Search results

  1. E

    Can't Post in Places to Discuss Things so.... JFK Revisited

    Not in the least. You are supposed to look at the information IN THE REPORT YOU LINKED TO AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIM. Then why did you link to the report if you think it contains false information?
  2. E

    Can't Post in Places to Discuss Things so.... JFK Revisited

    Are you expecting me to argue this with you? You obviously have less expertise on this than I do, and I'm no expert on it either. If I want to find out whether the vaccines protect you from contracting and spreading the virus, I'm not asking you what the "doctors and scientists are saying about...
  3. E

    Can't Post in Places to Discuss Things so.... JFK Revisited

    Cool. Me too. Huh? Oh. Well, you have to remember that I don't get my science information from Random Internet Dude. So obviously, if I do decide to advocate for COVID vaccines (and at the moment, I'm not unhappy about the idea that you and others of your ilk don't use them, so I'm not...
  4. E

    Can't Post in Places to Discuss Things so.... JFK Revisited

    How would I know it's bullshit? This is people who know what they are talking about (we're talking Harvard School of Public Health, London School of Economics) studying the subject and reporting on the results in a prestigious medical journal. Why would anyone assume it's bullshit? Now, I know...
  5. E

    Can't Post in Places to Discuss Things so.... JFK Revisited

    Except that that isn't relevant. We're not looking at the US "government" contribution. We're looking at the admin costs for the universal/single payer systems, where "members" = "population". No it doesn't. But since the admin costs on the provider end are also so much lower - 4 to 5 times...
  6. E

    Can't Post in Places to Discuss Things so.... JFK Revisited

    No, but it's much less. If you look at the report that you linked to earlier, (the report from the KevinMD blog), the average is 3%. The link you provided earlier (when you said listen to this guy, he knows what he's talking about) said that 1/4 to 1/2 of administrative costs were wasted on...
  7. E

    Can't Post in Places to Discuss Things so.... JFK Revisited

    And my point was that an 85% MLR can allow insurance to drive 34% admin costs. The MLR says that at least 80-85% of the premium must go to "medical care" (which includes medical claims and quality of care improvements). But when an insurance company pays a medical claim for a physician, hospital...
  8. E

    Can't Post in Places to Discuss Things so.... JFK Revisited

    Which is why I wondered why you used it to claim that the total administrative costs on the provider side (including health insurers) couldn't possibly be as high as 34%. As you say, it's not relevant to the cost structure on the provider side (other than the health insurers' cost structure), so...
  9. E

    Can't Post in Places to Discuss Things so.... JFK Revisited

    The ratio we've been talking about (you're the one who brought it up) - MLR. The US spends 34% of its total healthcare expenditures on administration, to Canada's 17%. So in terms of ratios, the proportion of costs which go to administrative costs in the US, is double what it is in Canada. You...
  10. E

    Can't Post in Places to Discuss Things so.... JFK Revisited

    But it wouldn't change the rate, which is where the comparison is made. I inadvertently conflated two studies/reports, so you need links to both: https://hca-mn.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Adm-Costs-2017.pdf (this should give you the full text)...
  11. E

    Can't Post in Places to Discuss Things so.... JFK Revisited

    This seems to be a good summary of the situation in Canada vs. US. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.7326/M19-2818
  12. E

    Can't Post in Places to Discuss Things so.... JFK Revisited

    Just to point out the math on this...some of the money for "medical care" that is paid out by the insurer to the provider goes towards the provider's administrative costs. So the MLR limits the admin costs of the insurer, but the admin costs of the hospital that was paid by the insurer, isn't...
  13. E

    Can't Post in Places to Discuss Things so.... JFK Revisited

    Yes, that was my point. They cherry-picked out a few items from the OECD data where Canada was below average compared to the OECD country average on health measures, but didn't mention the majority where Canada is above average. Same for the US, but in the opposite direction - they cherry-picked...
  14. E

    Can't Post in Places to Discuss Things so.... JFK Revisited

    The Heritage Foundation is a think tank to to promote a right-wing agenda, not a place to find a reasonable representation of the facts. For example, they reference the Commonwealth Fund report on the OECD data on health outcomes. But I looked at the reports they referenced and they obviously...
  15. E

    Can't Post in Places to Discuss Things so.... JFK Revisited

    Nope. Like I said, I have excellent health insurance. So all the physio sessions were covered - I was checking with my physiotherapist regularly to make sure, plus I followed the EOBs closely and they were all covered. There was something sneaky going on, though, and I didn't pay the entire...
  16. E

    Ricky Varandas, Is Fake Science Evil? |530|

    I agree - my evaluation of whether or not I'm going to waste any time listening to someone's "theory" is simplistic. Mostly because I've put in the time giving people the benefit of the doubt, so I have a pretty good idea of the shape of the ROC curve, and where my trade-off between sensitivity...
  17. E

    Ricky Varandas, Is Fake Science Evil? |530|

    That's a good example of distinguishing between valid doubts/suspicions/concerns and CTs/CTers. On the one hand we have doctors/health care workers/individuals reporting adverse effects, public health services investigating those reports by looking at medical records, algorithms constantly...
  18. E

    Ricky Varandas, Is Fake Science Evil? |530|

    Huh? What are you talking about? You just made that up. I have no interest in the "official line", and tend to be suspicious/skeptical of authority.
  19. E

    Ricky Varandas, Is Fake Science Evil? |530|

    That’s the problem. There’s no reason to think you’re identifying any actual fuckers. Or that your activities accomplish anything but a waste of time and resources that could be much better spent elsewhere.
  20. E

    Ricky Varandas, Is Fake Science Evil? |530|

    Good discussion. What I notice about CTs...they are easily debunked by those people who are in the best position to judge their plausibility, and as a result are pretty much ignored by the relevant mainstream experts (scientists, historians, investigative journalists, etc.). In order to cling...
Back
Top