CEO of UHG Shot and Killed in NYC - WTF is wrong with you New York

[Brisketexan 106627]

9 minutes ago, Foosters said:

TLDR: Tale as old as time. Conservatives slash spending, break the government service, and then point to that failure as proof that the system doesn't work.

It's perhaps the greatest universal constant.  The Law of Gravity looks at that rule and says "shit, I'm a piker in comparison."

[chainsaw 10244]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's perhaps the greatest universal constant.  The Law of Gravity looks at that rule and says "shit, I'm a piker in comparison."

In the land of chodes, the average guy's a porn star

[Guadaloopy 11129]

45 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Conservatives slash spending, break the government service, and then point to that failure as proof that the system doesn't work.

Where did they "slash spending"?

[Brisketexan 106627]

5 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

Where did they "slash spending"?

The article he cited said exactly what they did -- the slashed the historical annual rate of increase (a measure that functionally keeps pace based on the fact that prices for goods and services typically increase annually, plus the amount of people needing them increases slightly as well):

Quote

The health service received just 0.1% real-terms increases to its funding each year until 2015 – far short of the 4% real-terms rises it had averaged annually since it was established and the 6% it averaged under the previous Labour government. 

At the time, the King’s Trust health think tank said the NHS was facing the “biggest financial challenge in its history” and warned that the 0.1% settlement would “not be enough to meet increasing cost pressures or cope with increasing demand for services from an ageing population”.

From 2016 onwards, the Conservative government increased the NHS budget by 1.6% a year. In 2018, then prime minister Theresa May announced that the NHS would receive an average 3.4% increase in its budget each year until 2023, as a “birthday present” to mark the 70th birthday of the NHS. But by then, the gap between the health service’s budget and what it would have had if the average 4% increase had been maintained since 2010, had grown to £42.2bn, according to analysis by the British Medical Association. 

Boris Johnson announced a further uplift in 2021, setting real-terms annual spending increases at 3.9% a year until 2025. By now, the funding gap stood at £50bn. Although the move put funding increases back in line with the historical average, the “new plans allow for little or no long-term additional costs as a result of the pandemic”, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

Yes, spending for most every program of every sort -- government, private sector, etc. -- increases year-to-year because of the factors I pointed out.  If the increases do not keep pace with those factors, then the real dollars available on a per patient basis are, functionally....cut.

[Foosters 18226]

7 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

Where did they "slash spending"?

stop being a fucking pedant

Quote

Although the NHS was spared from this first round of cuts, its funding nevertheless fell significantly. The health service received just 0.1% real-terms increases to its funding each year until 2015 – far short of the 4% real-terms rises it had averaged annually since it was established and the 6% it averaged under the previous Labour government. 

Boris Johnson announced a further uplift in 2021, setting real-terms annual spending increases at 3.9% a year until 2025. By now, the funding gap stood at £50bn. 

it is telling that that your reply is the best you can do after getting called on your bullshit.

[wildcat09 29558]

After reading Guadaloopy in this thread his commitment to his Tesla makes a lot more sense.

[NeverMarryAStripper 22241]

1 hour ago, Guadaloopy said:

no other country's system comes close to producing the level of consistent investment and advancement in medical innovation/technology seen in the US system.

Of course most of that innovati0on is only available to the ultra-wealthy because insurance won't pay for it for the peons

[Guadaloopy 11129]

It's a pretty wild world we live in where a lower rate of increase in spending is somehow viewed as a "slash" in spending.  It's also wild that people can, with a straight face, proclaim that because an unsustainable rate of spending wasn't maintained that there is now a "funding gap."  

 

[Guadaloopy 11129]

5 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Of course most of that innovati0on is only available to the ultra-wealthy because insurance won't pay for it for the peons

Horseshit.  My FIL (a retired assistant manager of a cotton co-op in southwest Oklahoma) had a heart valve replaced earlier this year in an outpatient procedure.

