Medical bills underlie 60% of U.S. bankruptcies

[masomenos]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5530Y020090604

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday in a report they said demonstrates that healthcare reform is on the wrong track.


More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.


"Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," Harvard's Dr. David Himmelstein, an advocate for a single-payer health insurance program for the United States, said in a statement.


"For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection," he added.


The United States is embarking on an overhaul of its healthcare system,

now a patchwork of public programs such as Medicare for the elderly and disabled and employer-sponsored health insurance that leaves 15 percent of the population with no coverage.


The researchers and some consumer advocates said the study showed the proposals under the most serious consideration are unlikely to help many Americans. They are pressing for a so-called single payer plan, in which one agency, usually the government, coordinates health coverage.


"Expanding private insurance and calling it health reform will fail to prevent financial catastrophe for hundreds of thousands of Americans every year," Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen said in a statement.


About 170 million people get health insurance through an employer but President Barack Obama (http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/barackobama) says soaring healthcare costs hurt the economy and force businesses to drop medical insurance for their workers.

CANCELED COVERAGE


"Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year," the report reads.


Obama told Congress on Wednesday he was open to making mandatory health insurance part of the overhaul.


Neither Congress nor Obama are considering the kind of single-payer plan advocated by Public Citizen, Himmelstein and his colleague Dr. Steffie Woolhandler.


"We need to rethink health reform," Woolhandler said. "Covering the uninsured isn't enough.


"Only single-payer national health insurance can make universal, comprehensive coverage affordable by saving the hundreds of billions we now waste on insurance overhead and bureaucracy."

The researchers studied 2,134 random families who filed for bankruptcy between January and April in 2007, before the current recession began.

They used public bankruptcy court records and surveyed 1,032 people by telephone.


"Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000, or 10 percent of pretax family income," the researchers wrote.
"Most medical debtors were well-educated, owned homes and had middle-class occupations."


The researchers, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said the share of bankruptcies that could be blamed on medical problems rose by 50 percent from 2001 to 2007.


Patients with multiple sclerosis paid a mean of $34,167 out of pocket in 2007, diabetics paid $26,971, and those with injuries paid $25,096, the researchers found.

[jrumann59]

Funny how they have quotes from Obama, and a quote from a Universal health Care proponent but little to nothing else besides a scary number pulled out of their brown eye. I mean really I can throw a bit of research together that states that if we didn't have illegals crowding emergency rooms and using them as primary care physicians cost would be much lower. Wait that has already been done but don't worry about it because the gov't continues to play 3 card monty with health care, immigration, and Bush bashing.

[CowboyWay]

Healthcare in this country is a joke. The healthcare industry robs us blind. They are laughing all the way to the bank, and there are still people in this country that defend it.

[Kangaroo]

Healthcare in this country is a joke. The healthcare industry robs us blind. They are laughing all the way to the bank, and there are still people in this country that defend it.


That is funny do you know how much the average amount of money a doc owes when they graduate Medschool try around a 100k

Do you know how much malpractice Insurance is because of the trial lawyers it is outrageous

Then again keep talking out your arse about how bad our Medical is when you have no clue.

Lets not talk about government mandates that add to hospital cost that guess what you get to pay for.

If the Government enforced it's other laws you would also be paying less but then again keep banging that Government health care yep then the Doctors will do what they done in other countries flee some where else they have fled to America to get paid better they will flee somewhere else.

Please do not even try the morality people should be Doctors because they want to no people become Doctors to get paid.

[theogt]

"Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical;Well, I'd like to see the definition to determine whether it's "conservative."

[MetalHead]

That is funny do you know how much the average amount of money a doc owes when they graduate Medschool try around a 100k

Do you know how much malpractice Insurance is because of the trial lawyers it is outrageous

Then again keep talking out your arse about how bad our Medical is when you have no clue.

Lets not talk about government mandates that add to hospital cost that guess what you get to pay for.

If the Government enforced it's other laws you would also be paying less but then again keep banging that Government health care yep then the Doctors will do what they done in other countries flee some where else they have fled to America to get paid better they will flee somewhere else.

Please do not even try the morality people should be Doctors because they want to no people become Doctors to get paid.

Kangaroo by K.O.

[Rogah]

Healthcare in this country is a joke. The healthcare industry robs us blind. They are laughing all the way to the bank, and there are still people in this country that defend it.No, the lawyers and the illegal immigrants rob us blind. I have been saying for years now that health care in this country will never be fixed until we address those 2 problems, which are only getting worse and worse.

Something like 75 hospitals have closed in the past decade in California alone because they are not allowed to turn away unpaying illegals and so the hospitals simply went out of business because they couldn't afford to be constantly giving away free services. Don't blame Blue Cross Blue Shield for those closures.

[Rogah]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5530Y020090604I think it is a misleading statistic because, according to the article, the survey was conducted before this recession when the economy was good but then it got released in the middle of the recession.

I bet'cha dollars to donuts that the same study conducted today would have a much lower number related to health care costs, and a much higher number related to foreclosures, loss of income, etc...

[LehighCowboy]

That is funny do you know how much the average amount of money a doc owes when they graduate Medschool try around a 100k

Do you know how much malpractice Insurance is because of the trial lawyers it is outrageous

Then again keep talking out your arse about how bad our Medical is when you have no clue.

Lets not talk about government mandates that add to hospital cost that guess what you get to pay for.

If the Government enforced it's other laws you would also be paying less but then again keep banging that Government health care yep then the Doctors will do what they done in other countries flee some where else they have fled to America to get paid better they will flee somewhere else.

Please do not even try the morality people should be Doctors because they want to no people become Doctors to get paid.


Blaming "trial lawyers" for the recent rise in medical malpractice insurance for doctors is COMPLETELY unfounded. Malpractice lawsuits DID NOT cause the rise in malpractice insurance premiums for doctors. The insurance companies themselves are to blame.

http://dartmed.dartmouth.edu/fall05/html/disc_myth.php

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/06/01/rising_doctors_premiums_not_due_to_lawsuit_awards/

[Rogah]

Blaming "trial lawyers" for the recent rise in medical malpractice insurance for doctors is COMPLETELY unfounded. Malpractice lawsuits DID NOT cause the rise in malpractice insurance premiums for doctors. The insurance companies themselves are to blame.

http://dartmed.dartmouth.edu/fall05/html/disc_myth.php

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/06/01/rising_doctors_premiums_not_due_to_lawsuit_awards/I am not sure those articles support your position as much as you think they do. According to the article you quoted, big jury awards are not the cause of skyrocketing malpractice rates... which would be great except that for every $1 awarded from a jury, $19 are paid out in cases that settle before going to trial. And, as mentioned in the article, that doesn't even include the other expenses involved with going to court.

This study conflicts strongly with the American Medical Association and the many various studies they have conducted. So I'll take the word of the AMA before I take the word of some no-name guy none of us have ever even heard of who did some study on his own from the ivory towers of Dartmouth College.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Sure blame the lawyers. What the morons on juries who throw money at people for no other reason than the fact it isn't coming out of their own pocket?

[SuspectCorner]

Blaming "trial lawyers" for the recent rise in medical malpractice insurance for doctors is COMPLETELY unfounded. Malpractice lawsuits DID NOT cause the rise in malpractice insurance premiums for doctors. The insurance companies themselves are to blame.

http://dartmed.dartmouth.edu/fall05/html/disc_myth.php

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/06/01/rising_doctors_premiums_not_due_to_lawsuit_awards/

Don't go confusing the right with facts now, Lehigh. They apparently feel an obligation to protect the interests of insurance corporation leeches. Despite medical malpractice claiming more US lives annually than auto accidents - medical malpractice suits make up only about 1-2% of all healthcare costs.

Meanwhile, the administrative waste as a result of the presence of these private insurers in our healthcare system - account for almost a full third of all healthcare costs.

About 60% of US medical doctors support single-payer healthcare - while only 20% choose to belong to the AMA that doesn't support it.

[ScipioCowboy]

About 60% of US medical doctors support single-payer healthcare - while only 20% choose to belong to the AMA that doesn't support it.

Speaking of facts, the vast majority of the American military supports US incursion into Iraq. I suppose it was the correct decision then, huh?

[SuspectCorner]

Speaking of facts, the vast majority of the American military supports US incursion into Iraq. I suppose it was the correct decision then, huh?

Since you're asking me directly - no, it wasn't.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Speaking of facts, the vast majority of the American military supports US incursion into Iraq. I suppose it was the correct decision then, huh?

asking a soldier if he wants to fight is like asking a man if he wants to have intercourse

[ScipioCowboy]

asking a soldier if he wants to fight is like asking a man if he wants to have intercourse

In essence, you're saying that soldiers should not have sole power to decide when and where their countries go to war. It should be a collaborative decision made by all elements of society.

That was my point. It's true for war. It's also true for health care.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

In essence, you're saying that soldiers should not have sole power to decide when and where their countries go to war. It should be a collaborative decision made by all elements of society.

That was my point. It's true for war. It's also true for health care.

not exactly. the US army is voluntary so people who join are obviously prepared to fight and kill, tend to be more conservative in their views and are more likely to support their Commander in Chief as he is their ultimate boss up the chain of comman.

Men just like to score as often and with as many chicks as possible

[masomenos]

Men just like to score as often and with as many chicks as possible

Quality, not quantity, my friend.

[burmafrd]

The malpractice issue has other costs that do not get mentioned. Doctors and hospitals order MANY more tests and procedures just to cover themselves against Malpractice Suits. Many obstetricians were driven out of the specialty due to malpractice suits and high rates.
Frivolous and stupid suits are settled because the doctors and hospitals lawyers are rightfully worried that idiot juries and judges will award stupidly high settlements.

[MetalHead]

The malpractice issue has other costs that do not get mentioned. Doctors and hospitals order MANY more tests and procedures just to cover themselves against Malpractice Suits. Many obstetricians were driven out of the specialty due to malpractice suits and high rates.
Frivolous and stupid suits are settled because the doctors and hospitals lawyers are rightfully worried that idiot juries and judges will award stupidly high settlements.

Burm is back...yes!
What happened?

[burmafrd]

oh said something nasty about an idiot that was claiming we had murderers and rapists on the Boys roster in past years and I was not as restrained as I should have been in replying and got a 1 day ban.

[Rogah]

asking a soldier if he wants to fight is like asking a man if he wants to have intercourse
not exactly. the US army is voluntary so people who join are obviously prepared to fight and kill, tend to be more conservative in their views and are more likely to support their Commander in Chief as he is their ultimate boss up the chain of comman.

Men just like to score as often and with as many chicks as possibleI can't quite tell what you are trying to say here... it's certainly true that our servicemen are prepared to go to war but if your intercourse analogy is meant to imply that they want to go to war and would enjoy the idea of fighting as many wars as possible, then that is a phenomenally ignorant and ridiculous statement.

If I misunderstand you, then I certainly apologize. But it sure seems to me that that is what you are trying to say so if I am mistaken then please feel free to clarify.

[Rogah]

Don't go confusing the right with facts now, Lehigh. They apparently feel an obligation to protect the interests of insurance corporation leeches.As opposed to the left who feel an obligation to protect the interests of the scumbag lawyers.
Despite medical malpractice claiming more US lives annually than auto accidents - medical malpractice suits make up only about 1-2% of all healthcare costs.I would be very interested in seeing where you got that statistic. Once you've provided me a source, I will then explain to you why it is bogus and does not take into account the true cost of malpractice.

[SuspectCorner]

As opposed to the left who feel an obligation to protect the interests of the scumbag lawyers.
I would be very interested in seeing where you got that statistic. Once you've provided me a source, I will then explain to you why it is bogus and does not take into account the true cost of malpractice.

A simple Google search of: "medical malpractice suits as a percentage of overall US healthcare costs" will yield a deluge re my assertion - almost from top to bottom they support this, too.

Evidence from the states indicates that premiums for malpractice insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted than they would be otherwise. But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending.(3) Advocates or opponents cite other possible effects of limiting tort liability, such as reducing the extent to which physicians practice "defensive medicine" by conducting excessive procedures; preventing widespread problems of access to health care; or conversely, increasing medical injuries. However, evidence for those other effects is weak or inconclusive.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

************

According to an in depth analysis of this subject by consumer advocate Public Citizen the fact is that medical malpractice insurance costs nationwide in 2002, for instance, had only a minuscule impact on the cost of health care – less than one percent!

http://honolulu.injuryboard.com/medical-malpractice/medical-malpractice-expenditures-comprise-less-than-1-percent-of-overall-health-costs.aspx?googleid=250112

*****************

Medical malpractice payouts are less than one percent of total U.S. health care costs. All “losses” (verdicts, settlements, legal fees, etc.) have stayed under 1% percent for the last 18 years.

http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf

********************

Malpractice premiums: As Media Matters for America has noted, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has documented the minimal impact that increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums have on overall health care costs. A 2004 CBO report concluded that capping awards at $250,000 for non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits "would basically save only 0.4 percent of the amount that's spent now" on health care. According to the report, "[M]alpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small."

Defensive medicine: As FactCheck.org has noted, claims that "defensive medicine" drives up medical costs -- a principal Bush administration argument for tort reform -- have been dismissed as inconclusive by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the CBO. The CBO went further, declaring that there is "no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200411150001




I can bring plenty more, too. Now please feel free to swing away - I anxiously await your response and will check back periodically.

[theogt]

The "tort reform" argument is largely over. There's serious discussion in Texas of removing the limitations or at least drastically altering them. This is just a conservative relic.

[CowboyMcCoy]

No, the lawyers and the illegal immigrants rob us blind. I have been saying for years now that health care in this country will never be fixed until we address those 2 problems, which are only getting worse and worse.

Something like 75 hospitals have closed in the past decade in California alone because they are not allowed to turn away unpaying illegals and so the hospitals simply went out of business because they couldn't afford to be constantly giving away free services. Don't blame Blue Cross Blue Shield for those closures.

:hammer:

[CowboyMcCoy]

oh said something nasty about an idiot that was claiming we had murderers and rapists on the Boys roster in past years and I was not as restrained as I should have been in replying and got a 1 day ban.

:welcome:

Welcome back, dude.

[SuspectCorner]

The "tort reform" argument is largely over. There's serious discussion in Texas of removing the limitations or at least drastically altering them. This is just a conservative relic.

As long as private insurers continue to lobby - the right will continue to ape their talking points. And not that their influence is limited to politicians on the right, either. In particular, President Obama's record of accepting scads of private healthcare insurers lobbying money is quite damning. He's even got Max Baucus beat in that regard.

[Rogah]

I can bring plenty more, too. Now please feel free to swing away - I anxiously await your response and will check back periodically.OK, now here's why stats like that are bogus. I am going to give a textbook example - the whole matter surrounding Cesarian Sections (which comes about in part from the actions of our good friend, John Edwards).

In the mid-80's John Edwards started suing everybody left and right on behalf of children born with cerebral palsy (or some other sort of brain damage condition). His argument - which had absolutely no basis whatsoever in scientific or medical fact - was that Cesarian Sections would have prevented the brain damage.

To quote the NY Times: "The rise in (C-sections), to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins."

So what is the end result of these out of control lawsuits? Women are paying more for a procedure which endangers their lives because doctors are afraid of getting sued. But neither the extra health care expenses nor the increased danger gets reported as a malpractice verdict so your bogus stats gets to stay artificially low.

The above is just one of countless examples of how the costs go quite a bit deeper than the statistics you quote, statistics which barely scratch the surface of what the true cost of these out of control lawsuits are.

[jrumann59]

Go in with a broken ankle and end up with an MRI to make sure no tissue is damaged. Just because a doctor hasn't been sued doesn't mean unecessary tests or procedures are not done to keep it that way. many dodctors follow the adage, "Better safe then sorry". I MD most doctors now require all new patients to have a physical done before the first real appointment. So now I have to pay a $20 copay for a physical before I can be seen some other day about back issues when I will have pay another copay.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I can't quite tell what you are trying to say here... it's certainly true that our servicemen are prepared to go to war but if your intercourse analogy is meant to imply that they want to go to war and would enjoy the idea of fighting as many wars as possible, then that is a phenomenally ignorant and ridiculous statement.

If I misunderstand you, then I certainly apologize. But it sure seems to me that that is what you are trying to say so if I am mistaken then please feel free to clarify.

of course they love to fight wars, why else join? when you join a voluntary army, by definition you are willing and likely want to fight.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Quality, not quantity, my friend.

the more the quantity, the greater the likelihood of quality

[SuspectCorner]

OK, now here's why stats like that are bogus. I am going to give a textbook example - the whole matter surrounding Cesarian Sections (which comes about in part from the actions of our good friend, John Edwards).

In the mid-80's John Edwards started suing everybody left and right on behalf of children born with cerebral palsy (or some other sort of brain damage condition). His argument - which had absolutely no basis whatsoever in scientific or medical fact - was that Cesarian Sections would have prevented the brain damage.

To quote the NY Times: "The rise in (C-sections), to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins."

So what is the end result of these out of control lawsuits? Women are paying more for a procedure which endangers their lives because doctors are afraid of getting sued. But neither the extra health care expenses nor the increased danger gets reported as a malpractice verdict so your bogus stats gets to stay artificially low.

The above is just one of countless examples of how the costs go quite a bit deeper than the statistics you quote, statistics which barely scratch the surface of what the true cost of these out of control lawsuits are.

Yes, fear of malpractice suits are a fairly significant factor in the increase of C-sections - but hardly the lone factor.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1731904,00.html

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/sexual-reproductive/2008/03/28/a-risky-rise-in-c-sections.html

http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10456

[burmafrd]

Bottom line is that fear of malpractice suits, on both hospitals and doctors, makes them run tests for more then reality requires. Its all about CYA. That kind of atmosphere is a lousy one to run healthcare in. I am not leaving CMO's and profit hungry types out of the loop- certainly they contribute. And then throw in the government and all its usually stupid rules regulations and requirements.
AND then suspect and the rest of the libs want the GOVERNMENT to have more control. That will only make things worse.
What is needed is common sense at all areas:Frivolus lawsuits need to be thrown out by judges and juries with common sense- and those filing those lawsuits (ESPECIALLY the lawyers) need to be forced to pay. THAT would discourage a lot of it and would bring down malpractice insurance rates. TO do all that requires something beyond TORT reform but an entire revaluation of how the courts should be involved. THEY should be the LAST resort- not the first. Arbitration should be in before the courts.
What is needed are national STANDARDS about what is and what is not a valid lawsuit and it needs to be codified to reign in stupid judges and lawyers.
Insurance companies need national standards as well and federal watchdogs that make sure they follow the rules BUT do not think they run the system.
The point must be made at all levels to have affordable competent health care.

[CowboyWay]

That is funny do you know how much the average amount of money a doc owes when they graduate Medschool try around a 100k

Do you know that in other countries medical school is free? Gee, what a novel concept. Educating anyone who wants to learn as long as they're willing to put forth all the hard work involved to be educated.



Do you know how much malpractice Insurance is because of the trial lawyers it is outrageous.

Do you know that other countries with single pay healthcare don't put up with ridiculous lawsuits this country seems to love. Gee, what a novel idea to keep costs down.



Lets not talk about government mandates that add to hospital cost that guess what you get to pay for.

Lets not talk about the same meds you can buy in another country for a dollar, costs $300 here. Why??? Because the med companies can simply get away with charging those fees. .


.

If you defend the healthcare industry in this country, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Kangaroo]

If you defend the healthcare industry in this country, you don't know what you're talking about.

That is because you are myopic and think national health care is great I been in socialized medicine run by our Government it sucked and was the worse care I ever gotten.

There is a reason people fly there kids to the Hospital I work out from other countries and pay cash for our doctors to work on them.

You do realize the first swine death flu in Texas was a affluent family in Mexico that flew in there grand child to be treated in the Texas Medical Center. Why not one of the top Hospital in Mexico you know why.

You and the rest of you have no idea what you are going to get. Does are Health care have issues ? yes but nothing on the level you guys try to make it out to be.

Also Why do not more people take HMO coverage on their Health Plans it is a cheaper premium ? lower co payments etc. It is a Managed Health Care and is cheaper on payout and everything else ? So in a way most insurer provide a managed option that people do not take for a reason

[Rogah]

of course they love to fight wars, why else join? when you join a voluntary army, by definition you are willing and likely want to fight.Wow. You've reached a new low in terms of ignorant and erroneous statements. I think you've probably seen too many movies. Speaking as someone who joined the military, I can assure you that for both me and my shipments, we did not want to or relish the idea of fighting.

What branch of the service did you serve in that provided you with this twisted perception?

[Rogah]

Yes, fear of malpractice suits are a fairly significant factor in the increase of C-sections - but hardly the lone factor.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1731904,00.html

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/sexual-reproductive/2008/03/28/a-risky-rise-in-c-sections.html

http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10456Thank you for posting those articles which do a great job reinforcing what I have said. For example the USA News link which says

"Individual doctors in many states now pay upwards of $100,000 a year for (malpractice) coverage, a figure that can spike if they're sued for something that goes wrong during labor, regardless of the legal outcome. "If there's no labor, there can be no lawsuit related to labor," says Flamm, who points out wryly that parents rarely sue over unnecessary C-sections."

The 3rd article, too lengthy to quote here, does an excellent job reinforcing my point that c-sections are not procedures a woman would ideally want to have. They are risky and dangerous.

[CowboyWay]

That is because you are myopic and think national health care is great I been in socialized medicine run by our Government it sucked and was the worse care I ever gotten.

There is a reason people fly there kids to the Hospital I work out from other countries and pay cash for our doctors to work on them.

You do realize the first swine death flu in Texas was a affluent family in Mexico that flew in there grand child to be treated in the Texas Medical Center. Why not one of the top Hospital in Mexico you know why.

You and the rest of you have no idea what you are going to get. Does are Health care have issues ? yes but nothing on the level you guys try to make it out to be.

Also Why do not more people take HMO coverage on their Health Plans it is a cheaper premium ? lower co payments etc. It is a Managed Health Care and is cheaper on payout and everything else ? So in a way most insurer provide a managed option that people do not take for a reason

The fact that you compare our health care system to Mexico's pretty much sums up my argument.

Over 60% of the bankrupties in this country are derived from healthcare debts. If that isn't eye opening for you, I can't help you.

We are all one major illness away from being bankrupt. But as long as the big wigs in the healthcare world have their mansions and private jets, its all cool.

I don't doubt that the actual care in the US isn't great. Its the infrastructure around it. The insurance companies, the pharmacutecal companies, etc that is a joke.

It would be SO much cheaper on all of the taxpayers if it were nationalized. You'd save much more money and the care would be every bit as good.

[Temo]

Thank you for posting those articles which do a great job reinforcing what I have said. For example the USA News link which says

"Individual doctors in many states now pay upwards of $100,000 a year for (malpractice) coverage, a figure that can spike if they're sued for something that goes wrong during labor, regardless of the legal outcome. "If there's no labor, there can be no lawsuit related to labor," says Flamm, who points out wryly that parents rarely sue over unnecessary C-sections."

The 3rd article, too lengthy to quote here, does an excellent job reinforcing my point that c-sections are not procedures a woman would ideally want to have. They are risky and dangerous.

Suspect's point is that tort law is only one of a myriad of reasons for the rise in c-sections.

So you went out and took one quote that says that medical malpractice has an effect but ignored all the other quotes that point out all the other reasons.

[theogt]

Thank you for posting those articles which do a great job reinforcing what I have said. For example the USA News link which says

"Individual doctors in many states now pay upwards of $100,000 a year for (malpractice) coverage, a figure that can spike if they're sued for something that goes wrong during labor, regardless of the legal outcome. "If there's no labor, there can be no lawsuit related to labor," says Flamm, who points out wryly that parents rarely sue over unnecessary C-sections."

The 3rd article, too lengthy to quote here, does an excellent job reinforcing my point that c-sections are not procedures a woman would ideally want to have. They are risky and dangerous.To be fair, that wasn't your point at all (even though you did make a good point originally) and it's already been shown that medical malpractice insurance costs are a minimal portion of health care costs.

[PullMyFinger]

That is funny do you know how much the average amount of money a doc owes when they graduate Medschool try around a 100k

Do you know how much malpractice Insurance is because of the trial lawyers it is outrageous

Then again keep talking out your arse about how bad our Medical is when you have no clue.

Lets not talk about government mandates that add to hospital cost that guess what you get to pay for.

If the Government enforced it's other laws you would also be paying less but then again keep banging that Government health care yep then the Doctors will do what they done in other countries flee some where else they have fled to America to get paid better they will flee somewhere else.

Please do not even try the morality people should be Doctors because they want to no people become Doctors to get paid.

The pharmaceutical companies are the worst, thats who the government need to crack down on first. Oh and BTW 100k is nothing, a doctor can make that in ONE operation!

[PullMyFinger]

oh said something nasty about an idiot that was claiming we had murderers and rapists on the Boys roster in past years and I was not as restrained as I should have been in replying and got a 1 day ban.


But I bet the other poster could go on and on with that drivel.

[CowboyPrincess]

not exactly. the US army is voluntary so people who join are obviously prepared to fight and kill, tend to be more conservative in their views and are more likely to support their Commander in Chief as he is their ultimate boss up the chain of comman.

Men just like to score as often and with as many chicks as possible

No.. actually that is a boys way of thinking.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

basically all men think that way, it's that 4 million years of evolution bottled up inside of us

[CowboyPrincess]

basically all men think that way, it's that 4 million years of evolution bottled up inside of us

maybe the evolution of a rabbit. But in the evolution of man, it has been to find a mate and to procreate.

Animals bang everything in sight without any thought. A BOY shows no self control and acts like an animal. A real MAN searches for that perfect mate with thought and respect.

You all start as boys, it's just some of you get stuck there when you grow up and never become a real man

[Kangaroo]

The pharmaceutical companies are the worst, thats who the government need to crack down on first. Oh and BTW 100k is nothing, a doctor can make that in ONE operation!

I agree there are things that need to be fixed and pharmaceuticals is one of them but I put blame at all levels on this one from Doctor all the way down to the patients.

How many people get ripped off by the miracles pills on TV that you see hundreds of advertisement selling the miracle diet weight loss to male enlargement.

The way to lose weight is simple eat less eat healthier an exercise instead people are looking for the easy miracle pill to cure it and everything else.

This translates over to medicine as well from not wanting to deal with any pain to everything else.

It is one big mess and guess who gets a big payout from pharmaceuticals companies try about almost all your politicians. They have bought off and I think the CDC and the FDA as been bought of imo.

[jrumann59]

the more the quantity, the greater the likelihood of quality


CC is Stalin incarnate.

"Quantity has a quality of its own."

Joseph Stalin

[Rogah]

To be fair, that wasn't your point at all (even though you did make a good point originally) and it's already been shown that medical malpractice insurance costs are a minimal portion of health care costs.No, my point (which I still stand behind) was that the statistics quoted talking about the costs of malpractice are bogus because the true cost of malpractice goes far above and beyond merely the sum total of all malpractice verdicts.

[theogt]

No, my point (which I still stand behind) was that the statistics quoted talking about the costs of malpractice are bogus because the true cost of malpractice goes far above and beyond merely the sum total of all malpractice verdicts.And that's a fair point. But unfortunately we can't quantify it, so we can't verify one way or the other.

[AbeBeta]

I am not sure those articles support your position as much as you think they do. According to the article you quoted, big jury awards are not the cause of skyrocketing malpractice rates... which would be great except that for every $1 awarded from a jury, $19 are paid out in cases that settle before going to trial. And, as mentioned in the article, that doesn't even include the other expenses involved with going to court.

This study conflicts strongly with the American Medical Association and the many various studies they have conducted. So I'll take the word of the AMA before I take the word of some no-name guy none of us have ever even heard of who did some study on his own from the ivory towers of Dartmouth College.

I think you have it backward regarding who is and who isn't a no-name.

Amitabh Chandra, is a full Professor of Economics who is now at Harvard. He edits several top economics journals. He reached the highest level of recognition from the school (promotion to Full Professor) at about 35 years old (earned his BA in 1996). In short, he's a stone cold superstar in the field of health economics.

The idea that he's some person stuck in an ivory tower and the AMA are the folks with the real knowledge is wrong. The AMA hires people with exactly the same sort of training as Dr. Chandra. In fact, the AMA generally hires economists who were not good enough to get a faculty position. Coincidentally, I have a friend who worked as a health economist for the AMA for two years. He was paid less than you'd be paid at a good university and had nowhere the flexibility that faculty experience. He'd be the first to tell you that he's nowhere near Chandra's class and that an AMA gig is not going to be attractive to top economists. Yet those are the folks writing the AMA reports whose word you value.

So basically your argument is that one of the nation's preeminent health economist's opinions are less valid than folks who had similar training but nowhere near the productivity or recognition.

[BadWolf]

of course they love to fight wars, why else join? when you join a voluntary army, by definition you are willing and likely want to fight.

That's like saying you're canadian because you love being the butt of every joke.

[Rogah]

I think you have it backward regarding who is and who isn't a no-name.

Amitabh Chandra, is a full Professor of Economics who is now at Harvard. He edits several top economics journals. He reached the highest level of recognition from the school (promotion to Full Professor) at about 35 years old (earned his BA in 1996). In short, he's a stone cold superstar in the field of health economics.

The idea that he's some person stuck in an ivory tower and the AMA are the folks with the real knowledge is wrong. The AMA hires people with exactly the same sort of training as Dr. Chandra. In fact, the AMA generally hires economists who were not good enough to get a faculty position. Coincidentally, I have a friend who worked as a health economist for the AMA for two years. He was paid less than you'd be paid at a good university and had nowhere the flexibility that faculty experience. He'd be the first to tell you that he's nowhere near Chandra's class and that an AMA gig is not going to be attractive to top economists. Yet those are the folks writing the AMA reports whose word you value.

So basically your argument is that one of the nation's preeminent health economist's opinions are less valid than folks who had similar training but nowhere near the productivity or recognition.Thanks for the Wikipeda summation. Meanwhile, I would gladly bet dollars to donuts that not a single member of this forum - yourself included - had even heard of him until his work was googled to support a point being made.

[theogt]

Thanks for the Wikipeda summation. Meanwhile, I would gladly bet dollars to donuts that not a single member of this forum - yourself included - had even heard of him until his work was googled to support a point being made.Abe is a professor, if I recall correctly. Those guys obsess over each other's credentials, so it wouldn't surprise me at all. The academic world can be pretty small.

[CowboyMcCoy]

The whole problem is, we could help establish better medical treatment in Mexico if we went THERE instead of them coming HERE. It could be funded under their system. That is, our quality of medical care paid for under their system. I know this is an extremely simplified hypothetical. But we'd get so much more done if we had volunteers or charities there working for them rather than them coming here and essentially stealing from our country, given we live in a capitalist system.

Now, I can't say I blame the individuals. It's the systems fault, but we could fix it. I've been in need of medical attention and so has my family, so I understand. It's the system that needs fixing and it could be if we put forth some effort to give them aid there, rather than them coming here for help.

[ScipioCowboy]

Thanks for the Wikipeda summation. Meanwhile, I would gladly bet dollars to donuts that not a single member of this forum - yourself included - had even heard of him until his work was googled to support a point being made.

In fairness, I am familiar with a Dr. Chandra -- the one who invented HAL 9000 in the 2001 series.:D

[CanadianCowboysFan]

That's like saying you're canadian because you love being the butt of every joke.

except I didn't volunteer to be Canadian, I was born one. If the army is conscripted and I said that, you would have a point.

[AbeBeta]

Thanks for the Wikipeda summation. Meanwhile, I would gladly bet dollars to donuts that not a single member of this forum - yourself included - had even heard of him until his work was googled to support a point being made.


How many Economists who specialize in health economics have you heard of? I'd bet that no one without a background in economics could name many. Your "haven't heard of him" argument is pretty lame.

You've heard of the AMA so you think that's more credible. But have you heard of the economists at the AMA who ACTUALLY wrote the report? Doubtful. But just like you've heard of the AMA, I'd bet you've heard of Dartmouth or Harvard. But you automatically assume the folks at those prestigious institutions must not know crap.

And my info came not from Wiki but from a friend who is a Ph.D. economist who has for the last 5 years specialized in economics of health care.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Why wouldn't the diplomat, Obama, try to consult with Mexico and our government health officials about this? That's the best method. Improve their system, so ours stops bleeding.

Get it yet?

[CowboyMcCoy]

Oh, and Canadian. I disagree on the as many as possible. I've been down that road and to have found the right one is always better than to seek as many as possible.

But as far as many times with the right one, I'm all with you on that one. And here's to you, babe. *cheers

[DaBoys4Life]

No.. actually that is a boys way of thinking.

its not our fault we reach our sexual peek at 18.

to stay on topic people need to remember what country this is. If you want something go out and work to get it. it's as simple as that.

[Rogah]

In fairness, I am familiar with a Dr. Chandra -- the one who invented HAL 9000 in the 2001 series.:D:laugh2: :laugh1:

[Rogah]

How many Economists who specialize in health economics have you heard of?None, but I have heard of the American Medical Association and I know their reputation. But ya know what? If you want to play "my economist can beat up your economist" then that's perfectly fine because the very articles quoted in this thread make the point of saying that this particular study does not represent the mainstream view that economists hold and that there are many, many studies which contradict it.

"Since Chandra's findings conflict so dramatically with the positions of the American Medical Association (AMA) and the White House ... Critics emerged, too, including the AMA, which charged that the study was based on a flawed registry, the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), which catalogues every payment made on behalf of licensed "

Also we have this quote which reinforced the points I have been making all along: You cannot judge the true cost of malpractice by simply isolating the jury verdicts and saying "See? It's not so bad..!!"

"Dr. Barry Manuel, ProMutual's chairman and a surgery professor at Boston University, said that study's authors also did not account for the rising cost of defending malpractice cases."

[AbeBeta]

None, but I have heard of the American Medical Association and I know their reputation. But ya know what? If you want to play "my economist can beat up your economist" then that's perfectly fine because the very articles quoted in this thread make the point of saying that this particular study does not represent the mainstream view that economists hold and that there are many, many studies which contradict it.

Again, you've heard of Harvard and Dartmouth? You don't think they have stellar reputations? The only difference here is that in the news stories, one study was attributed to the organization and the other to the researcher.


"Since Chandra's findings conflict so dramatically with the positions of the American Medical Association (AMA) and the White House ... Critics emerged, too, including the AMA, which charged that the study was based on a flawed registry, the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), which catalogues every payment made on behalf of licensed "

Also we have this quote which reinforced the points I have been making all along: You cannot judge the true cost of malpractice by simply isolating the jury verdicts and saying "See? It's not so bad..!!"

"Dr. Barry Manuel, ProMutual's chairman and a surgery professor at Boston University, said that study's authors also did not account for the rising cost of defending malpractice cases."


This rest of this is totally irrelevant to my argument that you failed to understand who was the expert and who was the hack. That fact is that for ANY empirical study you will always have multiple sides and multiple critics. You chose to base your conclusions on the word of the AMA - who as I note hire economists who are far far weaker in their credentials than "no name" author you criticize. Funny how all the criticisms come from folks with vested interests though, huh?

[Rogah]

Again, you've heard of Harvard and Dartmouth? You don't think they have stellar reputations? The only difference here is that in the news stories, one study was attributed to the organization and the other to the researcher. Isn't Harvard the one that refuses to allow ROTC on campus? No, I don't find it has a stellar reputation.
This rest of this is totally irrelevant to my argument that you failed to understand who was the expert and who was the hack. That fact is that for ANY empirical study you will always have multiple sides and multiple critics. You chose to base your conclusions on the word of the AMA - who as I note hire economists who are far far weaker in their credentials than "no name" author you criticize. Funny how all the criticisms come from folks with vested interests though, huh?I guess I have to repeat myself: The very articles quoted, to which we are referring, mention that this particular study is a contrast against most other studies. They also mention the flaws contained in this study. So to present this particular study as the final, ultimate word on this subject is a bit presumptuous.

You seem to be obsessively hung up on my usage of the term "no name" and you're engaging in a classic debate maneuver in that you are trying to put all the attention on that one particular phrase without really addressing the points at hand. I've made my points and beyond that, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[theogt]

Isn't Harvard the one that refuses to allow ROTC on campus? No, I don't find it has a stellar reputation.Oh good grief.

[burmafrd]

Frankly a whole lot of the CEO's and others who have screwed up things so bad come from such STELLAR universities as Harvard so why should we give Harvard any more notice then any other university?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Oh good grief.

Only a moron wouldn't want a Harvard degree. It has the best rep of any school in the USA.

[Kangaroo]

Only a moron wouldn't want a Harvard degree. It has the best rep of any school in the USA.

Then I am a moron because I careless a degree from Harvard does not make you any smarter than anyone else. Heck most of Enron upper management was IVY leagues including Harvard we saw what they did.

In fact I say the current group of CEO's running companies now days have done only one thing so far rape, pillage and burn companies all in the name of selling off their stock option for millions of dollars before they bail ship and do it to the next company.

AIG; Lehman brothers and many more yea great leaders of men :bang2::bang2:

[bbgun]

I went to the Harvard of the Midwest.

http://www.123imagehost.com/uploads/235-846-305028790_39b55f4108.jpg

[jimmy40]

of course they love to fight wars, why else join? Could be a way to get your college paid for, could be no other opportunities for employment, could be someone that wants to see the world, could be someone that enjoys the disciplined environment, could be to avoid jail.


Sorry to interrupt the stupidity.

[theogt]

I went to the Harvard of the Midwest.Hey, no one from Devry has ever bankrupted a Fortune 500 company, so it must be a great school!

[bbgun]

Hey, no one from Devry has ever bankrupted a Fortune 500 company, so it must be a great school!

Nah, it makes much more sense to boycott a school where 99.9% of the alums are not criminals.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Could be a way to get your college paid for, could be no other opportunities for employment, could be someone that wants to see the world, could be someone that enjoys the disciplined environment, could be to avoid jail.


Sorry to interrupt the stupidity.

and the one common thing throughout all of those "reasons" is that you are volunteering to go to war if one says so.

Not sure why anyone would want a disciplined environment, hell as an adult, I don't want people regimenting my life that way.

Avoid jail is a good one, if you are that kind of a bad *** that you are afraid of going to jail, you probably end up court martialed anyway.

Even the college paid for argument still requires you to offer to kill/fight wars.

[CowboyMcCoy]

No thoughts on spending money to reform Mexico's system, even if it cost us a little. I think the cost benefit would pay off in the long run? That is, if we made stricter rules here while providing them the cheap consultation there. Lord knows they can make cheap parts, so medical supplies shouldn't be an issue.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Then I am a moron because I careless a degree from Harvard does not make you any smarter than anyone else. Heck most of Enron upper management was IVY leagues including Harvard we saw what they did.

In fact I say the current group of CEO's running companies now days have done only one thing so far rape, pillage and burn companies all in the name of selling off their stock option for millions of dollars before they bail ship and do it to the next company.

AIG; Lehman brothers and many more yea great leaders of men :bang2::bang2:

whether a Harvard grad is smarter than another is a separate issue. I do believe the education is better because the profs are better, smarter students all around so the intellectual debate would be better etc, but the perception that the person holding said degree is smarter is indisputable.

A Harvard degree pretty much guarantees a better paying job.

[AbeBeta]

Isn't Harvard the one that refuses to allow ROTC on campus? No, I don't find it has a stellar reputation.
I guess I have to repeat myself: The very articles quoted, to which we are referring, mention that this particular study is a contrast against most other studies. They also mention the flaws contained in this study. So to present this particular study as the final, ultimate word on this subject is a bit presumptuous.

You seem to be obsessively hung up on my usage of the term "no name" and you're engaging in a classic debate maneuver in that you are trying to put all the attention on that one particular phrase without really addressing the points at hand. I've made my points and beyond that, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

You can't find a single research article that is not critiqued by someone. Never. Ever. Ever. So citing that as evidence is just... well, again, ignorant.

You take a 2ndhand sources word on "flaws" in a study however you ignore the fact that the research being critique passed rigorous peer review. The AMA's research on the other hand was not submitted to peer-review. So in the one case, 3-5 noted experts in the field of health economics judged the study to be a meaningful contribution to the field whereas in the other case, the administration of the AMA decided the work qualified as something they would release to the public. Let's see, panel of experts vs. panel of adminstrators.... hmmm, what's evidence again?

Again, I could give a crap about who is right on this issue. I'm just here to teach the ignorant about basic critical thinking skills. And clearly if you are going to play the "expert" game, your decision to side with the AMA is just plain stupid.

[ScipioCowboy]

You can't find a single research article that is not critiqued by someone. Never. Ever. Ever. So citing that as evidence is just... well, again, ignorant.

You take a 2ndhand sources word on "flaws" in a study however you ignore the fact that the research being critique passed rigorous peer review. The AMA's research on the other hand was not submitted to peer-review. So in the one case, 3-5 noted experts in the field of health economics judged the study to be a meaningful contribution to the field whereas in the other case, the administration of the AMA decided the work qualified as something they would release to the public. Let's see, panel of experts vs. panel of adminstrators.... hmmm, what's evidence again?

Again, I could give a crap about who is right on this issue. I'm just here to teach the ignorant about basic critical thinking skills. And clearly if you are going to play the "expert" game, your decision to side with the AMA is just plain stupid.

Are you asserting that all or most articles and research published by the AMA are not subjected to peer review?

[Rogah]

and the one common thing throughout all of those "reasons" is that you are volunteering to go to war if one says so.

Not sure why anyone would want a disciplined environment, hell as an adult, I don't want people regimenting my life that way.

Avoid jail is a good one, if you are that kind of a bad *** that you are afraid of going to jail, you probably end up court martialed anyway.

Even the college paid for argument still requires you to offer to kill/fight wars.I notice you ignored my question asking what branch of the service you served in to give you this warped perspective.... If you answered it and I just missed the reply, then I sincerely apologize.... but please feel free to respond anytime....

[Rogah]

You can't find a single research article that is not critiqued by someone. Never. Ever. Ever. So citing that as evidence is just... well, again, ignorant. I think you need to work on your reading comprehension, because I wasn't just referring to "critiques" of the paper. I am pointing to the fact that the very article quoted makes reference to the idea that this study goes against an awful lot of what others have researched and concluded on the subject. That goes a bit beyond "critiques."

Furthermore, if somebody presents a study to support a point they are making, there is absolutely nothing "ignorant" in citing critiques of the aforementioned study.
Again, I could give a crap about who is right on this issue. I'm just here to teach the ignorant about basic critical thinking skills. And clearly if you are going to play the "expert" game, your decision to side with the AMA is just plain stupid.I love when someone responds about a half dozen times to an issue in a thread and then comes out with the "I could give a crap" card - and follows it up with a personal attack. :rolleyes:

[Rogah]

Are you asserting that all or most articles and research produced by the AMA is not subjected to peer review?Sure sounds to me like that's what he's saying. But I am sure he'll just remind us all how "ignorant" we are.... :laugh2:

[Kangaroo]

whether a Harvard grad is smarter than another is a separate issue. I do believe the education is better because the profs are better, smarter students all around so the intellectual debate would be better etc, but the perception that the person holding said degree is smarter is indisputable.

A Harvard degree pretty much guarantees a better paying job.
Only when it comes to two degrees maybe three but one I am not sure that is the case Business or Law yes it can give you a leg up. Medical seems more a region thing I seen a lot more UT and Baylor graduates as Doctors in Texas than Harvard and some of them Chief Medical Doctors of Hospitals.
I would say if you are going to work in the Agriculture or Veterinary field then Texas A&M has a better reputation.

MIT and Cal Tech is ahead of Harvard for Engineering as well there are a lot of prestigious colleges to get degrees from. Some times the Region or Field of study matters. If you are in the Mining Engineering if you want a leg up you goto Colorado.

That is why I feel a Harvard Degree is over hyped to many other great schools out there that give you just a good a leg up.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

well of course you are going to see more doctors from UT in Texas, why not just say there is more oil in Texas than in Mass?

[Aikbach]

Only a moron wouldn't want a Harvard degree. It has the best rep of any school in the USA.Actually Princeton, Stanford and Rice regularly lap it academically, it probably has the most well connected East Coast good ol' boys network however.

It all depends upon that school's sphere of influence which in Harvard's case is business, law and politics.

There are some successful Harvard grads in Hollywood, two of my former bosses for example, however even though the realms of law, business and especially politics pertain to Hollywood i would say Harvard grads are no better situated than most others because Hollywood is by and large outside of the realm of Harvard's sphere of influence, catch my drift?

I worked side by side with people with sexier degrees than mine and I either out ranked them or pulled in the same pay grade at all of my jobs, their law degrees from Harvard and Yale and cinema masters' from USC and NYU were not particularly more valuable than my Baylor degree because their contacts were no better if not weaker.

America's Ivy leagues are known for outstanding graduate programs, great networking fields and rather average undergrad course loads.

One of my best friends went to Yale as an undergrad, was underwhelmed by the academics but enriched by the networking opportunities which easily got him into SMU Law School and prestigious internships with the Pentagon.

Boils down to influence and networking, if the name can get you in doors then its valuable, that's the real appeal of Ivy League schools, it sure ain't school spirit or frat parties and often on the undergrad level, dare I say academics.

[burmafrd]

Of course Canadian would think Harvard, as liberal a school as there is, would be better then anything else.
Just goes with his all soldiers want to kill rant.

[DIAF]

Of course Canadian would think Harvard, as liberal a school as there is, would be better then anything else.
Just goes with his all soldiers want to kill rant.

So, if a school is "liberal", then it's no good in your eyes? Harvard's reputation speaks for itself. Not to defend goofball CCF, but why exactly are we trying to tear down Harvard in this thread? Most, if not all, universities are "liberal" institutions. So are all universities crap? I don't really get what is being put forth here.

[burmafrd]

He was trying to say that basically since the profs from Harvard thought so or the graduates from Harvard said so then there should be no arguement.

[AbeBeta]

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension, because I wasn't just referring to "critiques" of the paper. I am pointing to the fact that the very article quoted makes reference to the idea that this study goes against an awful lot of what others have researched and concluded on the subject. That goes a bit beyond "critiques."

Furthermore, if somebody presents a study to support a point they are making, there is absolutely nothing "ignorant" in citing critiques of the aforementioned study.
I love when someone responds about a half dozen times to an issue in a thread and then comes out with the "I could give a crap" card - and follows it up with a personal attack. :rolleyes:

And that very article goes against the research of the AMA. Did you read critiques of the AMA study? No, you did not because the blurb you read didn't provide it, yet you seem to think that some little quote that a reporter was able to get flies in the face of research that underwent considerable peer-review. You don't think that the reviewers of this article brought that criticism? I expect they did and the author was able to clearly justify why those critiques were either not relevant or failed to change the study findings. Further much of the work sponsored by the AMA never underwent this rigorous a review, so it is far more likely that the hacks economists at AMA are the ones who missed.

But hey, you want to play the "I never heard of the guy" and "Harvard isn't prestigious because they don't have ROTC" then by all means, you can continue your ridiculous "interpretation" of the research.

[AbeBeta]

Actually Princeton, Stanford and Rice regularly lap it academically, it probably has the most well connected East Coast good ol' boys network however.

One thing to keep in mind here is that most of the indicators of academic quality -- e.g., US News and World Reports-- change their ranking formulae every year. The reason they do this is so that there is some variability in the top each year... otherwise they wouldn't sell any magazines. Other sources like the Center for Measuring University Performance are pretty solid indicators and usually have Harvard top 5. This source isn't trying to sell mags so it is relatively objective. Schools tend to bounce around the rankings but Harvard is consistently in the top 5.

BTW, Rice generally performs very well but it rarely ranks higher than Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, Columbia, or CalTech

[Phrozen Phil]

Could be a way to get your college paid for, could be no other opportunities for employment, could be someone that wants to see the world, could be someone that enjoys the disciplined environment, could be to avoid jail.


Sorry to interrupt the stupidity.

If we take a look back, marketing campaigns were focused on those various things, among others. The campaign for the Marines has been about challenging yourself and seeing "if you have what it takes". Recruitment campaigns have been different things at different times. Let's not forget "In the Navy". The Village People may have been responsible for some "unusual" enlistments.;)

[AbeBeta]

Are you asserting that all or most articles and research published by the AMA are not subjected to peer review?

I am asserting that reports written by the AMA are not subjected to the level of peer-review that a research article in a peer-reviewed outlet is. A report is far different than a publication in an AMA sponsored journal. My colleague who worked at AMA noted that writing reports was far less taxing than writing journal articles because the attitude was "well, you are the expert" - other folks on staff would certainly review the work but that is nothing like the traditional peer-review process.

For this reason, in most academic circles, a report is regarded as far weaker research than an article in a peer-reviewed outlet.

[Rogah]

And that very article goes against the research of the AMA. Did you read critiques of the AMA study? No, you did not because the blurb you read didn't provide it, yet you seem to think that some little quote that a reporter was able to get flies in the face of research that underwent considerable peer-review.This is a subject I have spoken about many times in the past, including in this very forum. While the "blurb I read didn't provide" the specifics of the AMA studies or their critiques, I can assure you that I am familiar with both of those things from past discussions and readings on this issue.
But hey, you want to play the "I never heard of the guy" and "Harvard isn't prestigious because they don't have ROTC" then by all means, you can continue your ridiculous "interpretation" of the research.Sure thing. Meanwhile you can keep playing your own ridiculous game of "The AMA's research is not submitted to peer review."

[AbeBeta]

This is a subject I have spoken about many times in the past, including in this very forum. While the "blurb I read didn't provide" the specifics of the AMA studies or their critiques, I can assure you that I am familiar with both of those things from past discussions and readings on this issue.
Sure thing. Meanwhile you can keep playing your own ridiculous game of "The AMA's research is not submitted to peer review."

By definition a research report sponsored by any association will not undergo legitimate peer-review as the work begins with the premise that the author is creating a report that will be published by the association.

This is how a report is written. AMA goes to employee says "you are working on this topic." Research is conducted and written up by the employee. Research is submitted to AMA supervisor and likely run by several other people in the area who work for AMA. The report is paid for by AMA and there is never any question as to whether the work is "publishable."

This is how a peer-reviewed article is written. Article is submitted to research outlet. Outlet finds usually 3-5 experts in the field to blind review the work (i.e., they don't know who wrote it). Article is then evaluated by journal editor (also an expert in the field) for suitability for publication. In most top outlets 80-90% of all submissions are rejected. For those other 10-20%, the author is asked to respond in detail to the critiques raised by the expert reviewers, often requiring considerable modification to the paper and additional documentation. I've seen authors write 30 page letters responding point by point to reviewer criticisms and indicating how their paper was revised to address these issues (either that or providing compelling arguments as to why the reviewer was wrong). The revised paper is re-evaluated with about 50% rejected at this stage. More critiques are raised and the process repeats until the work is acceptable. That in a nutshell is peer-review.

Two VERY different processes. But please, show me how the AMA report was submitted to peer-review.

[Rogah]

By definition a research report sponsored by any association will not undergo legitimate peer-review as the work begins with the premise that the author is creating a report that will be published by the association.

This is how a report is written. AMA goes to employee says "you are working on this topic." Research is conducted and written up by the employee. Research is submitted to AMA supervisor and likely run by several other people in the area who work for AMA. The report is paid for by AMA and there is never any question as to whether the work is "publishable." Not sure I agree with that, as the Journal for the AMA website goes into significantly more depth than you claim they do. (See below).This is how a peer-reviewed article is written. Article is submitted to research outlet. Outlet finds usually 3-5 experts in the field to blind review the work (i.e., they don't know who wrote it). Article is then evaluated by journal editor (also an expert in the field) for suitability for publication. In most top outlets 80-90% of all submissions are rejected. For those other 10-20%, the author is asked to respond in detail to the critiques raised by the expert reviewers, often requiring considerable modification to the paper and additional documentation. I've seen authors write 30 page letters responding point by point to reviewer criticisms and indicating how their paper was revised to address these issues (either that or providing compelling arguments as to why the reviewer was wrong). The revised paper is re-evaluated with about 50% rejected at this stage. More critiques are raised and the process repeats until the work is acceptable. That in a nutshell is peer-review.

Two VERY different processes. But please, show me how the AMA report was submitted to peer-review.Sure thing. Here is a quote directly from the Journal of the American Medical Association website:

"Editorial and Peer Review. All submitted manuscripts are reviewed initially by a JAMA editor. Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria: material is original and timely, writing is clear, study methods are appropriate, data are valid, conclusions are reasonable and supported by the data, information is important, and topic has general medical interest. From these basic criteria, the editors assess a paper’s eligibility for publication. Manuscripts with insufficient priority for publication are rejected promptly. Other manuscripts are sent to expert consultants for peer review. Peer reviewer identities are kept confidential, but author identities are made known to reviewers. The existence of a manuscript under review is not revealed to anyone other than peer reviewers and editorial staff. Information from submitted manuscripts may be systematically collected and analyzed as part of research to improve the quality of the editorial or peer review process. Identifying information remains confidential."

OK, anyway, here's the deal. You have gone way overboard with your obsession over an off-hand, flippant remark I made. We've both made our points (yours with a few personal attacks thrown in) and I am done discussing the technical minutiae of the credentials of one report versus the myriad of others which disagree with it. I will gladly return to discussing the actual issue at hand if you are so inclined.

In the meantime, we are going to have to agree to disagree, and I leave you to have the last word on this matter as you are so clearly desperate to make sure that the last word is yours to claim.... have at it...

[Kangaroo]

well of course you are going to see more doctors from UT in Texas, why not just say there is more oil in Texas than in Mass?

That is not what I said that is what you interpreted it as. I said that Medical seems to be a more regional thing. With all the hype Harvard Medical school gets you would think that they would have a large present in Houston, Texas which has one of the largest medical centers around but you do not. Especially at the top tiers right because it is Harvard

[ABQCOWBOY]

Only a moron wouldn't want a Harvard degree. It has the best rep of any school in the USA.

If I were going to choose, it would probably be MIT but what do I know. Neither gave me a call.

[burmafrd]

Maybe there are smarter people then you canadian? Ever consider that possibility?

[AbeBeta]

Not sure I agree with that, as the Journal for the AMA website goes into significantly more depth than you claim they do. (See below).Sure thing. Here is a quote directly from the Journal of the American Medical Association website:

"Editorial and Peer Review. All submitted manuscripts are reviewed initially by a JAMA editor. Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria: material is original and timely, writing is clear, study methods are appropriate, data are valid, conclusions are reasonable and supported by the data, information is important, and topic has general medical interest. From these basic criteria, the editors assess a paper’s eligibility for publication. Manuscripts with insufficient priority for publication are rejected promptly. Other manuscripts are sent to expert consultants for peer review. Peer reviewer identities are kept confidential, but author identities are made known to reviewers. The existence of a manuscript under review is not revealed to anyone other than peer reviewers and editorial staff. Information from submitted manuscripts may be systematically collected and analyzed as part of research to improve the quality of the editorial or peer review process. Identifying information remains confidential."

OK, anyway, here's the deal. You have gone way overboard with your obsession over an off-hand, flippant remark I made. We've both made our points (yours with a few personal attacks thrown in) and I am done discussing the technical minutiae of the credentials of one report versus the myriad of others which disagree with it. I will gladly return to discussing the actual issue at hand if you are so inclined.

In the meantime, we are going to have to agree to disagree, and I leave you to have the last word on this matter as you are so clearly desperate to make sure that the last word is yours to claim.... have at it...

Dude. Get this straight. JAMA is a peer-reviewed journal. That is one of many outstanding outlets published by the AMA. This is NOT where AMA written reports get published.

A report published by the AMA is not the same thing as a JAMA publication. It is a document produced by employees of the AMA.

These are two completely different types of publications.

Further, if you are referring to a publication in JAMA as your evidence, then that work is something that is not correctly attributed to the AMA. It would be attributed to the author. The author, who you would likely have referred to as a "no name."