Conquer Club

(the first one is the shortest, the other two discuss the issue more fully, though I am focusing on healthcare, the articles address various aspects)
http://georgevanantwerp.com/2009/03/20/ ... healthcare

This is the talk (TED talk) that got me on the topic specifically. The first is an article about the talk, the second is a video of it.

http://blog.ted.com/2012/03/01/thinking ... rot-at-ted
http://www.ted.com/talks/tali_sharot_th ... _bias.html

A couple of other articles on the subject, including more widespread impacts (though I am focusing on healthcare)
2012/http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2074067,00.html

http://ezinearticles.com/?Optimism-Bias&id=7489331

Why is this important?

Because it is precisely why we cannot allow people to just choose their own healthcare coverage. It is also why so many people, even some people with health coverage (yes.. particularly guys, sorry, but true) wind up not getting their checkups, not getting tests they should get.. until its too late.

It has a lot of other implications.

Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly" might be interesting to you too, if you get a hold of a copy.

I think more importantly it proves that people shouldn't be allowed to buy stocks or gamble the over/under.

PLAYER57832 wrote:(the first one is the shortest, the other two discuss the issue more fully, though I am focusing on healthcare, the articles address various aspects)
http://georgevanantwerp.com/2009/03/20/ ... healthcare

This is the talk (TED talk) that got me on the topic specifically. The first is an article about the talk, the second is a video of it.

http://blog.ted.com/2012/03/01/thinking ... rot-at-ted
http://www.ted.com/talks/tali_sharot_th ... _bias.html

A couple of other articles on the subject, including more widespread impacts (though I am focusing on healthcare)
2012/http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2074067,00.html

http://ezinearticles.com/?Optimism-Bias&id=7489331

Why is this important?

Because it is precisely why we cannot allow people to just choose their own healthcare coverage. It is also why so many people, even some people with health coverage (yes.. particularly guys, sorry, but true) wind up not getting their checkups, not getting tests they should get.. until its too late.

It has a lot of other implications.

I had optomism bias (seriously). I had no health insurance from 1998 through 2005.

"Don't allow people to choose their own healthcare coverage" is not the only option Player. The other option is "don't pay for peoples' health care when they choose not to purchase insurance or to purchase shitty insurance."

They're interesting articles, but I don't believe they support your contention that "we cannot allow people to just choose their own healthcare coverage" At most, they suggest that people will make some bad choices. Central planners are people too, and they too make bad choices. Just as I might underestimate my future risk of cancer, so the central planner laying out the next budget for the health care system might underestimate it also. Scaling the problem up does not change its essential nature.

You've correctly identified a problem, but I don't believe you've correctly identified a solution.

thegreekdog wrote:
"Don't allow people to choose their own healthcare coverage" is not the only option Player. The other option is "don't pay for peoples' health care when they choose not to purchase insurance or to purchase shitty insurance."

If you think letting people just die is a reasonable response, sure.

I don't.. though I am certainly willing to limit the care in some cases. Ironically, it is your church (Roman Catholic) that will stand most in the way of those options, but I think we have discussed that part of things pretty fully already. I just still find it ironic that you, on the one hand, take a stance like that.. and on the other, take the religious stances that you do.

Dukasaur wrote:They're interesting articles, but I don't believe they support your contention that "we cannot allow people to just choose their own healthcare coverage" At most, they suggest that people will make some bad choices. Central planners are people too, and they too make bad choices. Just as I might underestimate my future risk of cancer, so the central planner laying out the next budget for the health care system might underestimate it also. Scaling the problem up does not change its essential nature.

You've correctly identified a problem, but I don't believe you've correctly identified a solution.

The part you are missing is not that central planners are infallible, but that broader decisions can be and should be made based on medical evidence and data, rather than "gut feelings". This is why vaccinations are mandated, why we have flouride in our water.

I think we have to be very, very careful when it comes to mandating coverage or care. I am perfectly OK with mandating vaccinations for kids and childhood examinations. The fact that you think your kid is "superkid" is not justification for keeping them from getting help they need.

That said, the articles I referenced actually do point out some solutions. For example, in the case of public health, rather than, say saying "make your kid excercise and eat veggies so they don't get sick", if instead we say "eating together, cooking together makes for stronger families".. then the outcome is much more likely to be positive.

There are two real messages here. The first is that we cannot just rely upon individuals to make the best choice when there is huge risk involved. The second is how we change their attitudes -- that focusing on the positive is much more successful than focusing on the negative.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:
"Don't allow people to choose their own healthcare coverage" is not the only option Player. The other option is "don't pay for peoples' health care when they choose not to purchase insurance or to purchase shitty insurance."

If you think letting people just die is a reasonable response, sure.

I don't.. though I am certainly willing to limit the care in some cases. Ironically, it is your church (Roman Catholic) that will stand most in the way of those options, but I think we have discussed that part of things pretty fully already. I just still find it ironic that you, on the one hand, take a stance like that.. and on the other, take the religious stances that you do.

I don't take that stance. I take a charitable stance, as does my church. My church runs many hospitals at a significant loss to help people who cannot afford health insurance or health care. So shove it up your ass.

Let me argue this a different way - should we have other people make the decision as to your choices in life with respect to your job, your marriage, and your children if other people end up paying for those decisions?

thegreekdog wrote:I don't take that stance. I take a charitable stance, as does my church. My church runs many hospitals at a significant loss to help people who cannot afford health insurance or health care. So shove it up your ass

What is frightening, is that there seems to be a large number of not-for-profit hospitals where all the upper management are making buku bucks. I think Steven Brill's recent article in Time goes into this.


--Andy

The important point is that in every field of human expertise, statistics are better at predicting than humans. Computers should decide on coverage - I mean that seriously.

However, I would prefer if health insurance were illegal and people had to save up money for if/when they became sick. My reasons for that are many.

The insurance system we have in North America is ridiculous. If somebody does something terrible (run over a baby with a street cleaner), the way we deal with that in our society is by having their companies' insurance company pay damages. It's an absolutely stupid system with so many layers between people and money as to make both people and money meaningless.

AndyDufresne wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I don't take that stance. I take a charitable stance, as does my church. My church runs many hospitals at a significant loss to help people who cannot afford health insurance or health care. So shove it up your ass

What is frightening, is that there seems to be a large number of not-for-profit hospitals where all the upper management are making buku bucks. I think Steven Brill's recent article in Time goes into this.


--Andy

There are a ton of charitable institutions, not just hospitals, where the upper management make tons of loot. Colleges and universities are major culprits. So are hospitals. Catholic hospitals are subsidized by the church (sometimes) or by charitable contributions (most of the time).

thegreekdog wrote:
Let me argue this a different way - should we have other people make the decision as to your choices in life with respect to your job, your marriage, and your children if other people end up paying for those decisions?

According to you, the Roman Catholic church should have that right.

thegreekdog wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I don't take that stance. I take a charitable stance, as does my church. My church runs many hospitals at a significant loss to help people who cannot afford health insurance or health care. So shove it up your ass

What is frightening, is that there seems to be a large number of not-for-profit hospitals where all the upper management are making buku bucks. I think Steven Brill's recent article in Time goes into this.


--Andy

There are a ton of charitable institutions, not just hospitals, where the upper management make tons of loot. Colleges and universities are major culprits. So are hospitals. Catholic hospitals are subsidized by the church (sometimes) or by charitable contributions (most of the time).

They are also highly subsidized by tax dollars, and insurance paymentss partially subsidized by premiums paid by the not sick. In the US, they don't stand alone.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:
Let me argue this a different way - should we have other people make the decision as to your choices in life with respect to your job, your marriage, and your children if other people end up paying for those decisions?

According to you, the Roman Catholic church should have that right.

What? No, they shouldn't and they don't because they can't put me in jail. The government can put me in jail.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I don't take that stance. I take a charitable stance, as does my church. My church runs many hospitals at a significant loss to help people who cannot afford health insurance or health care. So shove it up your ass

What is frightening, is that there seems to be a large number of not-for-profit hospitals where all the upper management are making buku bucks. I think Steven Brill's recent article in Time goes into this.


--Andy

There are a ton of charitable institutions, not just hospitals, where the upper management make tons of loot. Colleges and universities are major culprits. So are hospitals. Catholic hospitals are subsidized by the church (sometimes) or by charitable contributions (most of the time).

