And the government of course is well known for obtaining and spending their money with only the utmost efficiency, rofl.
Sure, let's go ahead and compare the efficiency of the government, Medicare, with the efficiency of private insurers.
The biggest contribution of the health insurance industry in America is putting out a bunch of scare material about single payer systems. An industry full of companies where the more people need to deal with them, the more they hate their providers.
Oh it just HAPPENED to be the medicare criteria, even though the cost for a solid private provider could easily be less in thousands of cases. You can keep restating the same point all day, it won't change the fact that medicare criteria is being used to criticize admin costs for private companies.
I don't think there is a way that I can explain how these studies are coded in a way that you can actually understand. But I'm going to try, yet again, to dumb things down for you.
The entire concept here is that the same work is counted the same way. So if a doctor spends three hours trying to pull your head out of your ass, then that's three hours of clinical work. If that same doctor has to call up a provider line to figure out the billing codes for that procedure, it's administrative cost. Whether the system involved is Medicare or private insurance, the work and cost should be accounted for in a similar way.
More single payer propaganda bs. Your health system tracker "results" are a bunch of blather about access and affordability, with a bunch of unrelated nonsense like teen pregnancy rates thrown in to fudge the issue.
Moron, these are all health outcomes. If people who don't have insurance because the system is broken die as a result, that's not a good thing. If teens get pregnant because they can't get contraceptive services, that's not a good thing. You can't just put an asterisk at the end and say " *except for people who are poor or sick or live in places where religion is more important than reproductive health."
I'm talking about quality of actual care, and the article you mentioned doesn't refute the actual numbers of what I said (also I find it hilarious that you call it a tabloid article and then go on to link another article refuting the actual study I was talking about.
If it's a tabloid, why did they bother refuting it?). Your article says that the same hospital performed an additional study with "experienced doctors" (doesn't say how many) who judged that the deaths I cited were mostly unavoidable. Gosh, I wonder if they had a conflict of interest in being honest about the nature of those deaths?
The site you posted is just a shitty lead generation site for health care sales. It's somebody who copied articles from tabloid newspapers about a dude trying to sell his approach to measuring hospital mortality. And his own hospital did a huge study that refuted his own work. Do you really think that this is a credible source? More credible than WHO and OECD data?
Oh NICE!!! I was hoping I'd catch you on that one. Everybody, look here ^^^^ This is how you recognize when you're arguing with a commie bot.
Lol, a low budget insurance salesman starts talking shit after getting his shit pushed in repeatedly.
Well the other part is to promote a communist agenda soooo....yeah.
It's a communist agenda to not have people die from preventable health conditions? You Trump try-hards will literally try to politicize anything.
Literally wasting my time, apparently. You can't even understand basic counting.
