Coronavirus thread

[JBS]

     You were discussing how hard it is to get more than basic services through Medicare. I have no doubt this is true. So, what are you going to do about it?

This tangent started off with you  claiming Medicare  was efficient. Now you agree that it's not.   

As to your final question: there is no "good" alternative. You can choose a system that gives everyone mediocre care with high levels of bureaucratic inefficiency, or a system that delivers high quality care to some  people but poor care or no care to everyone else.  There are no real world alternatives other than those two.

BTW, given the ability of the IRS to arbitrarily destroy people's lives through audits and enforcement proceedings, an inefficient IRS [and it's been inefficient for several decades] is a very good thing.

[Daverz]

This tangent started off with you  claiming Medicare  was efficient. Now you agree that it's not.   

The "efficiency" you seem to be talking is some kind of consumer satisfaction.  In that case, concierge medicine is probably the most "efficent".  That's not what is meant by efficiency in this context where it means lowest overhead for the best medical outcomes overall. 

[JBS]

The "efficiency" you seem to be talking is some kind of consumer satisfaction.  In that case, concierge medicine is probably the most "efficent".  That's not what is meant by efficiency in this context where it means lowest overhead for the best medical outcomes overall.

My definition of efficiency is patients getting the care they need with the least interference of bureaucratic paperwork. Cost has nothing to do with it.  It involves wait times for MD visits and procedures and tests, pre-approvals for operations, durable equipment, procedures, prescription medicine, etc.

If you wish to call that customer satisfaction, be my guest.  My experience with my mother showed me that while the program aims for low costs,  it prioritizes getting the paperwork in order over good medical outcomes.  That's why I call it inefficient.

What Drogulus means by efficiency, I am not sure.

[Daverz]

My definition of efficiency is patients getting the care they need with the least interference of bureaucratic paperwork. Cost has nothing to do with it.  It involves wait times for MD visits and procedures and tests, pre-approvals for operations, durable equipment, procedures, prescription medicine, etc.

If you wish to call that customer satisfaction, be my guest.  My experience with my mother showed me that while the program aims for low costs,  it prioritizes getting the paperwork in order over good medical outcomes.  That's why I call it inefficient.

What Drogulus means by efficiency, I am not sure.

It's not a good argument (even with added huffiness) for a status quo that leaves millions of people without access to healthcare.  And the bureaucracy argument ignores the reality of dealing with insurance companies.  Actually, I'm not sure what you are arguing for, unless it's some kind of glibertarian fantasy world where where the free market magically provides affordable healthcare for everyone. 

[JBS]

It's not a good argument (even with added huffiness) for a status quo that leaves millions of people without access to healthcare.  And the bureaucracy argument ignores the reality of dealing with insurance companies.  Actually, I'm not sure what you are arguing for, unless it's some kind of glibertarian fantasy world where where the free market magically provides affordable healthcare for everyone.

Did I say private insurance was less bureaucratic? I did not, because they can be just as bad.

I am arguing against the progressive fantasy that if we just open up the government checkbook wide enough, we can provide everyone with good quality healthcare. We can provide everyone with poor to mediocre health care, but that's it.

[Karl Henning]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/12/white-house-seeks-to-discredit-dr-anthony-fauci-as-coronavirus-surges.html

I shudder to think what kind of knuckle-dragger will replace him.

All part of suppressing professional medical opinion, to cover up the incompetence of the President.

[Daverz]

Did I say private insurance was less bureaucratic? I did not, because they can be just as bad.

I am arguing against the progressive fantasy that if we just open up the government checkbook wide enough, we can provide everyone with good quality healthcare. We can provide everyone with poor to mediocre health care, but that's it.

Except it's not a fantasy but the reality in most of the developed world. 

[JBS]

Except it's not a fantasy but the reality in most of the developed world.

Most health care in the developed world can be described as mediocre.

Don't forget that all those statistics which say US health outcomes are not as good as that in other countries don't take into account the fact that we in the U.S. have four different systems: Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and private insurance.  I've looked for, but never found, any comparison of outcomes among those four. Anecdotally Medicaid seems the worst, but I've never seen anything more than anecdotal.

[Mirror Image]

I have decided to continue my self-quarantine as the county I live in has 3,813 cases. The surrounding counties, which are closer to Atlanta definitely aren't improving either.

[MusicTurner]

This is quite interesting - a large, international group of super-rich appeal for governments to have the economical elites paying higher taxes on a permanent basis, for the societies to recover in general and reduce poverty (there's a least one in the group from my country too, local press here says).

Obviously, there are also cases, where the crisis has made some people considerably richer, Jeff Bezos of Amazon probably being the most published example.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/jul/13/super-rich-call-for-higher-taxes-on-wealthy-to-pay-for-covid-19-recovery

One comment says:
"This has been necessary for a long time but if it's going to happen, the world needs to dismantle it's tax havens and punish tax avoidance."
https://twitter.com/Henry_Langston/status/1282615982708658176

[T. D.]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53392817

Coronavirus: White House targets US disease chief Dr Anthony Fauci

Donald Trump has often railed against newspapers that publish anonymous quotes from administration aides critical of the president. Over the weekend, however, the White House was using its own unnamed "officials" in a remarkable attack on a member of its coronavirus task force, top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci.

The White House even provided a list of Fauci's old statements about the virus similar to the kind of memo a campaign might use to direct negative attention on a political opponent. The administration, it appears, is trying to paint Fauci as wrong about the early threat of the virus and, consequently, untrustworthy when he questions the administration's current analysis of the current situation and its planned actions.

As if that wasn't enough, on Monday morning the president retweeted a post by former game show host Chuck Woolery, accusing the Centers for Disease Control, among others, of lying about the virus in an effort to undermine the Trump's re-election prospects.

An administration at war with its own scientific and medical experts in the middle of a pandemic that is once again on the upswing makes developing a cohesive strategy - one that the public trusts and will follow - challenging, to say the least.

Former game show host! The Game Show President should fire Fauci and appoint Woolery!

[Herman]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/12/white-house-seeks-to-discredit-dr-anthony-fauci-as-coronavirus-surges.html

I shudder to think what kind of knuckle-dragger will replace him.

it will be interesting to see if Trump will be as stupid as to try and fire Fauci before the election.

[Herman]

I have decided to continue my self-quarantine as the county I live in has 3,813 cases. The surrounding counties, which are closer to Atlanta definitely aren't improving either.

Good on you.

[Mirror Image]

Good on you.

Thanks and I don't like getting political, but I think Trump's handling of this pandemic has been destructive to say the least. The fact that he shrugged off the virus as far back as January when he and other officials were being briefed on it has proven to be his undoing and, in turn, his approval rating is the lowest it has ever been. Now, on top of this destruction, you have an even larger racial divide than this country has ever seen in recent years. These are all the ingredients of a one-term president. I don't think he'll pull himself out of this slump. What he should've done back in March before this pandemic launched into full effect here in the US was issue a nationwide lockdown and implement strict social distancing guidelines, travel bans and actually listen to his health experts. Now, he's acting like the virus doesn't even exist and nothing is wrong. I was a supporter of his presidency in the beginning as I was hoping for greater economic stability, but it seems that the economy is the only thing he cares about and there's thousands and thousands of people dying of this horrible virus. I'm sorry, but I just can't support this level of incompetence any longer. Also, while he cares only about the economy, this has actually wound up hurting him because of the pandemic as restaurants have closed, bars have closed, sports teams face uncertain futures (and let's face it sports do bring in revenue for cities), etc. With millions of people out-of-work, it doesn't look like even his alleged 'political strength' is helping him.

[Karl Henning]

I have decided to continue my self-quarantine as the county I live in has 3,813 cases. The surrounding counties, which are closer to Atlanta definitely aren't improving either.

Stay safe, John!

[Mirror Image]

Stay safe, John!

Thank you, Karl. You, too.

[Karl Henning]

12 states, plus D.C. and Virgin Islands, see sharp rise in the average number of new cases in the past week

And:

Mass. reports 154 new confirmed coronavirus cases, 5 new deaths

[Gurn Blanston]

If you're willing to blame one guy for all the deaths will you credit him for those who didn't get it or those who did but recovered? (Supposedly less than one percent die from COVID-19 now.)

However, if he shuts down everything he wrecks the economy sooner than later and his critics will fault him for it because that's how polarized our politics is now. The Left campaigns on "it's the economy stupid" or it's "look at all those dead people!" The fact that state and local governments had an impact and made critical decisions isn't relevant as the fact of federalism is hardly relevant anymore, especially in an election year. 

Anyhoo, you might want to examine the actions from the federal and various state and local governments and apply a little judicious criticism or praise for the handling of the virus. Blaming or criticizing one person for everything is unfair. Just a thought.

Neither Left nor Right, although most Wingnuts will go for one or the other... 

So anyhoo (neat word, I'll have to remember that), this talk about 1%, you do realize that it is intended to minimize things because people don't cope well with big numbers. So here is some context for it:

For those of you who CAN deal with big numbers, let this sink in. Then next time someone says "it's one percent, got over it", you can see where they are coming from.

[JBS]

What a distortion of facts and a false scenario to drum up as much fear as possible. Here are the numbers, according to Johns Hopkins for the US:

41,002,876 have been tested.

3,361,042 are confirmed.

135,582 deaths.

So, you can see that most Americans don't have it (roughly 38 million out of the 41 million tested). Recovery only applies to those infected, not a percentage of the entire US population. Not saying there aren't real side effects from infection but age and pre-existing conditions have the most impact usually for those patients with them, the ones we should be prioritizing. If wrecking an entire economy is your way of doing that, we'll have to disagree.

Most Americans don't have it yet.

[Karl Henning]

It isn't realistic or fair, to blame all 135K deaths on Trump. But it is both realistic and fair to own that thousands of Americans now dead would probably not have died, but for Trump's criminal negligence and incompetence.