Selling HR 3200 to the Public
I know congressmen and senators must have a little salesmen in them too. Selling themselves to voters at election time is part of the job. So why aren't they selling HR 3200? Instead of focusing on and carping about stupid Republican criticisms (it's socialism! death panels!) they should concentrate on what the bill actually does.
The way HR 3200 works:
- Health Insurance: It promotes real free markets and does away with the government protected rackets we have now. Insurance companies will have to compete in the exchange with each other and the public plan instead of the virtual monopolies they are in most states today. Insurance companies will have access to 50 million new customers who
aren't insured today. Their operating costs will be lower because a lot the denial of care
bureaucracy they have now won't be necessary because those practices
will in fact be illegal.They can transfer a lot of those actuaries everybody hates into sales jobs where they can make people happy selling better cheaper insurance.
- Drugs: Whether through rebates like the Baucus/Obamo plan or direct government negotiation we save money. $80 billion over 10 years in the former or as Waxman and Pelosi say $120 to $140 billion by direct government negotiation.If you have a Republican House rep tell him to reject the Baucus/Obama $80 billion deal with the drug
companies.Republicans love opposing anything Obama does. So ask
him to support direct government negotiations of drug prices with big pharma. Canadians get much better prices than we do by doing that and
they only have 30 million strong buying power. We have 330 million
people. It'll cost the taxpayer, insurance companies and the consumer of the drugs much less that way. Seniors will applaud you.
- Electronic records: This is a no brainer. Even Newt Gingrich says Fed Ex keeps better track of packages than we do of health care records. He and Hillary agreed on a one page standardized form to fill out a few years ago. The VA's VistA open source record keeping system is the best in the world. They've been perfecting it since 1972. It's used by HI and WVA for their public hospitals and Germany, Finland, India, Malaysia and Jordan have adopted it. 4 or 5 more countries a week come over to check it out. There's already $20 billion in the stimulus bill for health care IT under the Hitech Act. It should all go into putting VistA in every medical and insurance office in the country. It will lower costs for insurance companies, cut out many of the 200,000 medical mistakes that kill Americans each year, doctors will love it.
- Best Medical Practices: This is a bit more complicated to explain but basically we'll reward best practices that result in best medical outcomes for patients. Sometimes that means very expensive breast cancer drugs or heart bypass operations. But in other cases sometimes that means catching conditions like diabetes before they require amputations, cancers before they've metastasized. heart disease before it requires that bypass. We'll give bonuses to doctors who keep their patients in good health and heal them instead of paying fee for service for as much as they can order. The beauty of the IT system we'll develop with VistA is that your doctor can look up what works best for people across the country just like you. 60 year old white male of German/Irish descent with stage 1 colon cancer? Sedentary lifestyle? 20 lbs over optimum weight with 12% body fat? Smoker-non smoker? Drinker-nondrinker? Your doctor can bring up the stats country wide and figure out what's worked and what doesn't whether she's a kid fresh out of med school in East Jesus KS being paid a bonus to help pay off her school loans for locating to East Jesus for a few years like the Blue Dogs want or a twenty year expert at the top of her field working on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Is that new drug really better? How about that new surgical procedure or that spiffy new smart bomb guidance system cancer zapper? If it is she can prescribe it, if it's not she doesn't have to, but she'll have to show you those stats and let you decide. That's better and cheaper care for everybody.
- Benefits for Business: GM and Chrysler were canaries in the coal mine. Their legacy health care costs (paying for their retirees health insurance) bankrupted them. Our businesses simply can't compete with the Asians and Europeans on world markets paying the health care costs we are now. It's pricing our manufacturers and workers out of business. That's a big reason why GM builds more cars in Ontario than they do in Michigan these days. HR 3200 will cut those job and profit killing costs and we'll see many more new businesses open up and our big companies will thrive too. There will be no more job lock for folks who have existing conditions or love ones who do.
- Cost: The CBO says HR 3200 is deficit neutral. The cost is $1.042 trillion over 10 years. Most of it is paid for by the savings above. The rest, $239 billion over 10 years will be paid for by the expiring Bush tax cuts (make sure you mention Bush because indies and even many Repubs hate Bush now). It does not add to the US debt.
