Opponents of US Healthcare Reform Lose Battle on Merits; Resort to Tantrums/Theatrics

[CharonY]

Precisely. For instance there are stark differences between UK, Japan, Australia or Canada. However all of them have (to my knowledge) universal single-payer systems. In other words, there are also other factors in play beside the insurance plan.

That being said, with the exception of the UK many countries are similar or even surpass in some cancer types the USA- at a lower cost for insurance. And finally, there is a rather interesting result of the study which showed that in the USA blacks have an almost 10% lower survival rate than whites for all cancer types.

Edited August 14, 2009 by CharonY

[navigator]

How fascinating, but totally irrelevent. The figures I quoted for infant mortality were not from the WHO report. They were from the CIA. The definition used is: "This entry gives the number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year."

 

IOW, out of all the live births, how many make it to their first birthday. How a nation defines "live birth" becomes irrelevent.

 

Lets look at some of those countries who are in the top 10%, lowest infant mortality rate, on your CIA mortality rate list. For example, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and France all use criteria like weight, length of the infant, length of pregnancy to determine a stillbirth, not any sign of life(refer to my link a couple posts up). Makes perfect sense to me. On this list the deck is stacked in their favor because those that don't meet the criteria are called a stillbirth. Even at that disadvantage, the US is still within 3 deaths out of a thousand births, compared to the highest of those five countries on the list, France. I don't think I need to go into detail the much higher fatality rate due babies born that do not meet those criteria.

 

The criteria for Canada, who has 2 less deaths out of a thousand, is similar to the US except the baby must show signs of life after the umbilical cord is cut and placenta is removed. The European Union has less than 1 in a thousand less deaths and Isreal has 2 less, both use similar guidelines(refer to my second link in the same post).

 

This is not way too low in IMO, actually it shows how good our pediatric care really is.

 

BTW, before you tout "cancer survival rates" between nations, it might be a good idea to also compare how those rates are calculated. ie If a patients heart packs it in from treatment complications, do they count as a "survivor"? After all, it wasn't the cancer that killed them, was it?

 

Ofcourse not, maybe I am missing something, but how does this put the US at an advantage over other countries, in the context of treating cancer?

 

I would add that my data for life expectancy is also from the CIA. Note that the CIA reports are done by CIA analysts and are not sourced from the WHO report.

 

I haven't spent much time looking into this, but it seems obvious to me this is a result of, not only, our access to anything and everything, but our liberties that allow extreme behavior, often to our detriment.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

We have advanced technology because we are willing to spend the money - that is not going anywhere. Do you really think someone who makes over 100 or 150k a year who can afford a cadillac plan will choose the government plan instead?

 

Do you think any run of the mill HMO will send you to the Mayo Clinic because, due to the magic of being a private company, it can spend an infinite amount of money on any high tech treatment you want?

 

You will still be able to pay cash at the door if you want. You will still be able to get a very expensive plan if you want. People will still compete to learn how to make medical technology cheaper and more accessible to wider markets and still try to make cutting edge procedures for those whom money is no object.

 

In fact, I don't see how anything will change in the competition department when all that is happening is we are 1) getting "yet another insurance company" that happens to be federalized, and 2) ensure everyone gets covered.

 

All we are doing is fixing the problem of people getting dropped or going uncovered, and those problems do not spur innovation in the medical industry.

 

We disagree on what HR 3200 will do to private health care in the US. I will try to address this, but it may take some time and I think it would be more on topic in the HR 3200 thread, so thats where I think I should address it.

Edited August 15, 2009 by navigator
Consecutive posts merged.

[bascule]

The WHO does not accurately reflect infant mortality rate, because different countries have different ways of defining a stillbirth. Ofcourse the US uses the highest standard, regardless of size, weight or permaturity, if the infant shows any sign of life it is considered alive. Other countries use wieght, length or level of prematurity, as an aggregate for stillbirth.

 

If you're going to claim the WHO and the CIA are both wrong about their infant mortality rate comparisons, can you find something better than a tabloid op ed to back it up? That's not exactly a definitive source of information.

