No there isn't. It's in the same budget. What do you believe is in the R &D budget? Salaries, adminstrative costs, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Stop cherry-picking.
There is only one thing to say here
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
No there isn't. It's in the same budget. What do you believe is in the R &D budget? Salaries, adminstrative costs, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Stop cherry-picking.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Darla... never mind... it is quite obvious why the CBO says that. They are including Medicare costs, Medicaid Costs and Social security costs as a part of healthcare spending. So yes, the total is not going to be high in relation to those monsters.
However, what they FAIL to address is the fact that higher medical costs are a part of Medicare and Medicaid. If you can REDUCE the costs of the care, the costs of those programs will adjust as well (at least on a per person basis). Now look at their conclusion... they said that if you cap tort claims, malpractice claims go down as does the malpractice insurance. They did not follow through on whether the hospitals/doctors in turn lowered their charges.
So tell me again how it wouldn't have an effect on healthcare spending.
However, what they FAIL to address is the fact that higher medical costs are a part of Medicare and Medicaid. If you can REDUCE the costs of the care, the costs of those programs will adjust as well (at least on a per person basis). Now look at their conclusion... they said that if you cap tort claims, malpractice claims go down as does the malpractice insurance. They did not follow through on whether the hospitals/doctors in turn lowered their charges.
So tell me again how it wouldn't have an effect on healthcare spending.
They're staffed by professional, trained civil servants who get their funding from both democratic politicians and republican politicians. so, call them "bi-partisan" if you prefer to nitpick.
They are required by law, to provide policy makers with accurate, non-partisan analyses and information. When you get hired by Cato, you are expected to promote a specific agenda. That's what you're paid to do.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"to the extent that any research group can be trusted to do analytical reports without an agenda, it would be non-profit, non-partisan groups. CBO, IPCC, Center for Disease Control, National Science Foundation, WHO, etc. "
I agree... which is why I insist on reading the reports and crunching the numbers (when applicable). The CBO while unbiased is also not a great source due to their tendency to generalize. Out of your list the CDC and NSF I trust the most... because they tend to have experts and not the average joe from their industries working there.
T"he reports you dig up from CATO, or I dig up from Moveon.org, are going to be biased. They're going to have an agenda. They will cherry pick facts to fit that agenda. "
I seriously doubt that I have ever used a report from CATO or any other partisan site as the primary source of info for an argument. I agree that they will have an agenda.
Tell me this.... IF you were to cap tort claims that resulted in a reduction of claims and reduction in malpractice premiums.... followed that with a reduction in hospital costs which in turn resulted in lower premiums for individuals.... HOW is that not good for
1) the individual
2) the doctor
3) Government programs like Medicare and Medicaid
I agree... which is why I insist on reading the reports and crunching the numbers (when applicable). The CBO while unbiased is also not a great source due to their tendency to generalize. Out of your list the CDC and NSF I trust the most... because they tend to have experts and not the average joe from their industries working there.
T"he reports you dig up from CATO, or I dig up from Moveon.org, are going to be biased. They're going to have an agenda. They will cherry pick facts to fit that agenda. "
I seriously doubt that I have ever used a report from CATO or any other partisan site as the primary source of info for an argument. I agree that they will have an agenda.
Tell me this.... IF you were to cap tort claims that resulted in a reduction of claims and reduction in malpractice premiums.... followed that with a reduction in hospital costs which in turn resulted in lower premiums for individuals.... HOW is that not good for
1) the individual
2) the doctor
3) Government programs like Medicare and Medicaid
LOL
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"No there isn't. It's in the same budget. What do you believe is in the R &D budget? Salaries, adminstrative costs, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Stop cherry-picking."
MARKETING includes it all. ADVERTISING does not. There is a difference Darla. If you are truly in marketing and do not understand this, then your boss is an idiot for hiring you.
MARKETING includes it all. ADVERTISING does not. There is a difference Darla. If you are truly in marketing and do not understand this, then your boss is an idiot for hiring you.
