Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (16083)	4/4/2010 10:05:08 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Since most would analyze the conditions and reach the opposite conclusion you do, it remains your burden to convince the rest of us with some solid evidence. There isn't any evidence. No one keeps that kind of records. We do know by anecdote that some people die sooner than they needed to because they don't have or won't spend the money to pay for some treatment that would probably extend their lives and have no insurer to pay it for them. We also know by anecdote that some people die sooner than they needed because they had some treatment that killed or seriously harmed them that they would not have gotten had they not had insurance coverage to pay for it. We don't know how many of each there are so we can't determine the net. There is simply no way to claim that covering more people will save lives. Or that it won't. Now Tim has stated that he thinks the latter is more likely and he offered his reasoning. You, OTOH, made an stark, absolute claim. "15,000 without insurance will die," you said. Not only are you claiming that lives will absolutely be saved, you claimed a specific number, and you did so without offering either evidence or rationale. I submit that the burden is on you. Evidence or rationale. Pick one or both. Otherwise, you aren't even in competition for winning the argument.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (16083)	4/5/2010 11:13:31 AM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Respond to of 42652

The burden is on whoever making the assertion. My only solid belief is that the net number of people who die earlier (or net average amount of time they die earlier or later, or impact on life expectancy, however you want to phrase it) is highly uncertain, and unlikely to be really massive in either direction. Your the one trying to justify the change with a specific, and fairly large number. I would submit its your burden to provide solid evidence. My point is that such evidence is impossible. There is no way for us to know for sure. But we can examine possible mechanism that work in each direction. Possible net lengthening of life 1 - Well assuming the program does greatly increase insurance coverage (which isn't a safe bet, but I'll go with it for now), someone may receive treatment he wouldn't have received (or may receive quicker or better treatment) which can extend life. Possible shortening 1 - Receiving the treatment may kill. (This factor would likely be smaller, possibly much smaller than #1 on the other side, just because people get killed by medical mistakes, or even properly done treatment that has risks or side effects, doesn't mean more treatment generally leads to more deaths.) 2 - All the extra spending for this program, requires tax income to pay for it, the extra taxes have the effect of leaving people with less money to spend the way they want to, which can harm the economy over time slowing economic growth, and eventually having a negative health effect (not likely making out health worse, but rather slowing the improvements in our health). 3 - All the extra spending harms our fiscal situation, which can eventually harm our economy, which can lead to the same effect in number 2. 4 - The tax increases include taxes on investments, which are more likely to harm the economy over time than taxes on ordinary income or consumption. 5 - The cost containment efforts (assuming they ever actually go through), could increase wait times, and otherwise impact on medical services. 6 - The tax on medical devices will make them more expensive, which at the margin can reduce their use, negatively impacting on health, it also might result in less investment in innovation in medical devices, which will reduce health improvements over time.