[Brisketexan 106627]

2 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

It's a pretty wild world we live in where a lower rate of increase in spending is somehow viewed as a "slash" in spending.  It's also wild that people can, with a straight face, proclaim that because an unsustainable rate of spending wasn't maintained that there is now a "funding gap."  

It's wild that you are 1) that predictable, and 2) that bad at math.

Here, take an example.  In 2000, you were paid a salary of $50k.  The amount of goods you could buy was X.  Each year, for the next 5 years, your salary increased by 4%.  In 2005, you could still buy X amount of goods (or just a tiny bit more than that)....because of inflation.  Of course, in 2000, you ALSO had a kid.  The number of people your salary had to provide for increased.  But instead of increasing your salary 4% a year starting in 2005, your employer increased it only 1% a year.  By 2010, the amount of goods you could buy was LESS than X.  AND, the amount of goods you could buy per member of your household had declined significantly.

Costs increase, both due to inflation and due to an increasing number of people in the system.  Failure to INCREASE spending in a manner that at least KEEPS PACE with those factors means that you can afford LESS in the way of goods and services than before on a per capita basis.

Are you really that bad at math, or purposefully disingenuous, or.....the obvious answer...."both?"

[royiv 9688]

7 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

It's a pretty wild world we live in where a lower rate of increase in spending is somehow viewed as a "slash" in spending.  It's also wild that people can, with a straight face, proclaim that because an unsustainable rate of spending wasn't maintained that there is now a "funding gap."  

 

Jesus, dude, your lack of understanding of basic economics is quite something.

[royiv 9688]

19 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

After reading Guadaloopy in this thread his commitment to his Tesla makes a lot more sense.

His lack of basic economic principles explains a lot about his decision to pay Elon to beta test his products while buying the selling point that his car will some day be a robotaxi earning 20% while he lays on the beach.

[Brisketexan 106627]

Just now, royiv said:

Jesus, dude, your lack of understanding of basic economics is quite something.

Dude.  His retirement plan is "wait on Tesla Full Self-Driving to finally become viable, and my Tesla will become a taxi that just prints money for me."  So.....yeah.

[Guadaloopy 11129]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

It's wild that you are 1) that predictable, and 2) that bad at math.

Here, take an example.  In 2000, you were paid a salary of $50k.  The amount of goods you could buy was X.  Each year, for the next 5 years, your salary increased by 4%.  In 2005, you could still buy X amount of goods (or just a tiny bit more than that)....because of inflation.  Of course, in 2000, you ALSO had a kid.  The number of people your salary had to provide for increased.  But instead of increasing your salary 4% a year starting in 2005, your employer increased it only 1% a year.  By 2010, the amount of goods you could buy was LESS than X.  AND, the amount of goods you could buy per member of your household had declined significantly.

Costs increase, both due to inflation and due to an increasing number of people in the system.  Failure to INCREASE spending in a manner that at least KEEPS PACE with those factors means that you can afford LESS in the way of goods and services than before on a per capita basis.

Are you really that bad at math, or purposefully disingenuous, or.....the obvious answer...."both?"

No.... I'm not bad at math at all.   But I am intimately familiar with the inefficiencies of government agencies that work outside the constraints of profit.  I've been in the belly of the beast.

Your example has faulty assumptions.  It assumes that 1) I need X amount of goods and 2) that every dollar spent on X amount of goods was spent efficiently to maximize utility.  It also assumes that my employer has an unlimited capacity to continue salary increases.

[Brisketexan 106627]

10 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

1) I need X amount of goods

Yes.  I do assume that.  You are right, it's faulty....but not for the reason you think.  When it comes to the need for medical goods (drugs, equipment usage, etc.), do you think that the cost (in real dollars per patient) for the "current standard of care" has gone DOWN over the last 20 years?  FFS, it's gone up.  Yes, that's in part due to developments in medical science (yay science!), but still....UP, not down.

