I did challenge their methodology and did so in a quite straight forward fashion.
Historically, administrative overhead has been compared on the basis of administrative costs per dollar of claims. Medicare beats out private insurance on this metric hands down. The Heritage article you linked to argued that this metric is flawed and that you should instead use a metric based on administrative costs per insured patient. I don't know if their numbers on that metric are correct or not, they very well may be. I, instead, argued that the new metric that the Heritage authors are trying to use is flawed. I then laid out my reasoning for why their metric is not a better metric for comparison of insurance plans and explained why the cost per dollar paid out is used historically. Pretty straight forward really. Judah On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Gruss Gott<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Larry wrote: >>>I'll believe Heritage over Judah everyday and so should you >>> >> I would think that Judah is more trustworthy in many of his statements. >> > > But in this case there's no comparison because the Heritage Foundation > has a published methodology and articulated factbase while Judah has > speculation. > > If Heritage has a flawed methodology, then hear why, the right > methodology, and let's see the adjusted numbers. > > Until then their facts stand because, well, they're actual footnoted facts. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:302510 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
