Florida Woman Charged With Threatening Insurance Company With "Delay, Deny, Depose"

[bilby]

My thread was about why people feared it. UHC working correctly = good. But the track record is bad.

No, it isn't.

The track record is the best.

You csn find lots of examples where it is not perfect; But 'imperfect' is not a synonym of 'bad'.

UHC doesn't need to be perfect; Like any policy solution to any problem, it just needs to be better than the alternatives.

And it is. Observably. And by no small margin.

If it was actually better why are they stacking the deck by making 20% of the score "fairness"--in other words, UHC?

That's not "stacking the deck"; Fairness is valued by the vast majority of people. If your alternative is inherently unfair, that doesn't mean you get to disregard fairness.

And WTF is this 'score' anyway? I am not discussing a score; I am commenting on the track records of different systems.

Who the fuck are "they"? I haven't introduced any "they" into this discussion.

And why are they stacking the deck in admitting that infant mortality data isn't a good comparison in some cases, but then using it anyway?

I don't know who "they" are; Or particularly care. You appear to be making the false assumption that I am using a specific single source of data, and the false assumption that it is the same source you are using.

I am not.

The "track record" of UHC is the best of any healthcare system, by whatever reasonable measures you choose to judge such things. It isn't great. But it doesn't need to be. It only has to be better than the alternative.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My thread was about why people feared it. UHC working correctly = good. But the track record is bad.

No, it isn't.

The track record is the best.

You csn find lots of examples where it is not perfect; But 'imperfect' is not a synonym of 'bad'.

UHC doesn't need to be perfect; Like any policy solution to any problem, it just needs to be better than the alternatives.

And it is. Observably. And by no small margin.

If it was actually better why are they stacking the deck by making 20% of the score "fairness"--in other words, UHC?

That's not "stacking the deck"; Fairness is valued by the vast majority of people. If your alternative is inherently unfair, that doesn't mean you get to disregard fairness.

And WTF is this 'score' anyway? I am not discussing a score; I am commenting on the track records of different systems.

Who the fuck are "they"? I haven't introduced any "they" into this discussion.

And why are they stacking the deck in admitting that infant mortality data isn't a good comparison in some cases, but then using it anyway?

I don't know who "they" are; Or particularly care. You appear to be making the false assumption that I am using a specific single source of data, and the false assumption that it is the same source you are using.

I am not.

The "track record" of UHC is the best of any healthcare system, by whatever reasonable measures you choose to judge such things. It isn't great. But it doesn't need to be. It only has to be better than the alternative.

I've identified it before. You can't simply say the "track record" is better without measuring it. And I'm looking at OECD comparison of the systems.

1) They have "fairness" as a factor. That's relevant to the system, not to the quality of the care received. It's a thumb on the scale, there's no reason to trust the result!

2) The same report used to admit that infant mortality data can't be reasonably compared between the US and the UHC countries. Then they got fuzzier and fuzzier about how they expressed this, the last year I looked at simply admits in the small print that the comparison has problems and doesn't even mention the US. Once again a thumb on the scale. (Reality: while we are an outlier the majority of the difference disappears if you compare the combined infant mortality + stillbirth rate. In theory most everyone uses the same measure of a live birth, but clearly in practice they do not. The US leans strongly towards listing the incompatible with life issues as live births, whereas in the other direction Cuba has a minimum weight below which it's simply not counted as a birth, period. I also suspect that the power of the pro-punishment crowd is distorting the figures--we have already seen infant mortality shoot up in the fallout from Dobbs, cases that were known hopeless getting carried to term rather than aborted. While wrong it says nothing about the quality of care.)

The fact that they do it this way says an awful lot.