3 ms·

So if you believe this to be inaccurate, then spell out for precisely me what level of suffering and expense that people should have to endure for this system t

So if you believe this to be inaccurate, then spell out for precisely me what level of suffering and expense that people should have to endure for this system to continue? What are you comfortable with maintaining? How many people should be bankrupted, denied care or self-ration to the point of harm? We should only have 25000 people go bankrupt each year or 25 million uninsured? What level of damage to these people’s lives do you think needs to be “reformed” away vs preserved?

tptacek 7y ago
You haven't so much responded to my comment so much as yelled incoherently at it. Can you instead address it directly? You made an argument: that the "1 in 5 ACA claims are rejected" stat is damning evidence of the system's failure. I rebutted. Am I just right, and that stat is no longer part of your argument?
- claudeganon 7y ago
  Why would I directly address someone who didn’t respond in good faith in kind to me last go around, but instead played semantic games when they exhausted their argument? Here’s my perspective: for profit healthcare is a form of eugenics against the poor and disabled. Insurance companies are parasitic middlemen who are directly responsible for the deaths and bankruptcy of many. Denial of claims under the ACA is done to preserve the existence and profits of these middleman. Thinking you can suss out whether the 20% of claims they deny are moral or necessary entirely misses the point.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    You're still not responding to what I actually said. Instead, you've extrapolated from the study your own preferred interpretation, which the authors not only didn't do, but were careful not to do, because the data doesn't exist to do it (and, indeed, the data probably points in the other direction, albeit weakly). Here's just one example of what's flawed about your argument: average claim denials in Oregon are just 8%, a fraction of what they are in Illinois. Are health insurers in Oregon more moral than they are in Illinois? Will your rationale for that argument hold up when I note other states with low denial rates that aren't at all similar to Oregon?
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      >You're still not responding to what I actually said. Instead, you've extrapolated from the study your own preferred interpretation, which the authors not only didn't do, but were careful not to do, because the data doesn't exist to do it (and, indeed, the data probably points in the other direction, albeit weakly). You don't need data to know that health insurers deny claims to to preserve their existence and protect profits. It's how every form of insurance works. The only thing that data will tell you is to what degree they deny claims in this pursuit relative to their other tactics, from jacking up premiums, imposing high deductibles, etc. >Average claim denials in Oregon are just 8%, a fraction of what they are in Illinois. Are health insurers in Oregon more moral than they are in Illinois? Will your rationale for that argument hold up when I note other states with low denial rates that aren't at all similar to Oregon? They're not variably immoral, because that's not the premise. The premise is that they're entire existence is unnecessary and immoral and has caused the bankruptcy and deaths of many. This isn't even internally consistent with your other arguments, as you've claimed that the variability of denials makes aggregate figures not a particularly useful measure. Since we're also demanding responses now, please, again, feel free to describe what threshold of bankruptcy, injury to the sick and disabled, and deaths you feel is appropriate for the status quo. How much of this is necessary? https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304901?journalCode=ajph https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2018....
      - tptacek 7y ago
        You might not "need" data, but you brought this data up, and it doesn't support your argument. It seems like you've conceded that now.
        claudeganon 7y ago
        I concede nothing other than your love of removing individual arguments from their context (in this case, the failure and unraveling of the ACA) to distract from your inability to provide a coherent or ethical defense of the status quo. For example, please describe how denial of claims by ACA plans is unrelated to the continued medical bankruptcies I cited? Or, if it is related, what level of medical bankruptcies is permissible in your perspective?

tptacek 7y ago

You haven't so much responded to my comment so much as yelled incoherently at it. Can you instead address it directly? You made an argument: that the "1 in 5 ACA claims are rejected" stat is damning evidence of the system's failure. I rebutted. Am I just right, and that stat is no longer part of your argument?

claudeganon 7y ago
Why would I directly address someone who didn’t respond in good faith in kind to me last go around, but instead played semantic games when they exhausted their argument? Here’s my perspective: for profit healthcare is a form of eugenics against the poor and disabled. Insurance companies are parasitic middlemen who are directly responsible for the deaths and bankruptcy of many. Denial of claims under the ACA is done to preserve the existence and profits of these middleman. Thinking you can suss out whether the 20% of claims they deny are moral or necessary entirely misses the point.
- tptacek 7y ago
  You're still not responding to what I actually said. Instead, you've extrapolated from the study your own preferred interpretation, which the authors not only didn't do, but were careful not to do, because the data doesn't exist to do it (and, indeed, the data probably points in the other direction, albeit weakly). Here's just one example of what's flawed about your argument: average claim denials in Oregon are just 8%, a fraction of what they are in Illinois. Are health insurers in Oregon more moral than they are in Illinois? Will your rationale for that argument hold up when I note other states with low denial rates that aren't at all similar to Oregon?
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    >You're still not responding to what I actually said. Instead, you've extrapolated from the study your own preferred interpretation, which the authors not only didn't do, but were careful not to do, because the data doesn't exist to do it (and, indeed, the data probably points in the other direction, albeit weakly). You don't need data to know that health insurers deny claims to to preserve their existence and protect profits. It's how every form of insurance works. The only thing that data will tell you is to what degree they deny claims in this pursuit relative to their other tactics, from jacking up premiums, imposing high deductibles, etc. >Average claim denials in Oregon are just 8%, a fraction of what they are in Illinois. Are health insurers in Oregon more moral than they are in Illinois? Will your rationale for that argument hold up when I note other states with low denial rates that aren't at all similar to Oregon? They're not variably immoral, because that's not the premise. The premise is that they're entire existence is unnecessary and immoral and has caused the bankruptcy and deaths of many. This isn't even internally consistent with your other arguments, as you've claimed that the variability of denials makes aggregate figures not a particularly useful measure. Since we're also demanding responses now, please, again, feel free to describe what threshold of bankruptcy, injury to the sick and disabled, and deaths you feel is appropriate for the status quo. How much of this is necessary? https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304901?journalCode=ajph https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2018....
    - tptacek 7y ago
      You might not "need" data, but you brought this data up, and it doesn't support your argument. It seems like you've conceded that now.
      - claudeganon 7y ago
        I concede nothing other than your love of removing individual arguments from their context (in this case, the failure and unraveling of the ACA) to distract from your inability to provide a coherent or ethical defense of the status quo. For example, please describe how denial of claims by ACA plans is unrelated to the continued medical bankruptcies I cited? Or, if it is related, what level of medical bankruptcies is permissible in your perspective?