Look what happens to people when their religious beliefs are called into question by a non-partisan source.
They start acting like they're smarter than the CBO, but what's funnier is, they expect me to believe it.
Sorry SF, the CBO concludes that less than 2 percent of health care spending is affected by malpractice. I'm not interested in Superfreak's conclusion. I'm going to stick with theirs.
Stop being a shithead. What difference does it make if I call it the advertising budget or the marketing budget? There is no workable diff between the two, they are the same damned budget.
Now, tell me again how the R & D budget doesn't include the same kinds of costs that are included in the marketing budget, for instance you mentioned the sales force, and that would be personnel. So personnel is not included in the R & D budget, right? lol
Tell me this.... IF you were to cap tort claims that resulted in a reduction of claims and reduction in malpractice premiums.... followed that with a reduction in hospital costs which in turn resulted in lower premiums for individuals.... HOW is that not good for
I've never said I was against any form of tort reform. I'm against arbitrary caps, because it's simply a political trojan horse desinged to weaken an important constiuency of the democratic party. Lawyers, and consumer advocacy groups. It's not intended as an effective policy solution.
I'm not averse to listening to other ideas on tort reform. Like stiffer sanctions and penalties on lawyers who repeatedly bring demonstrably frivilous and bogus law suits before the court.
Because I believe in good, pragmatic policy. Not arbitrary caps, for political reasons.
Litmus
Verified User
Look what happens to people when their religious beliefs are called into question by a non-partisan source.
They start acting like they're smarter than the CBO, but what's funnier is, they expect me to believe it.
Sorry SF, the CBO concludes that less than 2 percent of health care spending is affected by malpractice. I'm not interested in Superfreak's conclusion. I'm going to stick with theirs.
Darla, if you believe that the tortous malfeasance of lawyers only inflates costs by 2%, you're living in a dreamland.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"Look what happens to people when their religious beliefs are called into question by a non-partisan source."
Are you really that ignorant? You can say I have "relgious beliefs" all you want. Whatever the fuck that means.
"They start acting like they're smarter than the CBO, but what's funnier is, they expect me to believe it."
1) I will put up my education against anyone at the CBO when it comes to economics and finance.
2) The CBO is made up of individuals... they are not the best and the brightest in their fields. So why the fuck would I take a report from them as "fact".... especially when (as I already pointed out) they tend to generalize.
"Sorry SF, the CBO concludes that less than 2 percent of health care spending is affected by malpractice. I'm not interested in Superfreak's conclusion. I'm going to stick with theirs."
Because you are too incompetent to think for yourself. Their numbers don't add up, but because they are the CBO they must be right????
Are you really that ignorant? You can say I have "relgious beliefs" all you want. Whatever the fuck that means.
"They start acting like they're smarter than the CBO, but what's funnier is, they expect me to believe it."
1) I will put up my education against anyone at the CBO when it comes to economics and finance.
2) The CBO is made up of individuals... they are not the best and the brightest in their fields. So why the fuck would I take a report from them as "fact".... especially when (as I already pointed out) they tend to generalize.
"Sorry SF, the CBO concludes that less than 2 percent of health care spending is affected by malpractice. I'm not interested in Superfreak's conclusion. I'm going to stick with theirs."
Because you are too incompetent to think for yourself. Their numbers don't add up, but because they are the CBO they must be right????
Oh, you have me confused with SF.
I'm not a religious person. I don't "believe" anything.
I am simply aquatinted with facts. That's what the CBO has concluded. As far as I know, they are not religious either.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"Stop being a shithead. What difference does it make if I call it the advertising budget or the marketing budget? There is no workable diff between the two, they are the same damned budget."
Yes, there is moron. The advertising budget is a PART of the overall marketing budget.
That would be like my saying "drug testing costs" are the same as the R&D costs. The drug testing costs are a PART of the R&D. Just as advertising is a part of the Marketing.