10 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

2) that every dollar spent on X amount of goods was spent efficiently to maximize utility

To MAXIMIZE utility?  Of course not.  No system - public or private - functions at 100% efficiency.  BUT....the level of inefficiency more often than not stays constant.  So, if NHS, FedEx, or AT&T were wasting 15% of their budget last year, they're most likely wasting a similar percentage this year.  This is the good old "fraud, waste, and abuse" straw man.  And the straw-est thing about it is that it is a creature solely of public enterprises.  I too have been in the bellies of MULTIPLE beasts, public and private.  I have found two things to be true, universally: 1) every enterprise has waste and inefficiency, and 2) it's at a lot lower rate than people think it is.

10 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

It also assumes that my employer has an unlimited capacity to continue salary increases.

It does.  And your employer does.  Signed, an employer who has given our employees solid raises every year for decades.  That is the case because as inflationary pressures go up, and the number of people to provide for goes up, SO DOES the revenue stream (both in terms of rate per person, and the number of persons contributing).  We are a law firm.  Perhaps we collected $200 per hour per attorney, with a total of 15 attorneys, 30 years ago.  Today, we collect $400 per hour per attorney, with a total of 30 attorneys.  So, YES, every employee has gotten raises over those years.  Just like every budget, for functionally EVERYTHING, goes up year over year.

That's not unique to healthcare or NHS.  It's how money and economies work.

Edited 14 hours ago by Brisketexan

[Guadaloopy 11129]

12 minutes ago, royiv said:

Jesus, dude, your lack of understanding of basic economics is quite something.

11 minutes ago, royiv said:

His lack of basic economic principles explains a lot about his decision to pay Elon to beta test his products while buying the selling point that his car will some day be a robotaxi earning 20% while he lays on the beach.

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Dude.  His retirement plan is "wait on Tesla Full Self-Driving to finally become viable, and my Tesla will become a taxi that just prints money for me."  So.....yeah.

I have a minor in economics and consider it a bit of a hobby.  Not to mention that I also have an MBA.  I fully understand the math and the mechanisms being discussed.  What I question is the hyperbolic language being applied and the assumptions that go into declaring a "funding gap."

[Guadaloopy 11129]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes.  I do assume that.  You are right, it's faulty....but not for the reason you think.  When it comes to the need for medical goods (drugs, equipment usage, etc.), do you think that the cost (in real dollars per patient) for the "current standard of care" has gone DOWN over the last 20 years?  FFS, it's gone up.  Yes, that's in part due to developments in medical science (yay science!), but still....UP, not down.

To MAXIMIZE utility?  Of course not.  No system - public or private - functions at 100% efficiency.  BUT....the level of inefficiency more often than not stays constant.  So, if NHS, FedEx, or AT&T were wasting 15% of their budget last year, they're most likely wasting a similar percentage this year.

It does.  And your employer does.  Signed, an employer who has given our employees solid raises every year for decades.  That is the case because as inflationary pressures go up, and the number of people to provide for goes up, SO DOES the revenue stream (both in terms of rate per person, and the number of persons contributing).  We are a law firm.  Perhaps we collected $200 per hour per attorney, with a total of 15 attorneys, 30 years ago.  Today, we collect $400 per hour per attorney, with a total of 30 attorneys.  So, YES, every employee has gotten raises over those years.  Just like every budget, for functionally EVERYTHING, goes up year over year.

That's not unique to healthcare or NHS.  It's how money and economies work.

But that's not how GOVERNMENTS work.  

[Brisketexan 106627]

1 minute ago, Guadaloopy said:

I have a minor in economics and consider it a bit of a hobby.  Not to mention that I also have an MBA.  I fully understand the math and the mechanisms being discussed.  What I question is the hyperbolic language being applied and the assumptions that go into declaring a "funding gap."

Costs in real dollars go up over time, due to inflation, increases in the standard of care, and increases in the number of people who need care.  Those costs go up by a certain percentage annually -- for the sake of discussion, let's say 4%.

If you increase your budget every year by 4%, you are TREADING WATER.  Less than 4%?  You can afford less care than your previous baseline.  More than 4%?  You can afford more care than your previous baseline.

[Brisketexan 106627]

Just now, Guadaloopy said:

But that's not how GOVERNMENTS work.  

Are you fucking INSANE?  That's EXACTLY how they work. 

Where do governments get their revenue?  People, and the GDP they create.  The government takes in more tax revenue today than it did 10 years ago.  Why?  Because 1) the number of people contributing to the tax base has increased, and 2) the amount of income they make (upon which their taxes are based) has gone up over that time.  10 years ago, you had 10 people paying $10k a year in taxes based on their income.  Today, you have 12 people paying $15k a year in taxes based on their income.  $100k 10 years ago, $180k today.  

Jesus.  This conversation we're having cannot possibly be real.  Where in the blue fuck did you get an MBA, DeVry?

[Ted Lange 16355]

Sounds more like Prager U grad

[Guadaloopy 11129]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Are you fucking INSANE?  That's EXACTLY how they work. 

Where do governments get their revenue?  People, and the GDP they create.  The government takes in more tax revenue today than it did 10 years ago.  Why?  Because 1) the number of people contributing to the tax base has increased, and 2) the amount of income they make (upon which their taxes are based) has gone up over that time.  10 years ago, you had 10 people paying $10k a year in taxes based on their income.  Today, you have 12 people paying $15k a year in taxes based on their income.  $100k 10 years ago, $180k today.  

Jesus.  This conversation we're having cannot possibly be real.  Where in the blue fuck did you get an MBA, DeVry?

I'm not insane... I just live in the real world where governments are hamstrung when it comes to cutting budgets when the economy tanks.  When a business hits hard times, it can cut costs and make adjustments.  If the government is in the business of being a single payer for a health care system, it does not have the luxury of immediately cutting spending when revenues go down.  It goes into deficit spending.  NHS took it in the shorts from 2007-2009.  The reductions in 2010 had to happen for austerity purposes.  The fact that there weren't actually cuts was a testament to the government's dedication to the program.  Now this is being thrown back in the government's face as a "slash" in spending.  

Edited 14 hours ago by Guadaloopy
corrected a typo

[Brisketexan 106627]

6 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

I'm not insane... I just live in the real world where governments are hamstrung when it comes to cutting budgets when the economy tanks.  When a business hits hard times, it can cut costs and make adjustments.  If the government is in the business of being a single payer for a health care system, it does not have the luxury of immediately cutting spending when revenues go down.  It goes into deficit spending.  NHS took it in the shorts from 2007-2009.  The reductions in 2010 had to happen for austerity purposes.  The fact that there weren't actually cuts was a testament to the government's dedication to the program.  Now this is being thrown back on the government's face as a "slash" in spending.  

Okay, I see where you are going.

Sure, it's true to some extent (and some enterprises are more nimble than others).  

But what you're skipping is that the reduction in the rate of spending increase was not a one-off.  It was maintained for quite some time.

And by the way, as a business owner....I can tell you that when inflationary pressures increase sufficiently, private enterprise too has to increase its outlay often at the expense of owner profit (at the very least, creating some lag before revenues fully catch up).

[safe sex 11914]

59 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes.  I do assume that.  You are right, it's faulty....but not for the reason you think.  When it comes to the need for medical goods (drugs, equipment usage, etc.), do you think that the cost (in real dollars per patient) for the "current standard of care" has gone DOWN over the last 20 years?  FFS, it's gone up.  Yes, that's in part due to developments in medical science (yay science!), but still....UP, not down.

To MAXIMIZE utility?  Of course not.  No system - public or private - functions at 100% efficiency.  BUT....the level of inefficiency more often than not stays constant.  So, if NHS, FedEx, or AT&T were wasting 15% of their budget last year, they're most likely wasting a similar percentage this year.  This is the good old "fraud, waste, and abuse" straw man.  And the straw-est thing about it is that it is a creature solely of public enterprises.  I too have been in the bellies of MULTIPLE beasts, public and private.  I have found two things to be true, universally: 1) every enterprise has waste and inefficiency, and 2) it's at a lot lower rate than people think it is.