 

You pasted the definition the WHO uses for a stillbirth. Can you even demonstrate that the WHO's statistics are not based on that standard?

 

I haven't spent much time looking into this, but it seems obvious to me this is a result of, not only, our access to anything and everything, but our liberties that allow extreme behavior, often to our detriment.

 

We live less long because we're more free than those other countries! Zuh?

 

The #1 killer in the US is heart disease. I think it's safe to say we have lower life expectancy because Americans are generally more obese.

[navigator]

Are you implying this is because of the US's private healthcare system? Do you think this might have something to do with government agencies like the FDA, USDA, CPSC, etc?

 

I do think it has something to do with those agencies. I don't have a reference, but If I remember correctly, I read that in 2005 the US government spent 18 billion compared to the European Unions 4 billion in medical research. This is an area that I agree with the government involvement, providing funding to research in order to provide a higher quality of care to its citizens.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If you're going to claim the WHO and the CIA are both wrong about their infant mortality rate comparisons, can you find something better than a tabloid op ed to back it up? That's not exactly a definitive source of information.

 

I am not claiming they are wrong, I am claiming that the results are not always as clear or accurate as they seem. In one context they may be accurate, in others they may not.

 

You pasted the definition the WHO uses for a stillbirth. Can you even demonstrate that the WHO's statistics are not based on that standard?

 

Are you implying that when the WHO conducted their study they went through each stillborns chart, in each and every country, to determine if there was a sign of life?

 

How about if I include the statute of limitations for those countries I used as an example?

 

http://www.eurocat.ulster.ac.uk/pdf/Report-8-Appendix-7.pdf

[iNow]

I haven't spent much time looking into this, but it seems obvious to me this is a result of, not only, our access to anything and everything, but our liberties that allow extreme behavior, often to our detriment.

That's awesome. We die sooner and we die more because we're more free. Please, my good man... Explain for all of us precisely which liberties we in the US have which are not available to residents of other countries... liberties which might actually have a snowballs chance in hell of having such a significant impact on longevity... and impact powerful enough to skew our life expectancy number so profoundly across the entire population.

 

Your argument fails unless you back it up with some citations. "We die sooner because we're more free." That's just classic.

 

 

I do think it has something to do with those agencies. I don't have a reference, but If I remember correctly, I read that in 2005 the US government spent 18 billion compared to the European Unions 4 billion in medical research.

First, find a reference, or don't share it. Second, what is that number when adjusted and shown on a per capita basis? Overall expenditure means nothing if you fail to account for the differing population sizes.

[navigator]

That's awesome. We die sooner and we die more because we're more free. Please, my good man... Explain for all of us precisely which liberties we in the US have which are not available to residents of other countries... liberties which might actually have a snowballs chance in hell of having such a significant impact on longevity... and impact powerful enough to skew our life expectancy number so profoundly across the entire population.

 

To be honest with you, it would be too tedious. You have admitted to grossly lacking objectability and show no effort to improve despite appeals from others.

 

 

Your argument fails unless you back it up with some citations. "We die sooner because we're more free." That's just classic.

 

Your last four references consisted of a study that lacks credibility due to its inaccuracies and a comedy show with clips that are obviously edited removing all credibility.

 

You have attacked my credibility and my acedemic integrity, while I attacked the merits of a post you made, using ridicule to make a point, using ridicule to make a point. Yes, I said that twice intentionally. Sorry JohnB, gut its more likened to the playpen. He gave you too much credit IMO, because you are the one poisoning the well while throwing the card the most, friend. I guess you are on topic at least.

Edited August 15, 2009 by navigator

[iNow]

To be honest with you, it would be too tedious. You have admitted to grossly lacking objectability and show no effort to improve despite appeals from others.

 

 

 

 

Your last four references consisted of a study that lacks credibility due to its inaccuracies and a comedy show with clips that are obviously edited removing all credibility.

 

You have attacked my credibility and my acedemic integrity, while I attacked the merits of a post you made, using ridicule to make a point, using ridicule to make a point. Yes, I said that twice intentionally. Sorry, JohnB gut its more likened to the playpen. He gave you too much credit IMO, because you are the one poisoning the well while throwing the card the most, friend.

