Obamacare makes people less likely to exercise, more likely to smoke and drink
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2013, 10:04 PM
RE: Obamacare makes people less likely to exercise, more likely to smoke and drink
(03-12-2013 08:27 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  Insurance has a negative effect on health decisions, but doctor visits have a positive effect. Overall, Medicare is actually beneficial for people's health, as long as they make use of coverage for doctor visits.

Agreed 100%. Like I said in the OP there are both negative effects and positive effects. I never postulated which outweighed the other.

The point I made is that IF you acknowledge the negative effects THEN you can try to find a solution that keeps the positive without the negative. Whereas if you bury your head in the sand and ignore the negative effects, you won't be able to mitigate them.

And the replies to this thread prove the point. CJLR dismissed everything when he wrote: "You mean to tell me that a click-bait opinion piece at a non-scientific source didn't give a wholly accurate summary of the study's conclusions?" Sure, he's right that it's an opinion piece and CNN sensationalizes it and the summary may not be wholly accurate. BUT, if you read the original research paper, you'll see that there ARE negative effects (moral hazards) substantiated by empirical data. However, Cjlr looks for any excuse to dismiss and discredit the entire post, and ignore that data, rather than acknowledging the negative effects, and he certainly isn't willing to propose solutions to minimize the negative effects. Chas did the same thing; used the 'opinion piece' angle to ignore the valid empirical data presented.

Elesjei similarly dismissed it as "quakery", even though the basic points were substantiated with data. WeAreTheCosmos makes a joke. Sporehux echoes it. Minimalist says I'm stupid. GirlyMan throws his cute jabs. And BuckyBall dismisses it entirely as bad science. Only BnW acknowledge that there were some negative effects to the current system.

Did the others acknowledge that the validity of the core points CNN grabbed came from the NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH paper, and that there are some negative effects in addition to positive ones from having a middle-man pay all your medical bills? Nope. It's a case in point of ignoring empirical data that doesn't support one's preconceptions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 10:09 PM
RE: Obamacare makes people less likely to exercise, more likely to smoke and drink
(03-12-2013 10:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It's a case in point of ignoring empirical data that doesn't support one's preconceptions.

Just as you did in ignoring the points in the NYT article. You are doing EXACTLY what you're whining about. Your OP is preposterous. There is no way to project the fallout from a program that hasn't even started yet. You can get off your morally superior soap box, any time.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 10:27 PM
RE: Obamacare makes people less likely to exercise, more likely to smoke and drink
(03-12-2013 10:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  GirlyMan throws his cute jabs.

If you found them cute, then they were ineffective. Girly can up his game bitch.

[Image: marathon.jpg]

I just don't see no fucking point to it. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 10:37 PM
RE: Obamacare makes people less likely to exercise, more likely to smoke and drink
(03-12-2013 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 10:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It's a case in point of ignoring empirical data that doesn't support one's preconceptions.

Just as you did in ignoring the points in the NYT article. You are doing EXACTLY what you're whining about. Your OP is preposterous. There is no way to project the fallout from a program that hasn't even started yet. You can get off your morally superior soap box, any time.

Look, you can't just link to an article without reading it and just pray that it proves your point. Remember, I'm the guy who wrote that a single payer system like Canada and most of Europe would, imo, actually work BETTER than the current US system of forcing everyone to get a comprehensive medical plan from a private, for-profit corporation that can set its own rates. The key points in that NYT article are actually the same points I already made! However, it has nothing remotely to do with this thread. The NYT article does NOT in any way make any observations whatsoever about whether people take more risks when they have a safety net.

So you linked to an article that (a) just echoed what I said earlier, and (b) had nothing to do with the subject at hand, and then you claim this proves I'm wrong?

If you disagree, please copy/paste what I wrote in the OP, and what from that NYT article contradicts it. I can safely predict you won't do it (because it didn't happen), but you won't admit it either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 10:46 PM
RE: Obamacare makes people less likely to exercise, more likely to smoke and drink
(03-12-2013 10:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Just as you did in ignoring the points in the NYT article. You are doing EXACTLY what you're whining about. Your OP is preposterous. There is no way to project the fallout from a program that hasn't even started yet. You can get off your morally superior soap box, any time.

