This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore bwbeeman. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
<You obviously have no competence in the area, and are just aping what you read from whatever DNC sources you can find.>
Spent 40 years designing, pricing, and establishing administrative systems for large employer's employee benefit plans. Was a Fellow of the Society of Actuaries, a Member of the American Academy of Actuaries and an Enrolled Actuary at the IRS. Don't know how much more qualified you can get.
<Assuming those charts are in any way correct or that you can draw conclusions from them is just plain un-intelligent. >
The charts were created by one of the best non-partisan organizations in the world, using data that has withstood the scrutiny of many governments that get criticized because of that information. In addition they confirm what my experience has been over 40 years of work in the field.
Finally they have stood the test of time. No one has shown any evidence that any chart wasn't right on. But just in case you have some evidence please produce it. Otherwise you are wasting our time with your unsupported opinions.
<No one ever said our current healthcare system is perfect, but, most of us know that it is the best in the world. >
The facts say otherwise. Don't need to hear an opinion. Show some facts.
<Healthcare outcome in this country is magnificent.>
The facts say otherwise. Don't need your opinion. Show some facts.
<People without insurance have a problem, and that is easily remedied without demoting healthcare to the lowest common denominator, and throwing senior citizens on the trash heap of healthcare as the Brits and Canadians do. >
"People without insurance have a problem" is a sick comment. There are 1 in 4 of our under age 65 population (who are uninsured or underinsured) who are dying at a rate of at least 22,000 per year because of this "problem"
The rest of the comment is trash talk that we have all heard before.
<What insurance salesman jilted you, anyway?>
No, I worked closely with insurance companies on behalf of my clients. Most of my clients were of the size that I worked at the home office of the insurers. It's 40 years of experience with these bloated organization and the last decade in particular when I saw the denied claims a rescinded policies that it was clear to me that insurers add nothing to the process of healthcare except fraud and massive amounts of waste that should go towards paying claims.
You still don't get it. Let me explain so that even an actuary can understand.
- dying at a rate of at least 22,000 per year because of this "problem" ...
Even if the 22,000 estimate were correct, there is NO MEASURABLE EFFECT on the US mortality rate. Contrast this to an actual number of traffic deaths in 2008 of 37,261 (National Highway Safety Association). Where is the crisis? The problem is easily fixed. The 22,000 number comes from ESTIMATES in an IOM study, with a 25% fudge factor applied by the Urban League. The real number may be as little as 15,000. and has nothing to do with the quality of the US healthcare system. Your so-called "facts" are not factual.
- The charts were created by one of the best non-partisan organizations in the world, using data that has withstood the scrutiny of many governments...
Calling the Commonwealth Fund Foundation non-partisan is a big stretch. This is a private fund with more than $500 million under management available to lobby for their published agenda, which is forcing universal health care on the citizens of the United States.
The study in question is an arm-chair study done by the Commonwealth Fund about medically preventable deaths in countries worldwide. Commonwealth Fund simply re-hashed data used in earlier papers which in turn were based on data from the World Health Organization's Year 2000 report.
- The mortality numbers were negotiated between the WHO and the individual countries involved. The data is NEVER used unless specifically approved by that country, who always bias the data in their favor.
- The cut-off age for the study is 74 years. This distorts the real situation wildly.
- All data used by the WHO are estimates, with consequential errors involved. Many countries do not have the mortality data broken down in the categories necessary for the study. These numbers are guesses.
- Illegal alien deaths are included in the US numbers. Other countries don't have that problem.
These may or may not be fatal errors, but they are errors and the study should not be used as a basis for public policy. In fact the study is not an indictment of the US health care system. It has already been shown that deaths due to a lack of insurance is not a significant factor in the overall quality of health care received. If interpreted correctly, the study is a commentary on the diversity of the US population, and the ethnic, cultural, and racial factors that go along with that populaton. Other countries don't have this situation, and comparisons are misleading.
It appears I have mis-underestimated you. You are perfectly capable of finding the truth of a situation, and the fact that you choose to mislead people shows that you are a little, malicious person. As an actuary, you lie with the best of them.