- Bottom Line: The CBO predicts under HR 3200 by 2019 97% of Americans will have health insurance. Of that number 96% will be covered by for-profit private insurance and 4% will be in the public plan. It won't drive private insurance out of business. If you like the plan you have you can keep it (or in most cases you boss can keep it.) But chances are you and your boss aren't stupid and won't choose to keep the crappy expensive plan with few safeguards and ever rising prices you have now. If you want to it's grandfathered in. Most likely you'll both probably decide to buy a new plan, probably from the same agent and company that's better and cheaper.
HR 3200
operates on real free market principles and opens up the currently
government protected rackets in insurance, hospital chains, drugs and
doctors to more competition. It mandates protections for
consumers, you can't get booted off the rolls if you get sick, your
premiums will stop skyrocketing, if you change jobs or start a business
you'll still be able to buy insurance because your pre-existing
conditions won't exclude you. Your doctor will be able to look up your medical records even if you've lived in 20 different towns over the last twenty years. That means if you had an allergic reaction to a drug when you were 5 it'll still be in there. It also means Rush Limbaugh won't be able to go doctor shopping for his Oxycontin.
















I hope this answers some questions I've seen. Frankly well meaning Republicans could have written this bill if we had any. It really is all about competitive free market reforms.
August 14, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant. Great blog. Agree on all counts. Obama should hire you as the the director of marketing for the health care reform effort.
This is the perfect messaging to bring the approval rating for these reforms up into the 70% range, which will force moderate republicans to start being part of the solution. Ironic that many of the things Mackey advocates for in his "controversial" op-ed are actually covered by HR 3200 as well as the senate measures being considered.
I truly believe most of the country is much closer to consensus on what needs to be done than the rhetoric on TV and in Washington would seem to suggest.
August 14, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please pass the word Jason for people to read and rec it.
August 14, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, Mark! Highly rec'd.
August 14, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks LisB please pass it along to anybody who needs to learn about heath care reform.
August 14, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incredible!
I am cutting and pasting your post and sending out to all on my list (all politicla persuasions and mindsets).
Thank you so very much for taking all the time and energy to inform about the facts of this bill.
Strongly Rec'd!
August 14, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Aunt Sam! I hope everybody will. You can leave out the stuff about me being a salesman and anything Republicans might find derogatory, like the slam against Rush but whatever works best for you.
August 14, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at that. You got Auntie all fired up. Our rep in Alaska. ha!!!
This is just a fine presentation Mark.
August 14, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please send it out on the vine Dick. Time to fire back with the truth. Let's get those indies back on board with what they voted for last year and put some egg on Republican faces.
August 14, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Overall I think you've done a good job of summarizing the bill. I did read the entire 1015 pages! I would quibble with the language you use with regard to GM and Chrysler. You seem to imply that they were bankrupted solely by legacy healthcare costs. That simply is not true. The main reason they were bankrupted because they weren't making cars we want to buy. The legacy costs didn't help, but they were just one of many contributing factors. Even if those legacy costs had been removed it is highly likely they would have been in the very same position, it may have just taken a bit longer to get there.
BTW in Title II, Subtitle C, Sec 246 of the bill it specifically proscribes the use of any Federal funds to pay for insurance for people who have entered the country illegally. For some reason most Congress critters don't seem to be able to respond appropriately to this question.
August 14, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks GP. Here's how I see the problem with the Big Three (including Ford). Each car they sell has $1500 worth of legacy costs built in. That's $1500 that doesn't go into engineering or materials. Example: some of those Saturns are pretty nice but the cloth seats wear out too quickly.
Even though Ford and GM build small cars all over the world that sell very well, the cost of building them here doesn't make them much if any money. Focuses and Cobalts are loss leaders, not enough mark up in them to pay the bills.
So they fought CAFE standards for three decades and built SUVs and pick ups (light trucks) that initially didn't have the safety features (airbags and 15 mph bumpers) and meet CAFE standards that cars had to. These things made them enough $$ to exist. It was a matter of life and death for them to build and sell gashogs.