Look, you can't just link to an article without reading it and just pray that it proves your point. Remember, I'm the guy who wrote that a single payer system like Canada and most of Europe would, imo, actually work BETTER than the current US system of forcing everyone to get a comprehensive medical plan from a private, for-profit corporation that can set its own rates. The key points in that NYT article are actually the same points I already made! However, it has nothing remotely to do with this thread. The NYT article does NOT in any way make any observations whatsoever about whether people take more risks when they have a safety net.

So you linked to an article that (a) just echoed what I said earlier, and (b) had nothing to do with the subject at hand, and then you claim this proves I'm wrong?

If you disagree, please copy/paste what I wrote in the OP, and what from that NYT article contradicts it. I can safely predict you won't do it (because it didn't happen), but you won't admit it either.

(03-12-2013 10:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  GirlyMan throws his cute jabs.

If you found them cute, then they were ineffective. Girly can up his game bitch.

[Image: marathon.jpg]

I just don't see no fucking point to it. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 10:47 PM
RE: Obamacare makes people less likely to exercise, more likely to smoke and drink
(03-12-2013 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no way to project the fallout from a program that hasn't even started yet.

And if you use logic and reason and understand human nature, yes you can make certain observations, including the one in my OP. You don't even need empirical data.

Ask yourself this: Is it reasonable that people would take MORE risk when they don't have insurance than when they do? Do you know any sane person who, after their car insurance lapses and they've got no coverage, will drive MORE recklessly simply because they DON't have insurance? Is it not safe to assume that under normal circumstances nobody would do that.

Then ask this: Is it reasonable to assume that out of 300 million people in the US, there are probably some who take more risk when they know insurance will cover it? Isn't it reasonable to assume that some people with full coverage car insurance might in the back of their mind think "Hey, it's insured, what the heck"?

Knowing how many would respond that way is impossible. But if you think about human nature it IS logical to assume that some people will take more risks (be it with their car or their body) when they know insurance is providing a safety net.

Therefore, the point I made in my OP is simply logical and reasonable, and uncontroversial. If I made the same point, but instead of talking about Obamacare, made the point about car insurance, nobody would have disputed it. Everybody in this forum would universally accept it. Only because I applied this obvious truth to something that you guys feel the need to defend do you go into denial mode and pretend like it's such a crazy assumption that people will take more risks when they have insurance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 10:49 PM
RE: Obamacare makes people less likely to exercise, more likely to smoke and drink
(03-12-2013 10:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  GirlyMan throws his cute jabs.

If you found them cute, then they were ineffective. Girly can up his game bitch.

[Image: marathon.jpg]

I just don't see no fucking point to it. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 11:01 PM
RE: Obamacare makes people less likely to exercise, more likely to smoke and drink
(03-12-2013 10:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And if you use logic and reason and understand human nature, yes you can make certain observations, including the one in my OP. You don't even need empirical data.


Wrong. The entire article is about a system which proves your assertions WRONG. So you think you get to make up shit, and expect people to swallow it because you *say* you're logical and "know human nature". Right, your holiness.
The POINT is your OP is NOTHING but your fantasy, about something that hasn't even HAPPENED yet. The NYT article is about a system which PROVES what you assert might happen, is not the necessary outcome. You will never admit, as you LIVE to whine about Obama, which everyone on TTA is sick to death of. You're as bad as I and I.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-12-2013, 12:00 AM
RE: Obamacare makes people less likely to exercise, more likely to smoke and drink
(03-12-2013 11:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong. The entire article is about a system which proves your assertions WRONG.

Lies, lies. Copy/paste exactly where in that article it in any way disproves my assertion that people with insurance are more likely to take risk. Either copy/paste, or admit that you're lying. I'm waiting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 12:12 AM
RE: Obamacare makes people less likely to exercise, more likely to smoke and drink
Http://esciencenews.com/articles/2013/11....behaviors

People with health insurance are more likely to use preventive services such as flu shots and health screenings to reduce their risk of serious illness, but they are no more likely than people without health insurance to engage in risky health behaviors such as smoking or gaining weight, researchers at UC Davis and University of Rochester have found. The findings, published in the November-December issue of the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, contradict the common concern that expanding health-care coverage may encourage behaviors that increase utilization and costs.

"The notion that people with insurance will exhibit riskier behavior is referred to by economists as 'ex ante moral hazard' and has its roots in the early days of the property insurance industry," said Anthony Jerant, professor of family and community medicine at UC Davis and lead author of the study. "After buying fire insurance, some people wouldn't manage fire hazards on their property. But health care is different. Someone might not care if their insured warehouse burns down, but most people want desperately to avoid illness."

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: