There is only one thing to say here

Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

His reaction is not rational, and he expects everyone to jump on board with his irrational conclusions.

This to me, is the same as religious fervor, and I'm pretty much done with it.

As I said, the idea that some guy on the internet is going to debunk the CBO and I'm going to disregard the CBO because of it, is ludicrous on its face.

On the bright side, I still did get that laugh, which started this thread. It was about falwell, you know!
 
CBO Analytical Summary:


"In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency. Thus, choices about specific proposals may hinge more on their implications for equity--in particular, on their effects on health care providers, patients injured through malpractice, and users of the health care system in general."




I'm going with the professional, non-partisan analysis that a staff of professional CBO economists did over a period of months....rather than what CATO or any anonymous message board poster says ;)
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you believe those conclusions. Why is everything always a word game with you people? And I mean people in the most derogatory sense.:cool:
 
Cypress said:
CBO Analytical Summary:


"In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency. Thus, choices about specific proposals may hinge more on their implications for equity--in particular, on their effects on health care providers, patients injured through malpractice, and users of the health care system in general."




I'm going with the professional, non-partisan analysis that a staff of professional CBO economists did over a period of months....rather than what CATO or any anonymous message board poster says ;)
Click to expand...

But that's not what he believes. And it's impossible to deal with someone who is so highly invested in what they believe. That is an ideologue, and it's exactly why we are in Iraq today. Facts don't matter, only what they "believe".

So there's no point in arguing with them. If I'm not mistaken he did the same thing with another non-partisan report that he didn't like, not long ago. He is going to believe what he believes, just as, neocons "believed" we were going to be greeted with candy. No one can tell them differently.

You can call it ideology, which it is, but I believe you can also call it a religion, because the reactions to disputing facts are very similar. Evolution can't be true, I don't believe it.
 
Darla....

Marketing is a department.... advertising is a PART of that department. They are "in" the same budget because again advertising is a PART of marketing. Similar to how drug testing is a PART of R&D.

"Marketing and R &D are not similar, and are not included in the same budget. And you are avoidinig the question, because the answer shows the sleight of hand you attempted to pull. Making a big deal of the fact that the sales force would be included in the marketinig budget, acting as if the R &D budget exempts personnel and adminstrative costs."

1) Marketing and R&D ARE indeed similar. They are similar in they are two seperate budgets. OF course they are not included in the same one.

2) Advertising and drug testing are a PART of those two budgets respectively.

3) I NEVER said R&D excluded those. YOU implied that I did. I said that you cannot call all marketing "advertising" because it is not. The same as you could not call all R&D expenses "drug testing" because they are not.

4) how hard is it for you to realize that ADVERTISING is only a PORTION of the marketing budget? Go to your boss and ask if your entire marketing budget is spent on advertising. See what she/he says.
 
"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?"

Damo...

fyi...

The 2% number is a total of healthcare spending... in which they include the governments spending on medicare, medicaid and social security. They also do not distinguish what they mean by malpractice "costs"... are they talking about malpractice premiums AND the costs to the insurance companies or just the premiums? I assume they mean both... but it is vague shit like this that annoys me about CBO reports.
 
Darla said:
But that's not what he believes. And it's impossible to deal with someone who is so highly invested in what they believe. That is an ideologue, and it's exactly why we are in Iraq today. Facts don't matter, only what they "believe".

So there's no point in arguing with them. If I'm not mistaken he did the same thing with another non-partisan report that he didn't like, not long ago. He is going to believe what he believes, just as, neocons "believed" we were going to be greeted with candy. No one can tell them differently.

You can call it ideology, which it is, but I believe you can also call it a religion, because the reactions to disputing facts are very similar. Evolution can't be true, I don't believe it.
Click to expand...


Bingo. I told you already: Rightwingers developed their own agenda-driven partisan think tanks to create their own reports and "facts", because commonly the facts that actually came from non-partisan sources didn't support a lot of their ideology.

As for me? When I post on message boards, I try to use only non-partisan sources, and mainstream media sources. I try to stay away from agenda-driven sources. Generally. Because, as you suggest, FACTS matter. If you don't have the (non-partisan) facts on your side, you better start evaluating if there's something wrong with your ideology. ;)
 
Superfreak said:
Darla....

Marketing is a department.... advertising is a PART of that department. They are "in" the same budget because again advertising is a PART of marketing. Similar to how drug testing is a PART of R&D.

"Marketing and R &D are not similar, and are not included in the same budget. And you are avoidinig the question, because the answer shows the sleight of hand you attempted to pull. Making a big deal of the fact that the sales force would be included in the marketinig budget, acting as if the R &D budget exempts personnel and adminstrative costs."

1) Marketing and R&D ARE indeed similar. They are similar in they are two seperate budgets. OF course they are not included in the same one.

2) Advertising and drug testing are a PART of those two budgets respectively.

3) I NEVER said R&D excluded those. YOU implied that I did. I said that you cannot call all marketing "advertising" because it is not. The same as you could not call all R&D expenses "drug testing" because they are not.

4) how hard is it for you to realize that ADVERTISING is only a PORTION of the marketing budget? Go to your boss and ask if your entire marketing budget is spent on advertising. See what she/he says.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that advertising is not a part of marketing? And so marketing is a part of advertising. They are interconnected to the point that you cannot be in advertising without being in marketing and vs vsa. The day I need a lecture from YOU in advertising and marketing will be a cold day in hell buddy. YOu have a real superiority complex.

And your statement that R & D is "like marketing" is flat out stupid. R & D develops the product, they don't market it. That's why they're not in the same budget.

You did imply that personnel was in the marketing budget but not in the R & D budget because you LOL'd at the sales force expense, without ever LOL'D at the personnel expense inherent in the R &D budget, nor even mentioning it.

Now, I am done with this thread SF because you are seriously getting on my fucking nerves with your arrogant attitude on it. And for the most part, I like you. And I'd like to keep it that way.
 
Cypress said:
Bingo. I told you already: Rightwingers developed their own agenda-driven partisan think tanks to create their own reports and "facts", because commonly the facts that actually came from non-partisan sources didn't support a lot of their ideology.

As for me? When I post on message boards, I try to use only non-partisan sources, and mainstream media sources. I try to stay away from agenda-driven sources. Generally. Because, as you suggest, FACTS matter. If you don't have the (non-partisan) facts on your side, you better start evaluating if there's something wrong with your ideology. ;)
Click to expand...

That's why I consider you doable Cypress. ;)

lol
 
Darla,

This is also why you see rightwing ideologues desparately trying to dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, from the U.S. National Academy of Science, and the International Panel on Climate Change, etc.

The facts don't matter. Non-partisan consensus is to be dismissed ( if it doesn't support one's preconcieved notions). Ideology is a religion. Which you've pretty much stated; I'm just agreeing.
 
"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. "

I did not say I debunked it. I said it is not saying what Darla is claiming it does. It also does not include any reasoning for the inclusion of social security costs as a part of total healthcare costs. WHY?

Also, they are looking at malpractice costs as a total of spending. They did not (at least not that I have found) do a study that shows the effect of reduction in malpractice costs on Medicare spending, Medicaid spending and individual insurance premiums. They state that because total malpractice costs are such a small percent of healthcare spending that a reduction in them won't have a significant effect.
 
"And so marketing is a part of advertising. They are interconnected to the point that you cannot be in advertising without being in marketing and vs vsa. "

This is where you are confused. Marketing is NOT a part of advertising. Your sales force is a part of marketing... it is not a part of advertising.
 
"And your statement that R & D is "like marketing" is flat out stupid. R & D develops the product, they don't market it. That's why they're not in the same budget.:

They are SIMILAR in that they are top line.... they are the major spending groups. They are not a part of a budget... they are the budget for their respective departments you fucking idiot.
 
Superfreak said:
"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. "

I did not say I debunked it. I said it is not saying what Darla is claiming it does. It also does not include any reasoning for the inclusion of social security costs as a part of total healthcare costs. WHY?

