The US Healthcare Mass Debate

[Joe]

Well, if it's been discussed so much, why don't link to the discussion here, instead of an opinion piece written by an think tank ideologue? I suspect it because the crew here ripped your post a new asshole.

Why wouldn't I delve back into previous threads and link to previous discussions, really?

Those numbers in the "think tank ideologue's" writings are not controversial. However, if you dispute them in substance, then feel free to set out the demographics of the 46 or so million uninsured in and around 2010. Are you suggesting that "the crew" would set me straight, and show that the vast majority of the 46 million were poor people who simply made too much money for Medicaid, but were nevertheless unable to afford insurance?

Really Forty Two, why wouldn't you? After all, you're the one claiming "we've been over it many times before." If you have such good arguments, point at them. What I've seen from you so far is regurgitated pap from the jabbering classes and no sign that you've done any legwork on your own.

As for Pipes, I have no beef with her numbers, but opinion pieces are poor sources in general, and this one doesn't support your numbers. When you wrote

The main problem was that 30,000,000 million people who didn't have health insurance were nevertheless making incomes above the median income level in the country, but opting not to buy insurance with their money (using it for something else). Half of the reamining 10,000,000 were illegal aliens.

Where did you get your numbers?

[Scot Dutchy]

Like where the American Statistic Office and Trump gets theirs; a bit of thumb sucking and hand waving. They have not got a clue.

[Joe]

I'm sure our friend will find them somewhere....

[Scot Dutchy]

Well he has as much chance looking there as any where else.

[Forty Two]

Well, if it's been discussed so much, why don't link to the discussion here, instead of an opinion piece written by an think tank ideologue? I suspect it because the crew here ripped your post a new asshole.

Why wouldn't I delve back into previous threads and link to previous discussions, really?

Those numbers in the "think tank ideologue's" writings are not controversial. However, if you dispute them in substance, then feel free to set out the demographics of the 46 or so million uninsured in and around 2010. Are you suggesting that "the crew" would set me straight, and show that the vast majority of the 46 million were poor people who simply made too much money for Medicaid, but were nevertheless unable to afford insurance?

Really Forty Two, why wouldn't you? After all, you're the one claiming "we've been over it many times before." If you have such good arguments, point at them. What I've seen from you so far is regurgitated pap from the jabbering classes and no sign that you've done any legwork on your own.

As for Pipes, I have no beef with her numbers, but opinion pieces are poor sources in general, and this one doesn't support your numbers. When you wrote

The main problem was that 30,000,000 million people who didn't have health insurance were nevertheless making incomes above the median income level in the country, but opting not to buy insurance with their money (using it for something else). Half of the reamining 10,000,000 were illegal aliens.

Where did you get your numbers?

The sources of those numbers are from the Sally Pipes papers/writings that have been cited previously, and she draws her numbers from government sources - the census numbers and other data. They're not controversial.

[Scot Dutchy]

They are not the truth either.

[Joe]

Well, if it's been discussed so much, why don't link to the discussion here, instead of an opinion piece written by an think tank ideologue? I suspect it because the crew here ripped your post a new asshole.

Why wouldn't I delve back into previous threads and link to previous discussions, really?

Those numbers in the "think tank ideologue's" writings are not controversial. However, if you dispute them in substance, then feel free to set out the demographics of the 46 or so million uninsured in and around 2010. Are you suggesting that "the crew" would set me straight, and show that the vast majority of the 46 million were poor people who simply made too much money for Medicaid, but were nevertheless unable to afford insurance?

Really Forty Two, why wouldn't you? After all, you're the one claiming "we've been over it many times before." If you have such good arguments, point at them. What I've seen from you so far is regurgitated pap from the jabbering classes and no sign that you've done any legwork on your own.

As for Pipes, I have no beef with her numbers, but opinion pieces are poor sources in general, and this one doesn't support your numbers. When you wrote

The main problem was that 30,000,000 million people who didn't have health insurance were nevertheless making incomes above the median income level in the country, but opting not to buy insurance with their money (using it for something else). Half of the reamining 10,000,000 were illegal aliens.

Where did you get your numbers?

