$73,000 for a 1 night stay in hospital because of a snake bite

Since NCPA is a conservative think tank financed in part by the insurance industry, I'm cynical enough to believe that some of the statistics, although not necessarily false, have been waterboarded into submission. Even so, the NCPA does point to "serious challenges" such as escalating costs and the uninsured.

And just for perspective, to know who we're dealing with, let's not forget that it is this very same insurance industry that is distributing town hall talking points that bash the public option, advising like-minded people how to disrupt actual dialogue:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/h...g-points-for-town-halls-bashes-public-option/

 

Its like their minds are already made up. Its as if people really believe it will be better with total government control of health care.

 

...if that was the proposal on the table. Which it ain't.

 

The author is an MD and professor at the Stanford University Medical Center and he didn't write it for NCPA. The facts he cited were drawn from what are generally considered reliable sources and footnoted.

 

I did not suggest that the numbers were false. Rather, I wonder whether they have been carefully cherry picked to paint a misleading picture. Say, like pulling up a few actual charts that support the use of volume.

Remember, this outfit is funded in part by the insurance industry. They will be more inclined to present what suits them and will sponsor (pay) those professionals who share their views. Think tobacco. Think Big Oil. When such interests fund "think tanks" you may get many things, but balance is not likely to be one of them.

 

That's about what we pay in taxes in the US once you include inflation caused by monetizing the debt. The only difference is our tax bill doesn't include medical care until we turn 65.

 

What did the NCPA say it cost for the ER now to clean the bullshit off my boots.

 

Oh please... all you're doing is trying to put some asinine political spin on this that isn't there... for REAL perspective we're dealing with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control; Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of Canada; The Nobel Prize Internet Archive; Department of Health, England, and the other sources from which the facts in the article were drawn. Which source(s) do you dispute?

 

Actually I think you might have that backwards. WHO rankings are highly objective. Your quarrel is probably with the criteria they use and their lack of subjectivity. By visiting their site you can learn the ranking criteria.

 

Oh really? What do you dispute in the article I posted?

Here's a 12 page evisceration of the WHO rankings.