They are also highly subsidized by tax dollars, and insurance paymentss partially subsidized by premiums paid by the not sick. In the US, they don't stand alone.

They are not "highly subsidized" by tax dollars. And just like every other hospital or healthcare provider there are paid through insurance.

The question is, do charitable hospitals receive more or less government benefits than for-profit hospitals? The answer is, ultimatley, less.

DoomYoshi wrote:The important point is that in every field of human expertise, statistics are better at predicting than humans. Computers should decide on coverage - I mean that seriously.

Only if they have good data from which to calculate.

In medicine, the data collection is improving, but "HIPA" and technology "glitches", not to mention proprietary rights of insurance companies all prevent true sharing of information that would yield much better results.

I would like to see, as part of any standard medical practice, a kind of medical "key" of symptoms, similar to biological classificaiton keys. Similar to those keys, the doctor would still have to be able to identify the correct features, but it would help steer doctors to both correct identification of disease and better treatments. (also understanding that "one size fits all" treatments are NOT generally OK for human conditions). Initially, it would be too basic to yield more than the roughest of information, but in time it could be very, very sophisticated and include various options.. such as if xyz is true, use this medicatio, if yfd are true, use another.

DoomYoshi wrote: However, I would prefer if health insurance were illegal and people had to save up money for if/when they became sick. My reasons for that are many.

The problem is that few people really can "save up" to cure cancer.. but if we collectively pool our money and contribute a small part to the few who get cancer, then we can. That is what insurance is supposed to do, does when it works properly.

DoomYoshi wrote:The insurance system we have in North America is ridiculous. If somebody does something terrible (run over a baby with a street cleaner), the way we deal with that in our society is by having their companies' insurance company pay damages. It's an absolutely stupid system with so many layers between people and money as to make both people and money meaningless.

I agree fully with that, but that doesn't mean the concept of insurance itself is bad, it means that the way our system is structured is bad.. on many fronts.

Think about this for a moment, how much of liability insurance is really just about getting care for people who need it? Despite the prominence of a few well-publicized high dollar awards, most people just want and are lucky to get basic payments for their injuries. If we had a true universal healthcare system where everyone's injuries and illnesses were automatically covered, then a LOT of that would go away.

And note, "universal" does not mean "no responsibility". It is qute possible to punish malpractice, to encourage better care and still have universal health coverage.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I don't take that stance. I take a charitable stance, as does my church. My church runs many hospitals at a significant loss to help people who cannot afford health insurance or health care. So shove it up your ass

What is frightening, is that there seems to be a large number of not-for-profit hospitals where all the upper management are making buku bucks. I think Steven Brill's recent article in Time goes into this.


--Andy

There are a ton of charitable institutions, not just hospitals, where the upper management make tons of loot. Colleges and universities are major culprits. So are hospitals. Catholic hospitals are subsidized by the church (sometimes) or by charitable contributions (most of the time).

They are also highly subsidized by tax dollars, and insurance paymentss partially subsidized by premiums paid by the not sick. In the US, they don't stand alone.

They are not "highly subsidized" by tax dollars. And just like every other hospital or healthcare provider there are paid through insurance.

The question is, do charitable hospitals receive more or less government benefits than for-profit hospitals? The answer is, ultimatley, less.

Actually, about the same. The difference is often in the kind of care offered and the people covered (whether they are likely to have insurance or Medicaid, etc.) not the reminbursements.

Shriners used to be an exception, but even they have begun accepting Medicaid and insurance payments recently.

NOTE.. I am not just "talking off my head" I actually do know of what I am talking because its been a matter of dicussion here, part of looking at mergers and cost-cutting. Also, the hospital where I work used to be a Roman Catholic Hospital. But, I am not going to dig up the data because you could easily get the information if you wanted to do so. (besides, some of my sources are essentially "priviliaged")

thegreekdog wrote: So shove it up your ass.

I believe that is one of the checkups avoided commonly.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:
Let me argue this a different way - should we have other people make the decision as to your choices in life with respect to your job, your marriage, and your children if other people end up paying for those decisions?

According to you, the Roman Catholic church should have that right.

