The Glade 4.0

Then you have the problem, not the study.

Particularly given that the administration itself, as well as any other analysis, is by necessity being forced to use some methodology to extrapolate data.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Hey, quick question for those "in the know":

The woman and I currently file seperately, so that she can take advantage of Roth provisions.

Her income qualifies her for a full subsidy.

Can we do this?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I trust Brookings to make a good faith attempt at an honest analysis, yes. That doesn't mean I think they're free of any bias, of course; it just means I'm confident that they're not going to deliberately cherry-pick/massage the numbers or make unreasonable assumptions in order to support their preconceived/preferred outcome. I'm not confident that Heritage will be equally honest. I generally trust an organization that views itself as impartial and seeks to live up to that self-image over one that views itself as ideological and seeks to advance its ideological agenda. The former may (indeed, almost always will) suffer from some degree of group-think and unexamined bias, but it will be less likely than the latter to engage in bad-faith analysis and/or outright deception.

Sure, every analysis will have assumptions, grey areas, extrapolations, etc. That's why it's so important to have a credible source conducting the analysis in good faith. My point is simply: that ain't Heritage.

*ETA: That doesn't mean I think Heritage is useless as a source. They provide what I would call a "bad-faith reading" of things that can be useful for identifying non-obvious flaws and potential consequences. Ultimately, I'm just saying Heritage isn't a neutral arbiter that approaches these things with analytic detachment and a desire to produce even-handed results. They have a clear agenda, and their studies should be viewed with that disclaimer in mind rather than taken at face value.

Except that the methodology was provided to you, and your only response was to claim there's "wiggle room". That doesn't mean very much, as A) wiggle room is a very nebulous idea and B) "wiggle" doesn't imply room for more than small distortions. So, even if Heritage is taking maximum advantage of that wiggle room, their results cannot be that far out of synch with reality.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Those are the areas, on a quick run through, that leave room for Heritage to distort things. How exactly does the "Heritage Insurance Microsimulation Model" work? What is the underlying insurer data from Mark Farrah and Associates and how was it used? In building weighted averages for premiums, how did they do their weighting and why is it only "similar" to the weighting method used by HHS? What is the "expected age distribution" assumed by the HIMM and does it differ from what other studies have used? Why have they scaled Census data up from the county level instead of using the state level, and why is the result only "roughly comparable" to HHS' data? If this study is "different from others" because it isn't "comparing specific plans", why haven't other studies taken that approach (e.g., if the plans are significantly different - say, comparing premiums for gold plans on the exchange to premiums for bare bones plans today - then the study is not "apples-to-apples" as they claim)? For the state exchanges where premiums had to be estimated, how did they do those estimates? For the states that were omitted due to "limited data", which direction did that limited data point, and was the cut-off reasonable? And lastly, while it's useful to know what the unsubsidized rate levels may be, given how many people will qualify for those subsidies, I think they should also have included the subsidized numbers instead of just noting that they haven't done so up above in the "methodology" section that they know nobody will pay attention to or quote.

Aside from the horde of liberals that will quote it because they don't like the results? A great deal of what you'e complaining about is standard pravtice, and the information you want is almost certainly available for specific inquiry.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

RD:

Rather than address your underlined sections, because I find some of them hilarious, as well as the fact that you've implicitly admitted confirmation bias, I'm going to address your questions.



That is what the methodology section describes.



Based upon reading the click-through, it is blinded data on insurance premiums, and it was used to determine the cost of insurance. This is explicitly stated.



I do not know. One would presume they used relatively standard methodologies for weighting, as doing otherwise would require one to state as much. Why is it only "similar?" I don't know, because I don't know enough about how HHS did their study. It should be noted that you are not, seemingly, disputed HHS here, which if you were applying equal and unbiased rigour you would. It should be further noted that their description of how it varies because it compares equal coverages not plans.



That would most likely be a factor to extrapolate data to state levels for aggregate age comparisons.



Probably because of an error rate at the state level and/or to improve the study's practicality. Using larger sample sizes increases cost and time. Again, I don't know enough about HHS, but HHS probably used state-level data, because the government behaves as though it's made of money AND doesn't care about error rates.



Because comparing coverage is more apples to apples than plans. Plans can change from year to year. However, comparing plans to plans is easier.



Due to the fact that they did not list an exception, probably the same way the government is estimating costs.



Who cares. They were omitted.



The subsidized numbers are bullshit to hide the cost. Unsubsidized is the only real way to compare these, as I went into with Xeq in depth within this thread very recently.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I appreciate the line-by-line, DFK, but if I may simplify, it seems like whereever I pointed out an opening for them to play games with the numbers, you've simply assumed they didn't. When all is said and done, our disagreement basically boils down to you treating Heritage like a disinterested party performing a good-faith analysis and me saying that's a silly thing to do given their agenda and track record. We are at an impasse.