It does.  And your employer does.  Signed, an employer who has given our employees solid raises every year for decades.  That is the case because as inflationary pressures go up, and the number of people to provide for goes up, SO DOES the revenue stream (both in terms of rate per person, and the number of persons contributing).  We are a law firm.  Perhaps we collected $200 per hour per attorney, with a total of 15 attorneys, 30 years ago.  Today, we collect $400 per hour per attorney, with a total of 30 attorneys.  So, YES, every employee has gotten raises over those years.  Just like every budget, for functionally EVERYTHING, goes up year over year.

That's not unique to healthcare or NHS.  It's how money and economies work.

Y'all need a private nurse for your firm??

[Sawbonz 28083]

4 hours ago, Guadaloopy said:

I wish we could all be honest about how health care is just a hard fucking problem to tackle rather than saying that a particular system is completely broken while another system has got its shit in one sock.

Despite general displeasure with the US healthcare system, 71% of Americans are happy with the quality of their personal care.

Despite general support of the UK's NHS, only 24% of UK public are satisfied with the care provided by NHS, with 71% saying the number one dissatisfier is wait times for care.

 

The US healthcare system is expensive and by some measures less effective* than other country's systems, but no other country's system comes close to producing the level of consistent investment and advancement in medical innovation/technology seen in the US system.

All systems have trade-offs, and anyone telling you otherwise is only trying to win an election.

 

*Poor health outcomes in the US are more attributable to lifestyle choices (diet, transportation, gun culture) than the quality of care provided by the system 

 

 

I didn’t look at your links, but of the 71% who are satisfied, to what level did they actually have to access their benefits? Also 25 years ago that number was 90+%

[Sawbonz 28083]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

That is the case because as inflationary pressures go up, and the number of people to provide for goes up, SO DOES the revenue stream

Unless you are a physician accepting Medicare and in network insurance 

Edited 13 hours ago by Sawbonz

[SimonBolivar 11032]

5 hours ago, Guadaloopy said:

  Not to mention that I also have an MBA.  

[miguelito 11450]

5 hours ago, safe sex said:

Y'all need a private nurse for your firm??

[GenXer 3329]

11 hours ago, Guadaloopy said:

I wish we could all be honest about how health care is just a hard fucking problem to tackle rather than saying that a particular system is completely broken while another system has got its shit in one sock.

Despite general displeasure with the US healthcare system, 71% of Americans are happy with the quality of their personal care.

Despite general support of the UK's NHS, only 24% of UK public are satisfied with the care provided by NHS, with 71% saying the number one dissatisfier is wait times for care.

 

The US healthcare system is expensive and by some measures less effective* than other country's systems, but no other country's system comes close to producing the level of consistent investment and advancement in medical innovation/technology seen in the US system.

All systems have trade-offs, and anyone telling you otherwise is only trying to win an election.

 

*Poor health outcomes in the US are more attributable to lifestyle choices (diet, transportation, gun culture) than the quality of care provided by the system 

 

 

This is one of the two types of insulin I take for my type 1 diabetes. This lasts me one month.

My endocrinologist told me she has patients that ration their insulin because they can’t afford it.

Tell me which lifestyle choice us type 1 diabetics can change so that our pancreas begins creating insulin.

My pancreas shut down when I was 17.

 

 

[Anastasis 23699]

4 hours ago, GenXer said:

This is one of the two types of insulin I take for my type 1 diabetes. This lasts me one month.

My endocrinologist told me she has patients that ration their insulin because they can’t afford it.

Tell me which lifestyle choice us type 1 diabetics can change so that our pancreas begins creating insulin.

My pancreas shut down when I was 17.

 

 

Toujeo?