What? No, they shouldn't and they don't because they can't put me in jail. The government can put me in jail.

I see, so you think every woman should have the right to get an abortion when they decide its morally acceptable to them, even morally required based on the medical condition of their child? The church isn't stepping in to fight against various other end of life care decisions.

They are actually doing all of the above, very actively!

I see, so the Roman Catholic Church didn't just go on a campaign to try and dictate that people not part of their church cannot get coverage they want if the church doesn't happen to like it?


They have not worked very, very hard to convince people that allowing homosexuals to have civil marriages?

The Roman Catholic church is very much about telling other people that they have to live by the standards of the Roman Catholic church.. and they are not stepping up and paying for the care that is needed, not fully. They don't have that ability.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I see, so you think every woman should have the right to get an abortion when they decide its morally acceptable to them, even morally required based on the medical condition of their child? The church isn't stepping in to fight against various other end of life care decisions.

They are actually doing all of the above, very actively!

I see, so the Roman Catholic Church didn't just go on a campaign to try and dictate that people not part of their church cannot get coverage they want if the church doesn't happen to like it?


They have not worked very, very hard to convince people that allowing homosexuals to have civil marriages?

The Roman Catholic church is very much about telling other people that they have to live by the standards of the Roman Catholic church.. and they are not stepping up and paying for the care that is needed, not fully. They don't have that ability.

I'm not going to argue with you as to whether the Catholic Church tells people how to live their lives. They do tell people how to live their lives. That is not really something we can have an argument about.

The question is whether the Catholic Church and the government (federal, state, and/or local) have the same ability to force you to live your life the way they want you to live your life. The answer is no. The government can imprison me, kill me, or take my stuff. The Catholic Church can't do those things.

The rest of your post is fluff and nonsense.

How many excommunications happen in a given year? I'm sure it is quite a bit less than imprisonment by any given country. I'm still curious.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:How many excommunications happen in a given year? I'm sure it is quite a bit less than imprisonment by any given country. I'm still curious.


--Andy

Apparently a quick google search does not give us an answer.

I did see that people are trying to get execommunicated (atheists mostly) and that it is apparently not easy. In any event, if people are trying to get excommunicated, maybe excommunication (if that is the "punishment" we're likening to imprisoment, death, or taking of property) is not bad for all people. For example, I doubt pimpdave would fear execommunication from the Catholic Church. He may fear death (from the TPDS), imprisonment, or taking of his property more than execommunication.

thegreekdog wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:How many excommunications happen in a given year? I'm sure it is quite a bit less than imprisonment by any given country. I'm still curious.


--Andy

Apparently a quick google search does not give us an answer.

I did see that people are trying to get execommunicated (atheists mostly) and that it is apparently not easy. In any event, if people are trying to get excommunicated, maybe excommunication (if that is the "punishment" we're likening to imprisoment, death, or taking of property) is not bad for all people. For example, I doubt pimpdave would fear execommunication from the Catholic Church. He may fear death (from the TPDS), imprisonment, or taking of his property more than execommunication.

Right, excommunication as punishment is only a punishment if you believe it is one. But if you are devout, it could be worse than imprisonment or death probably!

I'm still curious about the number though. Ha.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:How many excommunications happen in a given year? I'm sure it is quite a bit less than imprisonment by any given country. I'm still curious.


--Andy

Apparently a quick google search does not give us an answer.

I did see that people are trying to get execommunicated (atheists mostly) and that it is apparently not easy. In any event, if people are trying to get excommunicated, maybe excommunication (if that is the "punishment" we're likening to imprisoment, death, or taking of property) is not bad for all people. For example, I doubt pimpdave would fear execommunication from the Catholic Church. He may fear death (from the TPDS), imprisonment, or taking of his property more than execommunication.

Right, excommunication as punishment is only a punishment if you believe it is one. But if you are devout, it could be worse than imprisonment or death probably!

I'm still curious about the number though. Ha.


--Andy

If you're devout, you would not likely be execommunicated.

I'm also curious now.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Because it is precisely why we cannot allow people to just choose their own healthcare coverage.

Wow. So who is this "we" that is smarter than everyone else to such a level that they can dictate personal life choices to other people? And if this rationale is acceptable for health care, then where does it stop?