Also, they are looking at malpractice costs as a total of spending. They did not (at least not that I have found) do a study that shows the effect of reduction in malpractice costs on Medicare spending, Medicaid spending and individual insurance premiums. They state that because total malpractice costs are such a small percent of healthcare spending that a reduction in them won't have a significant effect.
Click to expand...


Sfreak, I can understand why you're trying to spin this. I don't know exactly what the discussion was between you and Darla, nor the exact words that were used.

The only thing that matters to me, is that the most credible, non-partisan source that is available to us citizens, says that medical malpractice suits and tort "reform" liability caps have virtually no overall affect on the costs associated with my healthcare.
 
"You did imply that personnel was in the marketing budget but not in the R & D budget because you LOL'd at the sales force expense, without ever LOL'D at the personnel expense inherent in the R &D budget, nor even mentioning it."

Go back and read it again... I laughed that you included it in ADVERTISING. The fact that you think marketing and advertising are interchangable is what was amusing.

"Now, I am done with this thread SF because you are seriously getting on my fucking nerves with your arrogant attitude on it. And for the most part, I like you. And I'd like to keep it that way."

I like you as well, so I don't want this topic to change that. But I am right. :D
 
"Sfreak, I can understand why you're trying to spin this. I don't know exactly what the discussion was between you and Darla, nor the exact words that were used. "

Please tell me then... because I am not trying to "spin" anything. I want you to explain to me WHY they include Social security as a part of the total of healthcare spending.

I want someone to explain why they do not take the study beyond... well malpractice costs are only 2% thus any change there cannot be significant to total healthcare spending.... why don't they show that a reduction in malpractice costs can lead to lower hospital/doctors charges which would in turn LOWER the costs of Medicaid and Medicare (on average). Why???

They make VAGUE assumptions in this report. I am not saying they are entirely wrong, because the numbers they are using are correct.... BUT are they using the correct numbers? and are they taking this report to conclusion or making an assumption and ending the study before the overall effects were known?

"The only thing that matters to me, is that the most credible, non-partisan source that is available to us citizens, says that medical malpractice suits and tort "reform" liability caps have virtually no overall affect on the costs associated with my healthcare."

Again... because they stop short and because they include Social security as a healthcare costs. Social security has nothing to do with what we pay for medical care. Nothing... yet it is included.... WHY???
 
Superfreak said:
"You did imply that personnel was in the marketing budget but not in the R & D budget because you LOL'd at the sales force expense, without ever LOL'D at the personnel expense inherent in the R &D budget, nor even mentioning it."

Go back and read it again... I laughed that you included it in ADVERTISING. The fact that you think marketing and advertising are interchangable is what was amusing.

"Now, I am done with this thread SF because you are seriously getting on my fucking nerves with your arrogant attitude on it. And for the most part, I like you. And I'd like to keep it that way."

I like you as well, so I don't want this topic to change that. But I am right. :D
Click to expand...

You're not right, and you've obviously never worked in marketing. You cannot be in advertising without being in marketing, and you cannot be in marketing without being in advertising. You could not get a job in marketing, unless it's entry level, if you do not know and have experience in marketing. You could not get a job in advertising, unless it's entry level, without experience and knowledge of marketing.

Marketing and advertising people are interchangeable for the most part, and work in the same department, side by side. The sales force is down the hall. R & D can be in another building.

But whatever your point is, it doesn't matter. You have driven this so far off course, in order to twist and turn from my simple statement, about malpractice costs, which I then backed up with the CBO report. You refuse to accept the Cbo report, and thats ok. Some still refuse to accept that the earth is round. It's not in my interest to argue with them.

According to any source I have read, advertising costs are higher than R &D costs, in big pharma and have been for years. Whether or not they include the sales force, I don't know, go look it up if it's important to you. Again, whether or not you believe it is irrelevant to me. I don't care SF. I educate myself by reading. I have no investment in whether or not you are educated.

Have a good night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top