Of course every time there's a oil price shock like last year their sales plummet. Then the credit markets seized up and all car companies got crushed.
If we take that health insurance monkey off their backs they'll be able to build small fuel efficient, well engineered profitable cars as well as anybody right here in America.
August 14, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The competition is unfair when carmakers in other countries have NO healthcare considerations. But also, we should recognize the Congress for doing such a great job of letting them enter the US to build cars here where they can pay their workers less money and avoid organized labor. The Congress really sold out the domestic auto industry when they did that in their zeal to diminish the power of unions. They concurrently diminished our internal mfg backbone. Just another example of the spoiled kids preferring to destroy something rather then see others enjoy it.
August 15, 2009 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a lot of people who have jobs at those transplants who otherwise might be working at WalMart Gregor. I'm not sure what congress could have done in the 1980s when the Japanese and Germans started coming over about them locating in "right to work" states. Legislate that all car manufacturing jobs had to be union? Pass federal law superceding state "right to work" laws? I don't think those bills would pass.
I just hope those folks working at Honda and Toyota plants making $26 an hour and paying no union dues understand they're making that kind of money instead of $15 an hour because union workers are making $28 (and paying dues). If they were making much less the UAW wouldn't have a problem unionizing those plants.
August 15, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The lawmakers in those states were offering all kinds of tax break incentives, but I guess if the deomestic automakers were conceding the small, fuel-efficient market to them, then they did get what they deserved. Unfortunately, it is not what the workers deserved.
August 17, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If your cost is $1500 higher per vehicle because you're paying your retirees health care you have no choice but to make and sell more bigger vehicles like pickups and SUVs that have a higher profit margin.
August 17, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, but if they sell more vehicles, the legacy cost per car goes down. More cars does not equate to more retirees. They wanted to focus on the larger profits rather then better cars and higher volumes. They did not need to go all SUV. They chose that path for higher profit margins. There are plenty of loyal buyers of American cars who would have stayed with American crs if they were built to suit their needs, better mileage and longer lasting. IMHO, Detroit made bad decisions because they put their shareholders before their customers. Expecting nothing but double-digit profits is unreasonable. It's unsustainable.
August 18, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Granted a lot of their problems were of their own making Gregor but they weren't making double digit profits and a lot of those loyal customers of American cars weren't on our side of the political spectrum. Most were old folks who wanted a Crown Vic or big Buick for the comfort, rednecks who wanted their F-150s, and Republican soccer moms with a Explorer who aspired to have a Navigator someday.
On our side we flocked to by non union made Civics and Prius because the Chevettes and Escorts we owned in our youth were unsexy poorly built crap.
That's totally changed now that they build all those foreign cars in Dixieland and Republican senators were all for destroying the American car industry last winter just to smite the UAW.
You'd think they'd be grateful that the UAW and the Big Three kept millions of their retirees out of our single payer socialist, government run taxpayer funded health care plan for seniors since 1965 but I guess not.
August 18, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended, not because you asked, but because you are good at this kind of thing.
What I want to know is if the housewives still think you are cute and still ask you in, or do they as often as not slam the door? Call it collecting anedotal evidence on cultural change.... :-)
August 14, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I canvass a lot and on hot days they sometimes offer me water or ask me to come in. As for cute? I think I'm well past the cute stage and have moved on to dangerously handsome, lol. Now let me ask you a question AA. Are you a real art appraiser? I have 4 Lorenzo Palmer Latimer paintings I want to sell. Know anything about him?
August 14, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Selling those right now, you'd be wandering into a big long California art market party where a lot of folks have already gone home. (Things are bad there, did you hear?) The prices for his work at public auctions recently (since the beginning of the year) are about 50% of estimate or "no sale," even with estimates reduced. If I were you I would go to Ebay, but if you can hold off, I would wait a year or two, that market seems a pretty sure one to rebound. Ebay is really your best bet in the price range he is in, rather than relying on an outright sale to someone, because you would get competition there if the subject/style is an exceptionally desirable one (wildflowers in bloom with cypress...redwoods,) and it is also hard to price in such a market; in an outright sale you might misprice. The market for his work is really still pretty much in CA, but people from allover the country who sell to that market do troll ebay, as do any collectors who still currently have the money and desire to collect. Sell like the private owner you are, it makes them much more desirable; if they are inherited tell the story in your description, it adds value. Whatever the case, tell where/how you got them. (I figure even if part of California falls in the ocean, there will still be Californians left who love their "country" and want pictures of it and parts of its history. Even most Brits love it.)
August 14, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I've talked to Alfred Harrison of North Point Galleries. He even sent me his book about LP. Emailed about every gallery and museum out there I could find. Latimer was a cousin on my mother's side. His dad was my great grandfather's brother I believe. I put 'em up at artprice.com but no bites yet. Is that a good site?
http://web.artprice.com/classifieds/fineart/list.aspx?source=ma&sh=1&idstore=0
August 14, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not offer them around too much if I were you. They could get what is called "burned," and "freshness" adds a lot of value (you'd be surprised how famous you and your artwork can get in a specialized market like that i.e., "oh yeah, those 3 Latimers that guy in Illinois has, they've already been offered to me.") I would either auction them off or don't. Artprice.com is not so popular for that market, the place for most people that would be interested for American regional art markets is askart.com. But again, think twice before you list there, because they could easily become famous, and that wouldn't be good if you don't sell.
August 14, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I'll try Ebay then. I got prices from a guy at Bonhams and Harrison concurred. One dealer from LA made an offer but it wasn't enough. A museum curator wanted one of the oils for his private collection but we never did a deal.
August 14, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is fine to show it to auctioneers like Bonham's, they won't burn it. When it comes to marketing them, though, they would not be a big deal to them, they are just another few relatively low value lots that they are not making much money on (I know, I had several similar jobs) and you can do it better yourself as you will care more about them. (Especially, taking it back to the thread, as you are a good salesman, heh.) Wait at least until mid-Sept,as August is "gone fishing" month for art. Good luck. :-)
August 14, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I gonna have to use this as a primer. I once went to a seminar on "selling your cause" and I received a book and what and what not to do. It was similar to what you have posted.
August 14, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks 1849. We can't let the president sell this alone anymore than he got elected all by himself.
August 14, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is VistA a set of standards or a piece of software or both?
I definitely want to see a federally mandated set of standards for electronic record keeping (and sharing/collating), but I wouldn't want to see us mandate a particular piece of software. There are plenty of other companies out there developing software for hospitals, and I don't see why we should put them out of business. Instead we should make them comply with a standard.
August 14, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's open source software. Look up Phillip Longman "Code Red" and "The Best Care Anywhere"" I think the articles are called. I emailed him and he said the WH is leaning heavily towards VistA (not to be confused with MS's operating system) despite his concerns in the one article.
August 14, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
After reading "Code Red", it looks like there's a reasonable case to be made against mandating VistA. I'm sure it's a wonderful piece of software, I use plenty of open source software myself and support the ideology.
However, the idea of the federal government mandating a piece of software really bugs me. For instance, what if the organizing body for VistA splinters over a disagreement, and some of them decide to fork the project. Are hospitals now allowed to use either fork? If not, who decides which party had the right idea?
Competition is a good solution, as long as certain minimum requirements are set. Mr. Longman brings up a proprietary system that required 10 clicks to send through an order - so make a 2-click maximum part of the standard.
Competition also spurs innovation. Maybe the infrastructure of VistA is such that a great new feature is prohibitively expensive, but another vendor has a different architecture and can do it at half the investment. Having more systems in the wild ensures that these new features make it into the marketplace.
August 14, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's open source, new features can be added like iphone apps just as they've been doing since 1972. Propriety software has failed in any number of hospital chains and besides they're closed systems. We need everybody to use the same system just as we use the same internet. We don't need to build a system from scratch or turn it over to for-profit companies like Microsoft to muck it up and cash in on.
August 14, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The internet isn't a piece of software we all use, it's a bunch of standards that are implemented independently by developers. For instance, the web exists only as a set of rules about how to send HTTP requests, how to set up DNS servers, how to interpret HTML and CSS, etc. None of these are tied to any piece of software. They are international standards, set by a central standards-body, made up of many interested parties including governments. Any programmer with spare time can write a web server and take down Apache, or an operating system that can send TCP packets.
What you're suggesting is akin to the government mandating the use of Firefox to browse the web. Yes, it's a great piece of software. Yes, it's open source and you can contribute new features to the project as well as build plugins to do all kinds of neat stuff. That doesn't mean it's the be-all end-all web browser for the rest of time, nor that it meets absolutely everyone's needs.
Further, no matter how egalitarian you want to be, you have to have a group exerting quality control on contributions to an open source project. Something as important and sensitive as medical records, doubly so. So there *will* be someone, somewhere, who makes the tough calls and decides which features are worth supporting, and which are not. That's perfectly fine in a competitive environment, but backed by government mandate, it becomes an enormous responsibility.
August 14, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hate to reply to my own post, but iPhone provides a perfect example. Ever tried to play a flash video on iPhone that wasn't posted on youtube?
There's no app to solve that one.
Problem is, Steve Jobs made an executive decision not to support Adobe Flash in iPhone's web browser. Instead he made a deal with youtube and they agreed to make their content available in mp4 format for the iPhone.
I can't tell you all his reasons, I'm sure they were eminently reasonable, but here's the point: Steve Jobs decided no Flash for iPhone, so there's no Flash for iPhone. Was it the right decision? Who knows, but if you don't like it, maybe you can get a Blackberry instead, or a google phone, or whatever.
August 14, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's already backed by government mandates in the US through the VA, WVA and HI and in foreign countries like Germany, India, Finland, Malaysia and Jordan. If you want to set up a tech office at HHS I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is 1000 different software houses lobbying congress for a piece of the pie reinventing the wheel and making a mess of it like they've done before with the FBI and the DOD. Sorry I'll fight that with all I have. And so will many others.
August 14, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome post Mark. Could you by chance send this to Axelrod & Sebilius? It seems like they are in need of help making the case for reform, explaining the negative case of what the bill doesn't do (Kill Grams) rather than the positive case of what it does.
August 14, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you be OK if I posted your posting to my Facebook page? That's another 200 or so people who can read your well reasoned post.
August 14, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Please spread it far and wide.
August 14, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Done; have a great weekend. Thanks for your great post.
August 14, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL just give me their email addresses
August 14, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great approach, markg8. Thanks for putting this together. It's very accessible. I'll pass it around and read it again when I have more time.
August 14, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or we could just say:
Medicare for all.
August 14, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the thing. That sentence did more to kill single payer than Baucus. Everybody knows Medicare will bankrupt the country if we don't rein costs. It's a lovely thought but awful messaging.
August 14, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"everybody knows"
I'm sorry but that's absurd. "Everybody" doesn't "know" this because it isn't true and "everybody" certainly doesn't agree.
The difficulties medicare has are primarily a result of the horrendously disadvantageous changes made to it by the Republicans during the Bush years. Those problems can be fixed and the system brought back into line. Everyone working since 1982 has been paying extra into the social security and medicare pots. The Republicans spent that money on tax cuts for the rich and almost doubling military expenditures in 8 years. That too can be reversed. We can raise taxes on the rich and recoup the loss from the tax cuts and we can drastically reduce military expenditures in the next few years without doing any harm at all to our national defense and thus realize vast savings. But God forbid we should discuss taxing the rich at a rate that has them paying their fair share or that we dare to bring up cutting the sacrosanct war budget that does nothing but impoverish our society. It is funny how people talk about how much something like Medicare and Social Security cost without ever mentioning our distorted and inappropriate government spending priorities other than those two programs.
August 15, 2009 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb I think the Bush administration let profiteers abuse Medicare while in contrast Janet Reno in the 1990s prosecuted them. Rick Scott the disgraced ex CEO is a good case in point.
HR 3200 does fix that and while I know you're a passionate single payer advocate there are other systems like the public/private hybrid in Germany, Holland and HR 3200 that work as well. HR 3200 with public option is as close as we're going to get to single payer. Medicare for All is lousy messaging. I have no argument with your take on budget priorities but the ship of state doesn't spin on a dime. Obama is changing course but in the middle of a horrendous recession that could have been a full blown depression it'll take time.