The sources of those numbers are from the Sally Pipes papers/writings that have been cited previously, and she draws her numbers from government sources - the census numbers and other data. They're not controversial.

You really ought to read your own sources Forty Two. The Wall Street Journal article you cited says:

The Census reports that 9.5 million of them, about 19%, have household incomes over $75,000. In other words, a fifth of the uninsured make at least 50% more than the median American. They can afford to purchase a plan but have chosen not to.

Another 8.8 million uninsured make between $50,000 and $75,000. Paying for coverage might be more of a stretch for these folks, but they still have incomes higher than the majority of Americans.

9.5 million plus 8.8 million isn't 30 million.

And the Washington Examiner article says:

"The Census states that 46.3 million Americans were uninsured at some point in 2008. Yet, 17.8 million of the uninsured earn more than $50,000 annually. It's likely that many of them -- particularly the 9.7 million that make more than $75,000 a year -- have chosen to forego coverage."

Still not 30 million.

Also,Pipes wrote:

Another 9.7 million of the uninsured are noncitizens, both legal and illegal immigrants.

Where do you come up with half? Where did Pipes write that?

[Scot Dutchy]

These are not facts. They are based on biased surveys. How is it known how many illegals there are? They are illegals!

[Joe]

Yeah, so how does Forty Two know how many of the uninsured are illegal immigrants? Pipes doesn't say.

I will be interested to see his source, if he didn't just make it up.

[Scot Dutchy]

Well that's the trouble in America. Data is very dodgy. Nothing is properly recorded. There is no consistency. A state does its own thing. I do have personal experience. I worked on behalf of the Dutch Ministry of Transport compiling American road accident data. The definition of road accident varies so much and how it is recorded by the police is unbelievably complicated.
All states are like independent countries.

[Joe]

Yeah, I work with Colorado health data, and it makes me nuts. To make matters worse, much of the data originates in the counties, and the the IT resources, capabilities, and processes vary wildly between them. The urban counties do okay, but the rural ones are challenged, and the frontier counties are often total basket cases, in spite of heroic efforts by their data people. To give you a sense of the problem, of 64 counties, 24 are rural, 23 are frontier.

The federal data Forty Two might be talking about is better, but you still need to read the footnotes to be sure of what you're getting.

It really is a mess.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Yeah, so how does Forty Two know how many of the uninsured are illegal immigrants? Pipes doesn't say.

I will be interested to see his source, if he didn't just make it up.

I've questioned similar claims in the past as you know, and got bupkis in the way of substantiation. Maybe you'll have better luck.

[Joe]

Yeah, so how does Forty Two know how many of the uninsured are illegal immigrants? Pipes doesn't say.

I will be interested to see his source, if he didn't just make it up.

I've questioned similar claims in the past as you know, and got bupkis in the way of substantiation. Maybe you'll have better luck.

Well, if he can't substantiate his numbers, they are probably bullshit and will be treated as such.

It's his credibility, after all.

[Scot Dutchy]

Yeah, I work with Colorado health data, and it makes me nuts. To make matters worse, much of the data originates in the counties, and the the IT resources, capabilities, and processes vary wildly between them. The urban counties do okay, but the rural ones are challenged, and the frontier counties are often total basket cases, in spite of heroic efforts by their data people. To give you a sense of the problem, of 64 counties, 24 are rural, 23 are frontier.

The federal data Forty Two might be talking about is better, but you still need to read the footnotes to be sure of what you're getting.

It really is a mess.

That is why i never trust Federal Data. It is based on State data which has been shoe horned. I can totally understand Joe. It was very frustrating plus the distance and time it took to get data which was often old and of not much use.
How does the planning process work? It must be a nightmare.

[Joe]

From a data standpoint, they work with what they have, knowing it isn't entirely accurate but hoping it's close enough for policy making. The state government departments I've worked with tend to rely on the businesses they regulate for expertise and better data. The problem with that is that key individuals get a lot of influence over their decision making.

It's a recipe for corruption and regulatory capture. It can work, but there have been disasters as well.

The Feds I've seen are higher caliber people, and have better data, but suffer the same problems on a grander scale because the US is a really big country. Heck, Colorado is a fair sized country all by itself.