Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I could debunk the Washington Post-ABC News Poll as being unreliable, produced by media doing nothing more than trying to hype readership or viewership. (Hey, they got Keedy's attention pretty quick, didn't they?) That's how lots of readers on this forum respond when information is presented that they don't agree with and refuse to even consider.

But I won't. I'll accept that the Washington Post and ABC News sponsored the poll, and had it conducted by an experienced pollster with no particular "agenda" in mind. I intend to consider the poll results and the trends that it presents (the same poll was conducted several weeks in a row in order to capture trends in public opinion). My initial reaction is that the poll results are probably a good thing. They suggest that the American public is beginning to take the time to understand the details of the healthcare reform legislation being considered...at least I hope that's what the poll results suggest. I certainly hope that the poll results don't suggest that the American public is beginning to believe that no action is necessary or no money should be spent to reform healthcare. That would be tragic.

All I ask in the future is that readers here accept some of the information that is provided that they might not necessarily agree with, if for no other reason than to understand different points-of-view regarding an issue, a candidate, or legislation. It seems to me that's what this forum is supposed to be all about. If it gets reduced to partisan bashing and counter-bashing of others' ideas, beliefs or candidates, I can tell you for sure that I can find better ways to spend my time.

No idea-bashing intended. We learn better through questioning than blind acceptance.

I will say that I never believe polls - ever. That does not say they can't be accurate occasionally, or that they are always done by folk with an agenda. Humorously, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. I just don't trust them because I've seen so many done by both political parties and their allies which were tainted. This is especially true when the folk polled are uninformed on the topic, but want to "follow the leader," whomever the leader (Rep, Dem, other). The "most people believe" opinion is bandied too much by too many.

All too often opinions and positions are based on subjective information which is colored to appear to be objective. Finding objective sources is becoming more and more difficult, so secondary analysis of the source is necessary. Some folk will take a Fox poll and discount an ABC or CNN one, or vice versa. Why? Because that secondary analysis is indeed the basis for self-determination of the efficacy of the poll.

I like objective data, prepared by sources with "no dog in the fight." These sources are rarely bright, shiny, colorful and demonstrative. In fact, most of these sources are downright dull. Sources like the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service are apolitical by their very nature and not popularly quoted since their products are, well, dull and don't make inspired reading. Yet, they are substantive, neutral, objective and factual.

That's why I rely on CBO and CRS reports so much, even if they lack popularity. Their analyses are subject to both political parties' attack when and if they drift into subjectivity. If neither party rebuts a CBO or CRS report, it's easy to conclude the data is factual and any analysis is sound. Yet, folk often want to ignore the CBO or CRS reports, because the reports don't confirm a media article, poll or political position.

ADDENDUM: VK, I can't think of too many better ways to spend time than debating, contrasting, questioning and formulating opinions, and it's even more fun being involved in intellectual calisthenics with folk who see things differently. If we thought the same, life would indeed be dull, and nothing would ever be learned. The activity keeps the synapses firing, and that's a healthy thing.

Originally Posted by BobKat1

The response to VK's post started as expected, and about as soon as expected.

I guess all is normal again.

This must be painful for you.

A few quotes from a report put out by National Center for Policy Analysis...

"Of the 46 million nominally uninsured, about 12 million are eligible for such public programs as Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
They can usually enroll even at the time of treatment, arguably making them de facto insured. About 17 million of the uninsured are living in households with at least $50,000 annual income. More than half of those earn more than $75,000, suggesting that they are uninsured by choice. Although 36% of people in families with incomes under 200% of the poverty level are uninsured, 44% have private coverage, and there are reasons to believe that expansion of private coverage is a better avenue to greater access to care than expansion of public programs."

This report covers all those arguements about countries with nationalized medicine having better health and health costs and debunks them almost totally.

This section is very interesting...


"Are Administrative Costs Higher for Private Insurance Than Public Insurance?

The Congressional Research Service has estimated the administrative costs of Medicare at 2% of the total program costs, compared to 10% for private insurance and 12% for HMOs. Some single-payer advocates have used this estimate as an argument for a universal Medicare program. These estimates ignore hidden costs shifted to the providers of care, and the social costs of collecting taxes to fund Medicare. A Milliman & Robertson study estimates that, when these costs are included, Medicare and Medicaid spend two-thirds more on administration than private insurance spends on administration: 27 cents, compared to 16 cents, respectively, for every dollar of benefits.
According to Himmelstein and Woolhandler, if the US adopted the Canadian system, the savings on lower administrative costs could pay for insuring the uninsured.

Their calculation includes the cost of private insurance premium collection (advertising, agents' fees, etc.), but ignores the cost of tax collection to pay for public insurance. Danzon estimates the deadweight cost of tax finance in Canada to be at least 17% of claims. Using the most conservative estimate of the social cost of collecting taxes, Zycher calculates that the excess burden of a universal Medicare program would be twice as high as the administrative costs of universal private coverage."


Interesting reading for anyone who has the time.

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/sp_Do_Other...he_Answers.pdf