"Now, tell me again how the R & D budget doesn't include the same kinds of costs that are included in the marketing budget, for instance you mentioned the sales force, and that would be personnel. So personnel is not included in the R & D budget, right? lol"
Again moron... MARKETING and R&D are similar. Advertising and Drug testing are similar. Advertising and R&D are NOT.
Yes, there is moron. The advertising budget is a PART of the overall marketing budget.
That would be like my saying "drug testing costs" are the same as the R&D costs. The drug testing costs are a PART of the R&D. Just as advertising is a part of the Marketing.
"Now, tell me again how the R & D budget doesn't include the same kinds of costs that are included in the marketing budget, for instance you mentioned the sales force, and that would be personnel. So personnel is not included in the R & D budget, right? lol"
Again moron... MARKETING and R&D are similar. Advertising and Drug testing are similar. Advertising and R&D are NOT.
Hmmm.
The CBO or Superfreak?
Well, it's a tough one. And if you had Topspin, another anonymous poster whose entire "resume" could be invented, here to back you up, it would be an even closer call.
But I'll still go with the CBO.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"I am simply aquatinted with facts. That's what the CBO has concluded. As far as I know, they are not religious either."
Except for you have yet to show where the CBO facts are.... Because in the 80 page CBO report that I pulled up, they do not reach that conclusion.
Except for you have yet to show where the CBO facts are.... Because in the 80 page CBO report that I pulled up, they do not reach that conclusion.
Sorry S-freak. An entire staff of trained, non-partisan CBO accountants and economists probably spent months doing this analysis. For you to claim you read, digested, and analyzed the entire report, and debunked it in a five minute timespan, is simply not a credible claim. You may have cherrypicked a few facts that may look "suspicious" to you, but you really can't claim to have done a credible analysis.
Even a CATO researcher, attempting to debunk the CBO report, would have spent at least a few days reading it, and digesting ALL the details and context, before coming to any conclusions.
Even a CATO researcher, attempting to debunk the CBO report, would have spent at least a few days reading it, and digesting ALL the details and context, before coming to any conclusions.
bolded
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=4968&type=0&sequence=0
From the CBO DARLA....
Note... they state that Malpractice COSTS are about 2% of all healthcare spending. (again, they include Social security, Medicare and Medicaid). They DO NOT SAY that malpractice costs EFFECT 2% of all healthcare spending.
Side note... why are they including social security costs?
Also note... the very first chart showing the drastic escalation in malpractice premiums... which funny thing... coincided with drastic increases in individual insurance premiums.... I wonder why????
From the CBO DARLA....
Note... they state that Malpractice COSTS are about 2% of all healthcare spending. (again, they include Social security, Medicare and Medicaid). They DO NOT SAY that malpractice costs EFFECT 2% of all healthcare spending.
Side note... why are they including social security costs?
Also note... the very first chart showing the drastic escalation in malpractice premiums... which funny thing... coincided with drastic increases in individual insurance premiums.... I wonder why????
So, since lawsuits are only 2% of the cost of medical services, how much is the insurance that doctors must buy? How much has that increased because of lawsuits? Does the CBO address that or is it a dispassionate direct "this number is 2% of medical expenses" when dealing only with lawsuits?
I'm sure SF will find out this information, but I thought to ask the questions.
Also, how many extra tests do the insurance companies pay for because of fear of lawsuits raising their insurance costs? How often have the best doctors left a profession (like OBGYN) with high percentages of lawsuits because of the insurance costs?
Is the only cost of lawsuits monetary? It is my opinion that it is not solely the direct monetary cost that need concern us, although that is indeed reflected in your healthcare costs.
I'm sure SF will find out this information, but I thought to ask the questions.
Also, how many extra tests do the insurance companies pay for because of fear of lawsuits raising their insurance costs? How often have the best doctors left a profession (like OBGYN) with high percentages of lawsuits because of the insurance costs?
Is the only cost of lawsuits monetary? It is my opinion that it is not solely the direct monetary cost that need concern us, although that is indeed reflected in your healthcare costs.