August 15, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The electronic medical record is necessary but it requires some deep thinking about privacy and data security. It's one thing for the VA to have records on all vets. It's another for any number of private insurance companies to potentially have access to your life story and its most private details. Suicide attempt at 12? A bit of substance abuse at 16? Abortion at 17? How many people do you want to have access to that kind of information? We're not doing single-payer you know. We're doing free market competition.
August 14, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're going free market competition with regulations making the release of any of your medical records outside the medical system illegal. There's only a few places that kind of information could be leaked from and they'd be easy to trace.
Plus there'd be no reason to financially, discriminating against you on health insurance will be illegal.
August 14, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've done a laudable job summarizing what might be in a bill for healthcare reform, but the truth is it is unclear what the final form will be and it seems to be getting more fluid as time passes. Your explanation does illustrate one good reason why the message isn't getting out though: it's too long, too complicated and it all ends up being a lot of noise to the average citizen. It isn't your fault at all. You've done a good job. But to effectively sell this to the vast public it is going to have to be a whole lot simpler and clearer than this. If not, it's gonna be a hard sell indeed.
August 15, 2009 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Mark has done the best job I've seen at simplifying the language. The messaging isn't simple because the issue is complex. Republicans have a simple message, but there messages are mostly lies and distortions. Any thoughts on how to take Mark's talking points and turn them into easier sound bites? I'm going to think about that today and see what I come up with.
August 15, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just the part without my back story is 1081 words. I need to cut that down to about 600 words for my local Dem Township newsletter. But it is a complicated bill, over 1000 pages long. It has to be because it is remodeling 1/6th of our GDP before it eats the rest of our economy alive. Health care costs are a cancer on American business. It kills jobs and people. France and Germany announced yesterday they've pulled out of recession. They have much healthier economies and one big reason is because health care costs aren't an impediment to growth in other sectors.
August 15, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me the strongest argument for a health care system is not that it makes economic sense(altho that's true) it's that it saves lives.
(I have a post running now quoting an FT article about a study which estimates 101,000 people here die every year who would stay alive under a system like that in Japan ,France or Australia.)
Next strongest it prevents pain. In that same FT some one comments that Obama's best tactic is talking about his mother's unnecessary suffering from cancer.
I argue that there is a fundamental conflict between the Market and the health and well being of our citizens- between the EPS of insurance companies and Joe Patient's need to have a health expenditure authorized. But I don't think that's effective.It flies in the face of our misguided faith in "American Exceptionalism" and our more legitimate fear of 1984. And basically is a negative argument whereas the positive argument is a reasonable health care system can help you to live longer and in less pain.
August 16, 2009 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen numbers like 25,000 die here every year because they have no insurance. 100,000 to 120,000 die each year from treatable illnesses they would survive in other civilized countries. 200,000 a year die here from medical mistakes and hospital acquired infections. That number would be drastically reduced with the kind of reform in HR 3200.
August 16, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
My figure of 101,000 is from a study by a team from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It applies to treatable illnesses for those under 75.
OBTW I think they should have called it 100,000 .That final 1,000 conveys a misleading impession of accuracy and provides an opening for those who want to reject the findings.
August 16, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with being accurate even if others try to mislead? If it's 101,000 it's 101,000.
August 16, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In statistics the conclusion can never be any more accurate than the least accurate component. So if you add together several results: say 135, 902 and an estimate of 8,000 plus or minus 100 you should report the result not as 9037 but as 9000. I think it's called the doctrine of significant numbers or something like that.
Some one looking for a justification for rejecting the London study could use excessive precision of 101,000 as an indication that the authors were inexperienced. I used it myself in my blog because I wanted to track to the source document. But if I were discussing it with an acquaintance I'd say 100,000.
August 16, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
flavious if the number they came up with was 100,963 or 101,037 they are perfectly justified rounding off to 101,000. When I use these kind of numbers I usually say over, more than 100,000 or about 101,000. Those someones who will be looking for a justification for rejecting the London study are habitual liars who have lost the last two elections because their lies are increasingly crazy. Don't bow to their craziness.
August 17, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a minor point, so I'll drop it.
Certainly your blog was excellent.
August 17, 2009 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink