-
Comment -
-
so what is your argument? that socialized health care delivers better quality health care? and these stats are your basis for that belief?
god, there is just so much to address here.
first off, the OECD has outlived it's usefulness by at least a half century.
your first two gems are the same shit weighed against 2 different denominators. and i'm really not sure what the point is. granted health care costs are high, but lets break this down.
out of the per capita figures. how much is privately spent and government spent?
well the OECD doesn't come out and tell you directly, but luckily they did make a cute little bar graph separating the two here:
(on side note, it does seem a bit fishy, almost like the OECD has a targeted bias, the way they are projecting the US vs everyone else. but whatever, i'm sure they have separate pdfs for all the countries, "How Does ____ Compare" )
so here it is, you can estimate from the graph, almost 4000 of the 7290 is privately spent. about 1k of canada's 3895 and about 500 of uk's 2992 is privately spent.
so government spends
us-3300/person
can-2900/person
uk-2500/person
so maybe socialized medicine is better because the government spends less money per person?
privately spent
us-4000/person
can-1000/person
uk-500/person
and maybe our current system sucks because we privately spend more than the government does! now wait, this couldn't have anything to do with having some of the biggest and best treatment centers in the world, or people spending their money to have procedures to have a better quality of life (ones that socialized medicine would never dream of covering), ground breaking surgeries and treatments, and so on and so on, naaah, that would make too much sense.
the problem here is your comparing, as the old cliché goes, apples to oranges. government health care to semi-private health care. and even in doing so, what does it prove? nothing more than the obvious. the US spends more money on health care. that could mean good, that could mean bad. and of course "more" is a relative term anyway when comparing different regions with different costs of living.
oh but that's right. your contention is that OECD's infant mortality and life expectancy rates of a country somehow determine the quality of health care one receives. and the fact that a country (the US) spends more money yet has poorer scores means they should adopt socialized medicine to improve their scores.
now even if the scores were 100% accurate, that would still be faulty logic on so many levels. most rational people would be skeptical of the rates to begin with, and with minimum research could expose the many flaws in the results that putting any weight or bearing on them, or especially basing your whole view of health care on them would be downright pathetic.
1. infant mortality rates.
first of all the rates are misleading (on purpose). rates are commonly thought of in percentages, and cleverly they make these rates out of 1000 instead of out of 100.
the rates are: can .5%, uk .5%, us .67%, so that would be .17% difference. 1/6th of 1%.
the main factors affecting early infant survival are birth weight and prematurity. the US counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. but in many countries, there is a minimum weight a premature baby must be to be considered a living child. what!?! then you have some countries that report babies as stillborn if they die in the first 24 hours of life. but that's about 40% of all infant deaths, which occur in the first 24 hours of life. hmm... then births before the third trimester or babies born shorter than a minimum length, some countries exclude them also.
fact is most countries have different procedures that they use to classify a baby as being alive and the countries report factors of birth weight, prematurity, etc differently, so the result is a just bunch of stats that have no way of being fairly compared.
this article should be an interesting read:
^^
even the OECD itself "warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."
yet this is your reasoning. 1/6th of 1% worse infant mortality rates means lower quality health care.
2. life expectancy
this one is easy. first of all, let's not forget. these life expectancy stats are counted from "at birth". so any infant mortality not counted as actual births will inflate a country's actual life expectancy numbers. so right off the bat, these numbers have no credibility at all.
but let's pretend they do.
life expectancy is more of a measure of lifestyle and environment than it could ever be of health care.
this is from The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen’s Guide
By Sally C. Pipes.
you can download it here:
the ohsfeldt and schneider study is in their book here:
http://www.aei.org/press/24974
Wow,
now if we took away your cars and guns you guys would live forever...... good call.Comment -
Maybe if I read it myself I will have an opinion. What I don't want is Fox News or CNN or Al Jazeera telling me what's in it and that I should protest something I haven't read. When the plan is presented to me I will make my choice. Till then I will avoid watching propaganda and brainwashing programs from cable news.Comment -
I don't know for sure but I would surely start with this:
Comment -
LOL, ya ok, I have 3 lawyers at my disposal to explain this all to me.
My point was, there should be those that can somewhat fairly report on this bill. All I pointed out earlier was that Fox News gets a bad rap at times is all. I am able to make up my own mind about what I believe seems realistic and reasonable to me. Where there is smoke there is usually fire. My experience FOX is better than most when it comes to balanced reporting.Comment -
well considering it's their job to read it and she elected her senator to represent her i dont see what your point is.
and these bills are constantly being revised and inflated after going through different committees that by the time you read one version of the bill, there's 300 more pages added the next day.
and the THOMAS gov site to find the bills isnt updated immediately, releases the bills in pdf format making it harder to search, and is in general a giant clusterfuk.Comment -
Why post links for those who cannot read? But the World Health Organization rates us waaaaayyyy behind all the other advanced nations, all of whom have nationalized health care.
Here, let me spell it out for the retards:
France vs US in health care: we lose.
Canada vs US in health care: we lose.
UK vs US in health care: we lose.
And on and on and on. We lose, we lose, we lose. Hell, Americans are traveling overseas in record numbers for health care now. Google (well, LOL at myself for suggesting a right-wing extremist can google) "medical tourism."
If a football team loses every game, eventually even the ignorant rednecks figure out something's wrong.
Face it folks: The USA is the Detroit Lions of health care.
I think we tied Chile, though. We're all so proud, I know.
So, really, the ignorant position is essentially this: other nation's have governments capable of delivering health care, it's only the US government which can't do it.
Even though the same morons claiming our government is the worst in the world will A) run around with flags saying we're the greatest nation on earth and B) get in line for Medicare as soon as they're eligible.Comment -
But WHO isn't as fair and balanced as fox news
bird bird da bird's da wordComment -
Always find it amusing that those who claim to be patriots feel the US public is unworthy of services recognized the world over as basic.bird bird da bird's da wordComment -
This is a true story. We were on vacation in a European country a few years back. My wife got sick and a local friend of mine took us to the hospital. We didn't have to wait in line or anything, he told them we were Americans they had a doctor see us immediately and they even gave us the prescribed medication at the hospital. After all that I was about to ask where is the accounting department so we can pay for the treatment and they said everything was free. We got the same free health care the locals got for free. Try being a tourist here in the US and walk into a hospital and see if they treat you for free.Comment -
Pavyracer, I don't believe this story is true and the statement we were on vacation in a "EUROPEAN COUNTRY" is key. If it were true, you would have mentioned the specific country in Europe. It sounds 100% made up.
In any event, that made up scenario of "not having to wait in line" will NEVER come to pass if the medical care system in the U.S. is socialized as the large percentage of Americans who consume so much more than they produce will STRONGLY ABUSE any socialized system that is put in place.
I have first hand experience of abuses like this as I have dealt with many physicians who deal strictly with medicaid patients and the amount of patients they see each day would stagger the mind. Even with the paltry reimbursement they receive from Medicaid, the amount these doctors make is incredible.
Pokerjoe, what you're saying is completely untrue in every respect and your WORDS ARE MEANINGLESS.
I could say the city of Watts, CA is the safest city in the country and say it with all the conviction in the world and it doesn't make it true.
For those that have full access to the current private practice medical delivery system the U.S. offers, there is no better medical delivery system on the planet. This is why the VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS are strongly against a government takeover of our medical system. They are smart enough to read through the LIES that people like you are trying to spread.
Trying to socialize medicine destroyed the democrats in 1994 and will do so again to Obama and the democrats this time around.Last edited by andywend; 08-15-09, 10:20 PM.Comment -
yeah, the WHO is anything but biased. same goes for the UN.
funny how they release a ranking of the world's health systems 10 years ago but forgot to actually measure the quality of health care.
they use factors like health disparities and financial fairness to come up with the rankings. and how they figured it into a number score is a mystery. not that they actually released any scores, just a ranking table. wow, that really tells you a lot.
the kicker for me is the WHO "no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task." lol hilarious.Comment -
"Overpriced premiums" as compared to other nations = YES
"Substandard care" = NO
We all spend money on the material things we want but not necessarily what we need.
The socialized medicine practiced throughout the world is fine for the minor health issues but is found completely "wanting" when it comes to the complex health problems and specialized care.
I am more than willing to pay for specialized medical care when the need arises even if it means doing without EVERYTHING ELSE.
I'll never understand why socialists believe they are entitled to unlimited, free medical care and I'll also never understand how they can believe they will get it with a government takeover of the medical system.
Socialists just don't have any common sense at all and truly deserve the mediocre medical care their preferred system provides. I just don't want to be stuck with it for me and my family.
Is that too much to ask?Comment -
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737 (try this if that wants you to log in)
based on studies from http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/issue/currentLast edited by losturmarbles; 08-16-09, 11:02 AM.Comment -
I don't believe in coddling people. In the wild there is no healthcare. In the wild, healthcare is "ow, I hurt my leg. I can't run, a lion eats me and I'm dead!". Well I'm not dead. I'm the lion. You're dead!Comment -
Comment -
They only make 1000 pages of socialized activity if they have something to hide.Comment -
Comment -
I just wanted everybody to know I'm a left leaning liberal, I totally support single payer healthcare, but the public option is the best compromise available at the time. I'd vote the Green Party in, but they have no chance of winning, so I pick the Democrats. Sometimes I vote Libertarian instead of Republican when there's no Democrat on the ticket, because they wanna legalize weed.
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. What the Republicans are experts at.
The bill is 1000+ pages? So what. I'm sorry your reading skills aren't able to process such information. All you Republicans claiming the Dem's never read their bills - the Republicans did the same thing under GWB. I don't know if you're aware of this, but Congressional Representatives /Senators have staff to read bills for them and summarize them. If Congresspeople had to read every bill, nothing would ever get passed. Why don't you read the bill first before screaming at your congressman that he hasn't read it. It isn't the 1700's anymore, Healthcare is mega complicated.
By the way, the cold war is over.Comment -
See, this is the problem. Left wing loons always assume that we never criticized the former president and you guy all same the exact same things to somehow justify what Obama is doing. It's quite sad actually.
Ya Bush did pass bills to large to have been read and understood by congress and increased the debt. So it's OK that Obama does it? Unfvckingbelievable!
Health care bill is mega complicated on purpose. Just as the tax code is. It's meant to create thousands of government jobs. Yes, government employees are likely to vote Democrat. The largest employer in the UK is ........ ??? Yes, the government health care system.
These guys that pass the bills aren't smart enough to understand the wording in the health care bill anyway. Don't give them so much credit. 99% of them are liars and cheats who are in politics to get rich and their buddies rich.
If the government had a long standing history of fiscal responsibility and success in running business, maybe I would feel less horrified that they think that magically they will turn around decades of failure and do a wonderful job in health care.
give your head a shake
Comment -
Yeah, we have a hard time pushing the debate past political talking points.Comment -
there is no debate. the only person that should be responsible for one's health care is themselves. if you don't believe that, then you don't believe in freedom. period.
but some people are completely happy living in soft tyranny. not that that's even a sustainable condition without the productive class to thieve from.Comment -
Because certain races are thieves and do not want for there stealing to be evened out in any way, good dayComment
