How come under capitalism . . .

[coloradoatheist]

Always shown by looking at gross, not net.

Equally stupid.

And false.

Do you know the average income of a doctor who serves Medicare patients?

Except is was reported in 2014 only 45% of doctors accepted medicaid patients

 

[ZiprHead]

2) Medicare "healthcare" spending includes a lot of crap they put the doctors through that doesn't deliver any value to the patient.

Such as what?

http://drgrumpyinthehouse.blogspot.com/2016/03/modern-medicine.html

My URL is a bit rusty.

And I don't debate links.

Care to follow that link yourself and post the relevant stuff in our discussion?

It's a doc showing an example of Medicare-induced nonsense. Instead of anything medically relevant it was ticking all Medicare's stupid boxes.

Medicare had nothing to do with that. The first doctor asked for the medical records of the patient and the 2nd doctor's idiot/lazy staffer sent the Medicare checklist.

 

[bilby]

Of course you blame economic events but the pensions are a big part of the problem. The unions push companies to the edge and then when there's a problem they collapse.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think anyone has good data on what the collection costs are.

Then they are irrelevant as an input into the debate.

"There is no good data on X" = "We add nothing to either side of the debate by introducing X, so I should never have bothered to mention it"

"There is no good data on X" != "My assumptions about X cannot be challenged, so I may continue to use my claims about X as support for my position"

We can see that the Medicare numbers don't include the collection costs without knowing what those collection costs are.

True. But we cannot see whether those costs are significant or trivial, so they cannot be useful to our discussion without that knowledge.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

2) Medicare "healthcare" spending includes a lot of crap they put the doctors through that doesn't deliver any value to the patient.

Such as what?

http://drgrumpyinthehouse.blogspot.com/2016/03/modern-medicine.html

My URL is a bit rusty.

And I don't debate links.

Care to follow that link yourself and post the relevant stuff in our discussion?

It's a doc showing an example of Medicare-induced nonsense. Instead of anything medically relevant it was ticking all Medicare's stupid boxes.

Medicare had nothing to do with that. The first doctor asked for the medical records of the patient and the 2nd doctor's idiot/lazy staffer sent the Medicare checklist.

You miss the point--that was the totality of the notes. There was nothing clinical there.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course you blame economic events but the pensions are a big part of the problem. The unions push companies to the edge and then when there's a problem they collapse.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think anyone has good data on what the collection costs are.

Then they are irrelevant as an input into the debate.

"There is no good data on X" = "We add nothing to either side of the debate by introducing X, so I should never have bothered to mention it"

"There is no good data on X" != "My assumptions about X cannot be challenged, so I may continue to use my claims about X as support for my position"

We can see that the Medicare numbers don't include the collection costs without knowing what those collection costs are.

True. But we cannot see whether those costs are significant or trivial, so they cannot be useful to our discussion without that knowledge.

You're assuming they are trivial by considering ignoring them to be appropriate. Yet now you say we can't assume they're trivial. Want to rethink your argument?

 

[laughing dog]

You're assuming they are trivial by considering ignoring them to be appropriate. Yet now you say we can't assume they're trivial. Want to rethink your argument?

There is no reason. bilby is making the argument that because we do not know whether the costs are trivial, significant or something in between, that it is pointless to include them in the discussion. Unlike you, bilby is unwilling to assume the case that best suits his argument.

 

[bilby]

2) Medicare "healthcare" spending includes a lot of crap they put the doctors through that doesn't deliver any value to the patient.

Such as what?

http://drgrumpyinthehouse.blogspot.com/2016/03/modern-medicine.html

My URL is a bit rusty.

And I don't debate links.

Care to follow that link yourself and post the relevant stuff in our discussion?

It's a doc showing an example of Medicare-induced nonsense. Instead of anything medically relevant it was ticking all Medicare's stupid boxes.

Medicare had nothing to do with that. The first doctor asked for the medical records of the patient and the 2nd doctor's idiot/lazy staffer sent the Medicare checklist.

You miss the point--that was the totality of the notes. There was nothing clinical there.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course you blame economic events but the pensions are a big part of the problem. The unions push companies to the edge and then when there's a problem they collapse.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think anyone has good data on what the collection costs are.

Then they are irrelevant as an input into the debate.

"There is no good data on X" = "We add nothing to either side of the debate by introducing X, so I should never have bothered to mention it"

"There is no good data on X" != "My assumptions about X cannot be challenged, so I may continue to use my claims about X as support for my position"

We can see that the Medicare numbers don't include the collection costs without knowing what those collection costs are.

True. But we cannot see whether those costs are significant or trivial, so they cannot be useful to our discussion without that knowledge.

You're assuming they are trivial by considering ignoring them to be appropriate. Yet now you say we can't assume they're trivial. Want to rethink your argument?

No. The default assumption is that things we don't know about are not of great import; You are assuming that the phase of the moon is unimportant, and you would expect (I hope) that someone who pointed out that we haven't taken the PoM into account, would at the very least be able to say what relevance that had to the debate.

You introduced these costs to the discussion; given that you don't know what they are, you are not entitled to do that in support of your position. We can't assume that they are significant if we don't know what they are; the presumption of triviality falls out of that fact by default - in the absence of any support for the claim that they are significant.

You are engaged in a special case of the shifting burden of proof fallacy. YOU brought up the question of these costs; it is for YOU to show that they are significant.