The impasse is resulting from you shifting the burden of proof. If you want to establish they "played games" you need to show that they did, not just that they could. Your suspicion of them isn't evidence that they actually did anything.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Wait, so the default position of the board should be to accept any statistics shown as fact unless there is incontrovertible evidence of their fallacy?

No, I have to show that they have an agenda and a track record of one-sided / slanted analysis which is sufficient to justify skepticism of their current offering. Now, I readily admit that I haven't done that in this thread, but you know, it's the freakin' Heritage Foundation. Anyone here not aware of who they are, what their goals are, and what their history is? There's a reason I don't bother to post **** from MoveOn (or even read it for that matter), and if I did, I wouldn't expect everyone who was skeptical to pretend that MoveOn doesn't have a motive and a history of bias that makes their stats suspect or to prove that in this particular case MoveOn is acting in a biased manner. It's freakin' MoveOn! We all know who and what they are, so we should all be able to stipulate to the fact that anything they say has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Ditto (in my opinion) with Heritage.

Where's that track record, exactly? Just saying "it's the Heritage foundation" doesn't speak of untrustworthiness; a certain viewpoint perhaps, but not inherent untrustworthiness. Heritage is not equivalent to MoveOn which is not a research institute at all. There are other, far better, right-leaning organizations for this sort of distrust. I'm very aware of their history, and it's not what you're representing it as.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, the default position of any rational discussion based on logical argument is NOT to dismiss any statistics (or statements) based on how the person dismissing said source feels about the source. The default position in a rational discussion based on logical argument is to present alternate statistics to discredit the prior source. In other words, it ain't about your gut.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think-tank and a lobby group.

RD's not dismissing them, but taking them with a huge grain of salt, as well he should.

And with any analysis of complex data, there's lots of room for error, and lots of opportunity to make assumptions that benefit your case.

Which means you should pretty much disregard any statistics at all...

http://benswann.com/mr-president-im-lea ... z2ie5Q7Yz9

Mr. President,

I was born at Centennial Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. My mother would later take a job delivering babies in that same operating room only a couple years later. My parents got a divorce when I was young. There were many times during the summer when she would be forced to take my sister and I to work with her. I vividly remember the child version of myself walking the halls of the same floor I was born on in fascination as the years passed. The anesthesiologists use to bring us candy and watch movies with us. When the holidays came, a nurse by the name of Patty Vaughn (we called her Granny), would have bags of presents for my sister and I. Donna Smith, a surgical first assistant who came to America from Canada to work in a free-market healthcare system, use to babysit us.

I'm Hanging Up The White Coat Because Of Obamacare To Pursue My Doctorate In Economics And Head To Wall Street
I’m Hanging Up The White Coat Because Of Obamacare To Pursue My Doctorate In Economics And Head To Wall Street
Donna’s two-story town-home became a 3rd home (2nd was the hospital). We spent countless nights at her house.

Patty passed away when I was ten. I still remember the last box of moon pies she gave me for Halloween that year. To this day every time I see a moon pie I think of her. Donna helped me through my undergrad at Belmont University. With tuition at $30k/year money was tight. Donna never let me go without a meal.

You see Mr. President, the smell of sterile operating rooms, horrible coffee, crisp white coats, and cold metal was my destiny. The first time someone ever asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up I responded, “Anesthesiologist”. I had no idea what they even did, but it was the first big word I learned to pronounce as a 6-year-old. The hospital is my family. It’s all I’ve ever known.

Twenty-one years after my birth, in the same hospital, I listened to a fetal heart beat through my very own stethoscope. You know, it’s quite magical. As the cool, metallic bell lies upon the tight skin of a young mother’s stomach anxiety, fear and joy are all present in her face. A week before my birthday I stood at the side of the laboring mother. There’s no other way to explain childbirth than witnessing the face of God. The emotion is enveloping. You can only try (unsuccessfully) to hold the tears back. I knew at that moment what a gift God had given me. To be allowed the involvement of such a beautiful, pure moment was not to be unappreciated.

When I started college I knew where I was going. You had just won the election. I remember the cameras focusing in on Oprah Winfrey’s face. Tears streamed down. At the time, I knew nothing about politics. My biggest concern was a girl in my Anatomy & Physiology class I had a crush on. I paid little attention to Washington DC.

I worked hard. Multiple all-nighters, falling asleep behind the wheel of my car countless times, thousands of shots of espresso (I actually took a job at Starbucks to support the habit) and 15k note-cards later I had graduated in the top 5% of the country. However, during those last few years something changed.

We studied medical legislation for an entire semester. It’s no secret that the federal government has over-burdened the healthcare market, which has manifested astronomical costs to consumers. However, in 2010, democrats forced through the partisan Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which was later funded by both democrats and republicans.


Since the passage of Obamacare everything has changed. When I started college I never intended to work for the government. I never thought I’d have a government bureaucrat dictate what I was worth to the market, and I certainly never imagined those same bureaucrats (who have absolutely no medical training) telling me how to treat my patients.

I remember the day Obamacare became law. I was sitting in the hospital working in the anesthesia department part-time to cover the costs of tuition. Dr. Alfery, a mentor of mine, looked over at me and said, “Run– It’s not too late to change majors.”

Your legislation has caused countless doctors to go into retirement early, opt for cash-only practices, and has discouraged bright, young minds from entering the field.

With student loans reaching $300k, incalculable opportunity costs and 8 years lost to school, students seeking medical degrees give their lives to the practice. Starting our careers at 30 while dictating to us how much money we can make is nothing short of destroying all incentive to enter the field.

Since that day I’ve yet to find a doctor who recommends the field. People respond to my complaints, “It’s still going to be a good job”. I don’t want a “good job”. I have not fought for a government entitlement of a “good job”. I want an incredible career. That’s what I have fought tirelessly for.

I have been on a path to enter the Air Force and continue my education in medicine. I have been dreaming of specializing in pediatric neurosurgery for half a decade.

After quite literally losing my hair from the internal conflict, considering the sunk costs and evaluating different avenues I have decided.

I have decided that I believe in the principles of a truly free-market, and I trust the free-market. Because of this deep, internal value system I cannot, with clear conscience, continue on this path. My life has value. Such value cannot be calculated by Washington bureaucrats. I won’t allow it. Only a true free-market can accurately assess the value I am capable of.

Mr President, I’m leaving the medical field. I’m hanging up the white coat. However, let me be clear. You have not won. Unless something “changes”, you’ve lost and will continue to lose. You will fail because you lack principle. Meanwhile, we will succeed because we are born of principle.

Regards,

Michael Gordon Lotfi

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

*yawn* another self-important, egotistical doctor trying to claim principle. Seriously. "Destiny"???

All the medical doctors I know personally including 1 in my immediate family, and several in my extended family, are all quite happy with the ACA. Of course all of those got into medicine because they wanted to be doctors, not because they have some entitled sense of destiny or for the money.

There's also the fact that Medicare has been dictating what doctors are paid since 1965, and Obamacare has little to do with it if anything.

Mm, my experience has been the opposite - all of the doctors I know personally (including my best friend of 20+ years) range from nervous to pessimistic about their personal careers/earnings. It's not just the ACA, though; it's the increasing pressure to lower health care costs in general and the fact that a good chunk of the savings is likely to come from reduced compensation to doctors.

That said, guys like the one who wrote that article are oblivious, self-important douchebags. Working in medicine is his "destiny", and he views some of his experiences so far as being akin to "witnessing the face of God", but if he can't make as much money as he'd hoped, then **** it, he'll go work on Wall Street instead? He borrowed $300k worth of government-subsidized loans, spent 8 years training and living off that money instead of supporting himself, and planned a government-guaranteed career in the Air Force, but he's such a firm believer in the free market that he'd rather give up medicine than have his compensation indirectly influenced by a government bureaucrat? He knew nothing about politics when he entered college, but after taking a single, one-semester intro course on medical legislation, he feels qualified to spout off about how PPACA changed everything? Please. The dipshittery is strong with this one.

The sad thing is, I'm actually very sympathetic to the underlying concerns. I just wish these article writers could show even a little perspective and self-awareness. If he'd said, "Look, I know that I couldn't have made it here without government-subsidized loans, and that even after PPACA, I'll be among the highest paid people in the country. I get that, and I'm incredibly grateful for it. But that doesn't mean everything is sunshine and roses. I put a lot of hard work into this - 8 years of my life, in fact - and I'm signing up for a job with long, unpredictable hours, high stress, occasional heartbreak, and a very specialized skill set. I love medicine, and I've always dreamed of doing it as a career, but of course the compensation is part of the calculation as to whether or not this is the life I want for myself. And with the loans, the insurance premiums, all the work/life balance issues...I'm honestly not sure if it's worth it anymore. And that tears me up....", then, I'd be all about the sympathy. Of course, the one's who have that perspective don't tend to write op-eds about it.

My friends in the healthcare field are terrified of this including very liberal jewish friends both of whom are medical professionals. They are considering leaving their fields but don't want to be too late in making that decision should a lot of new people make the same decision and flood the market.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

He wouldn't have had to pay near that much if the government didn't enforce licensture which gives monopoly control to access to licensing to organizations that restrict enrollment to maintain high fees.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Licensing is about maintaining standards of care, not ensuring doctors salaries or that medical school tuition remains high.

_________________

That is what it is sold to you as not the effect it causes.

Again you misplace consequence and insert intent.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville