Keeping on the topic of Health Care (in Debates)


QBRanger September 15 2011 7:42 PM EDT

A new study from Mass:

http://bostonherald.com.nyud.net/news/regional/view/2011_0915report_romneycare_a_killer_study_finds_bay_state_lost_thousands_of_jobs/

Rising costs
Less jobs
Reduced investment

Do we want this for the entire US?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 15 2011 7:58 PM EDT

if a liberal think tank ran something through their computer model, would you accept the results of their data? ; )

Lord Bob September 15 2011 8:02 PM EDT

said Paul Bachman, research director at Suffolk Universityメs Beacon Hill Institute, the conservative think tank that conducted the study.

QBRanger September 15 2011 8:04 PM EDT

Please find me one.

AdminTitan September 15 2011 8:22 PM EDT

liberal think tank

Oxymoron

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 15 2011 8:26 PM EDT

hehe, we do all have one thing in common it seems as i thought the same exact thing when i read it was a conservative think tank! ; )

QBsutekh137 September 15 2011 11:09 PM EDT

Are the facts in the study in dispute?

Who cares who did the study, if you think it is bad, dispute the facts and find other sources.

I've no axe to grind here. Facts are facts.

Are health care costs rising?

As for fewer jobs and whatever "Reduced investment" means, I'd chalk that up to the economy. Gov. Walker opened Wisconsin for business by putting us in a a deficit and we ain't seen crap. That's how things are rolling. *shrug* But if Mass health care costs are really rising, then that's not a good sign, is it?

Duke September 16 2011 4:25 AM EDT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_compared#Cross-country_comparisons


Long live intelligence

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 16 2011 7:26 AM EDT

http://bit.ly/olyUhS

it seems like a rather complicated manner of finding out how it affects the state when the states books should be an open manner.

i could create a computer model that compared my spending and income to everyone else in the county i live in to predict what my bank account balance would be but i would likely do better to just log in to my bank online and check my balance wouldn't i?

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] September 16 2011 4:40 PM EDT


Are the facts in the study in dispute? Who cares who did the study, if you think it is bad, dispute the facts and find other sources.

Oh tell me you didn't.

"The Beacon Hill Institute study found that, on average, Romneycare:
-cost the Bay State 18,313 jobs;
-drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion;
-slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376; and
-reduced investment in Massachusetts by $25.06 million."

Of course the agenda of the studier, the sponsor of the studier, and the reporter of the study matter.

Take the 18,313 jobs. What jobs were cost? What was the definition of "cost" and the definition of "job" and over what period of time and was this expected/intended or a surprise adverse consequence?

If 18,313 heart surgeons are out of work because no one in Massachusetts needs cardiac care, was this the intended outcome? An unexpected outcome? Is it fair to characterize this as a "cost" if each of them formerly performed 5 surgeries a year, and each of those patients was off work and under constant care for 6 months each. That's a net effect of nearly 100,000 x 6 months more productivity x 6 months reduced medical costs. And is this net effect actually a positive for the state?

The (let us say entirely indisputable) fact that there are 18,313 fewer heart surgeons working may be the most fabulous endorsement of Romneycare ever!

Or "-slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376". What if the entire thing was paid for by dropping the disposable income of the people who had +$10 million in disposable income that was growing at a rate of 80% down to a growth rate of 5%? It is disingenuous but not factually inaccurate to average the drop across the entire population of the state and make it look like those who were disposing of every last cent of their $25k per year now have $376 less to spend on school supplies at Walmart.

"-drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion" Any word on whether that drive was shorter than it otherwise would have been? If the total insurance costs in Massachusetts was slated to go up by $10.75 billion, then Romneycare driving up costs by $4.311 billion is a bargain! (more likely question: When total health insurance costs went up by $4.311 billion, did the 20-year-future-cost of medical care for the newly insured go down by $100 billion?)

Pointing out all the costs while ignoring the benefits is a pretty important bias to recognize in the studier, the study and the spin attached to it upon reporting. Facts are only facts when not analyzed by someone with an axe to grind.

QBRanger September 16 2011 4:55 PM EDT

When the government states there was a loss of 100k jobs in a month or a gain of 100k jobs in a month, what type of jobs are they typing about?

100k heart surgeons? Of course not.

Common sense.

Phoenix [The Forgehood] September 16 2011 5:03 PM EDT

Good thing it's not the government doing the survey then huh?
As for something else about news: don't assume things. If the headline was that a teen killed someone after playing a violent video game, do you just assume the video game is the cause? Why can't we say that the teen killed someone after brushing his teeth? Let's all not brush our teeth! Obviously it triggered a violent response!

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 16 2011 5:04 PM EDT

so the computer model figured the cost based on increase in premiums and then converted that dollar amount into jobs lost, am i understanding the methodology correctly?

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] September 16 2011 5:14 PM EDT

Facts are only facts when not analyzed by someone with an axe to grind.

AND: and read by someone capable of understanding them. (see: The world owes us almost as much as we owe it!)

Self-editing!

Lochnivar September 16 2011 5:15 PM EDT

When the government states there was a loss of 100k jobs in a month or a gain of 100k jobs in a month, what type of jobs are they typing about?

100k heart surgeons? Of course not.

Common sense.

Do you deliberately attempt misinterpret statements?
That response has nothing to do with the point Bast was making.

QBRanger September 16 2011 5:21 PM EDT

Of course it was Loch. Re-read Bast's pontification.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 16 2011 5:27 PM EDT

i take her point as being that they never define "jobs". they could be using the standard government definition but by leaving out that part in their methodology we can never know.

the real question is why do they omit that definition as well as many others in their methodology report? why bother having your methodology listed if you aren't going to actually describe the methodology?

can anyone answer my above question?

QBRanger September 16 2011 5:37 PM EDT

What is the governments exact definition of job?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 16 2011 5:38 PM EDT

i thought you knew?

When the government states there was a loss of 100k jobs in a month or a gain of 100k jobs in a month, what type of jobs are they typing about?

100k heart surgeons? Of course not.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] September 16 2011 5:40 PM EDT


Point: "Who cares who did the study ... Facts are facts." is batguanocrazytalk! [full stop]

QBsutekh137 September 16 2011 5:50 PM EDT

Bast,

Oh tell me you didn't.

Tell you I didn't what? If it got you to post, whatever I did was good. *smile*

No, I didn't read the article. But my post still stands. I just didn't realize there wasn't a single "fact" in the dang thing. Thanks for pointing that out. I figured the only thing that could be remotely "factual" (but then have the Hell skewed out of it anyway) was rising costs:

-- I don't care about jobs figures. What if a reduction in cost to health care DOES eventually mean a loss in jobs? How long are we going to "broken window fallacy" this jobs things. Just MORE jobs does not mean a better economic situation. So yeah, I don't care if it was heart surgeons or not. Without defining jobs, there is no fact to even assess, only spin.
-- Cost figures only matter in the very real ways Bast points out. Just throwing out an absolute number is meaningless. We need comparisons, derivatives, and projections for it to have substance.

This is good. Now I know I don't even need to read the damn thing.

Thanks, Bast. Have a fab weekend. *wink*

QBsutekh137 September 16 2011 5:52 PM EDT

Ranger, (in regards to finding an alternate study):

Please find me one.

No studies at all are better than a single biased one. Come on, you should know that as a physician. If you are diagnosing a patient, would you rather have no test results to augment your work-up, or a set of biased/unsubstantiated/vague results?

Why would you expect any less from your news/studies?

Lochnivar September 16 2011 5:54 PM EDT

Of course it was Loch. Re-read Bast's pontification.

Yeah, I actually didn't have any trouble following that particular point (or points, as was actually the case).

Point 1: No definition of 'jobs'. (which is kind of relevant)

Point 2: What if the jobs lost were supposed to be lost?
It would be like criticizing the Predator drone program because combat pilot jobs are being lost. Removing those jobs was the entire point of the exercise.

The point was not that it the losses were heart surgeons... nor was there an implicit assertion that the job loss was good, simply the acknowledgement that the data cannot definitively support the conclusions as it is presented.

QBsutekh137 September 16 2011 6:00 PM EDT

Point: "Who cares who did the study ... Facts are facts." is batguanocrazytalk!

Don't be ridiculous. If the piece had facts in it, any at all (which it apparently doesn't), why would it matter where it came from?

If Michelle Bachmann says acceleration due to gravity on planet earth is 9.8 m/s^2, or that pi is approximately 3.1514926535897932385, are you going to automatically think those statements are false because she is a crazy-headed whack from the wonderful state of Minnesota?

Sure, perhaps I shouldn't be so glib with my statements considering almost no study is unbiased these days (and I probably could have guessed at its lack of substance), but I was being no more blase than folks who were simply pointing at the source of the article and calling shenanigans immediately (without any details, either). Isn't that just as flying-mammal-waste insane?

Odd that I've bee involved in debate threads here now for a few weeks, yet it takes an apparent dress-down-opportunity for you to come out and say "hi" on one.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] September 16 2011 6:12 PM EDT


I've been busy, dahling -- government health care is booming business.

Lochnivar September 16 2011 6:21 PM EDT

Sure, perhaps I shouldn't be so glib with my statements considering almost no study is unbiased these days (and I probably could have guessed at its lack of substance), but I was being no more blase than folks who were simply pointing at the source of the article and calling shenanigans immediately (without any details, either). Isn't that just as flying-mammal-waste insane?

Personally I grow tired of the spurious association between bats, their bowel movements, and insanity... I have not seen any support for this assertion and frankly feel it is biased.

QBsutekh137 September 16 2011 10:33 PM EDT

Personally I grow tired of the spurious association between bats, their bowel movements, and insanity... I have not seen any support for this assertion and frankly feel it is biased.

Then let me be the first to set the record straight in the most straightforward, mature way possible.

She started it.

DERPA [Red Permanent Assurance] September 17 2011 12:15 AM EDT

I agree with Loch. Guano can at least hold water.
The expression evolved from bats in the belfry to my understanding.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003Dms">Keeping on the topic of Health Care</a>