Carlos M Mery, *George J Stukenborg, David R Jones, Bruce D Schirmer, Irving L Kron, MD, *Gorav Ailawadi, MD
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
Surgical patients on Government Insurance / Medicaid at a cost to the tax payer of $100 Billion every year are 13% more likely to die than those with no insurance at all, and 97% more likely to die than those with private insurance.
Now, ONLY an ideologue would conclude we need more Government in our healthcare when Government run healthcare equates to a 97% more likely to die than those with private insurance.
My old grandmother never went to a hospital. She always said that more people died in the hospital than any where else, and she was correct, most people die in hospitals(mainly because they were sick when they got there, or old). She died of a bleeding ulcer, a condition that is one hundred percent treatable, 30 years before her sister died(who had 4 separate operations to repair such bleeding in those 30 years). Micheal distorts this statistic for his ideological argument. He twists everything for his ideological viewpoint. Micheal needs professional help or the experience of having no money at all. Either would bring down his shaky house of cards.
Grumpy
Grumpy
And you are using blatantly flawed sources and you are ignoring the overwhelming data which shows government funded healthcare works. It's called cherry picking. It's one of the many abuses of logic and reason you so relish. Higher risk groups are going to have higher morbidity. That isn't news, that is why they are high risk. And the higher risk inherent in these groups is the very reason why government pays the healthcare expenses for these groups of individuals (i.e. senior citizens, the disabled, and the poor). And it doesn't mean that somehow government paid healthcare causes poor health outcomes as you assert. We have plenty of evidence which shows government healthcare can have better outcomes than private payment healthcare. And it has been repeatedly shown to you. You just like to ignore it because it is inconsistent with your ideology.
Government paid healthcare works in all wealthy countries and yields better outcomes for all groups and for half the cost. That is the unpleasant reality for folks of your particular ideology. Government healthcare works for our elected officials. It works for government employees. It works for our military. Did your "study" look at those groups or only the high risk groups the government insures. The answer is clear, only the high risk groups. Gee, I wonder why.
And I don't hear anyone covered under Medicaid or Medicare complaining about the care they received. In fact I hear rabid right wingers telling government not to touch their Medicare. Anecdotally, I cared for my aunt in the last years of her life. And the care Medicare provided her was first rate. I cannot imagine her getting any better care had I paid for it out of my own pocket. Anything she needed was covered and provided. Frankly I was surprised by the quality and scope of the care provided to her by Medicare. She also had Tricare Insurance but it was never needed. Medicare covered it all.
Only ideologues ignore data Michael. Only ideologues ignore reason Michael. Only ideologues need to redefine words in the dictionary. Only ideologues need to mislead with misinformation. Only ideologues need to politicize science. And you my friend are an ideological zealot.
Last edited:
You're babbling again Joe. If you have 'plenty' of evidence - then post the evidence.
The study evaluated 893,658 major surgical operations from around the country from 2003 to 2007, and normalized the results for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 background diseases. And concluded: Surgical patients on Government Insurance / Medicaid are 13% more likely to die than those with no insurance at all, and 97% more likely to die than those with private insurance.
As I stated, ONLY an ideologue would conclude we need more Government in our healthcare when Government run healthcare equates to a 97% more likely to die than those with private insurance.
You mean the ones that are dead? Those ones? Sticking your head in the sand, isn't going to change the empirical evidence.
You people simple worship the State just the way Christians worshiped the Catholic Church. Instead of a Pope you have a President. Instead of Bishops you have Senators. Infidels are Traitors. Christendom is now a State. Christians are now State Citizens. But you do like killing Muslim women and children to the tune of $8.5 trillion dollars (and lost). That much seems to have stayed the same. Oh, and you like magic-think. Never mind the empirical evidence is staring you right in the face. Example: $50 billion wasted each year on the Dept of "Education" and we have public schools pumping out functional illiterates - Oooo hooo don't dare suggest closing down this bureaucratic monstrosity. Least you people start jumping up and down and flinging poo just like monkey's in a tree. Nope, much easier to stuff children into Public "Schools" and forget about them.
"I pay me taxes".
You DO understand someone has to PAY for all those "Free" roads you drive on? You DO understand that Americans have lost so much prosperity across the last 60 years it is now nearly impossible for many families to remain in the middle class without BOTH parents working full-time. DO you know how many Americans are working to pay on Bonds for football stadiums that no longer even exist? Those "FREE" stadium - that no longer exist. You DO know that children placed in long-term day care from an early age (the State is so kind it 'subsidizes day 'care' from 6 weeks) grow into adults with body dismorphic disorders because they weren't cuddled enough and their somatosensory cortex never properly developed connections to their forebrains. Many of those same children develop anxiety and other personality disorders due to broken parental bonds. A recent study even showed teenagers cannot recognize facial expressions - their emotional IQ is THAT stunted. Oh, that's OK. just shovel their arses into a Public "School" where they can graduate functionally illiterate and vote like good little Citizens for more "FREE" goodies from their God the State.
So we can all live in your La La Progressive Paradise where you worship the State as your new God and It loves you.
As I said, those "FREE" roads - they cost you much more than you can ever imagine. Take a good god damn look at Detroit, 50 years of unbroken Progressive policies - well, this Show is coming to a city near you.
- End Tax on Labor
- this will end 30 year T-bonds
- this will end End The Fed
- this will end the phony Wars
- and shrink the cancer/State
LOL, no I mean the Tea Party dudes out protesting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/get-your-goddamn-governme_b_252326.html
LOL, yeah you wish it were babbling. You have seen the evidence many times, even in this thread. Reposting it, just to have you pretend it doesn’t exist yet again is pointless.
Yeah, the study you referenced compared apples to oranges. It compared high risk individuals to lower risk individuals. The study found high risk people have higher morbidity rates. That is not surprising. That is not new. Why didn’t your study include all government paid healthcare including lower risk groups like government employees and the military? Because the study was never intended to be a legitimate study, it was intended to advance an ideology – just like all of the other pseudo-science you have introduced here over the years.
As I have said repeatedly over the years, every other wealthy country in the world has some form of government paid healthcare and it is more effective and more efficient and less costly than the pre-Obamacare US healthcare industry.
LOL written like the true ideologue you really are Michael. You just keep ignoring the facts and ignoring reason in order to cling to your ideological notions.
Do you know what the word normalized means? It means the study is comparing APPLES to APPLES.
The study evaluated 893,658 major surgical operations from around the country from 2003 to 2007, and normalized the results for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 background diseases.
I think the real question here is do you know what statistical normalization means. And I think the answer is no. Statistical normalization is mathematical fudge based on a set of assumptions. It is used to account for exogenous data or data that does not fit the norm in order to perfect a normal distribution. But you cannot normalize an orange into an apple. And that is what your pseudo study is doing.
Nor is the conclusion of your pseud¬-study consistent with the many other studies done my many people from many organizations over extended time periods. You know the studies you like to ignore. If your study were legitimate it would have compared comparable risk groups. It didn’t. You cannot normalize incomparable risk groups and reach the conclusions your referenced study did, any more than you can statistically normalize an apple into an orange.
Ad hominem. If you have evidence the authors did not properly conduct their study, then write to the editors and have it retracted.
Red herring.
Red herring.
Ad hominem.
Feel free to post some journal articles.
The study evaluated 893,658 major surgical operations from around the country from 2003 to 2007, and normalized the results for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 background diseases.
Which 'risk' groups where you talking about that exclude: age, gender, income, geographic region, operation as well as 30 background diseases. Go on Joe - do tell.