 

That's all well and good, but how about you actually try addressing the question now?

[padren]

To be honest with you, it would be too tedious. You have admitted to grossly lacking objectability and show no effort to improve despite appeals from others.

 

I too cannot understand how you connect those two factors, so if you could clarify this point I would really appreciate it. Like I had mentioned before, we are only adding one more insurance option which is government backed, and requiring that everybody has insurance of some kind.

 

While I actually do place value on being free to not have coverage - and I don't take it lightly to have that option vanish (I've made that choice myself for many reasons) I also can see the harm it does, and I'm willing to step up if it means everyone will be guaranteed coverage. While I trust myself to be careful with fires, I support the taxes that I am forced to pay to ensure the whole sections neighborhood doesn't burn down due to lapses in coverage.

 

Can you cite how our liberties will be limited by this plan, other than of course the requirement to pay into the health care pool somewhere?

 

In England, you can still smoke and drink yourself to death, despite a heavily federalized system. Even with an entirely private system, we can get pulled over by a police officer for not wearing a seat belt or motorcycle helmet. This liberty connection honestly eludes me, so I genuinely would like some clarifications on your stance.

[Mokele]

I'm going to ask everyone to try to stay civil. Both sides.

 

For a given value of 'ask'.

[iNow]

To be honest with you, it would be too tedious.

If your claim is too tedious to support, then you should not have presented it. However, you did present it, so now it's time to back it up. Not only are you not making sense, but your refusal to clarify your position suggests the position itself is fully without merit.

 

 

You have admitted to grossly lacking objectability and show no effort to improve despite appeals from others.

No. I stated that my thread title was intentionally provocative. This has nothing to do with my objectivity (grossly lacking or otherwise).

 

Now, answer the question. You said we in the US likely have shorter lifespans because of our freedoms. Which freedoms do we have in this country which are not available to other countries, and which could possibly impact the overall average longevity of US citizens in such a profound manner (so profoundly as to cause us to rank 50th... with 49 other countries before us having higher life expectancies)?

 

 

 

Your last four references consisted of a study that lacks credibility due to its inaccuracies

No, it was to a study by the World Health Organization, a study which compared health care outcomes in 191 countries and found the US ranked only 37th.

 

Here again, you have been asked REPEATEDLY to demonstrate where precisely these supposed "inaccuracies" are, and you've done NOTHING to support your contention.

 

You have claimed the study is inaccurate NUMEROUS times, but have failed miserably at demonstrating where or how. Simply repeating an invalid assertion with no new information doesn't suddenly make that assertion true.

 

So... again... Answer the question. What inaccuracies?

 

 

and a comedy show with clips that are obviously edited removing all credibility.

The clips I shared supported my point that there is rage at town hall meetings coming from people who oppose healthcare reform. Edited or not, my reference flatly refuted your claim that there is no rage coming from the opposition. While you may not like the source I used, the content in that source is valid, and debunked your claim.

 

There is rage coming from those opposed to healthcare reform. If you deny this, then you are not to be trusted since it is so plainly obvious and is permeating every story surrounding this issue, and has been since I opened this thread.

 

 

 

You have attacked my credibility and my acedemic integrity, while I attacked the merits of a post you made, using ridicule to make a point, using ridicule to make a point. Yes, I said that twice intentionally. Sorry JohnB, gut its more likened to the playpen. He gave you too much credit

Perhaps this is a mere communication issue. Is the above what you mean you say you've "attacked the merits of a post?" If so, that would explain why you keep saying that's what you are doing... That was a pretty focused criticism of my merit... I'll give you that. [/sarcasm]

 

Either way, I agree. While you've attacked me personally and engaged in countless logical fallacies and misrepresentations, you have also attacked the merits of my posts... Unfortunately for you, your attacks on the merit of my position did not in any way, shape, or form diminish the validity of my points, and hence your attempts at rebuttal have consistently failed, and my arguments stand. This is not an opinion. This is a fact.

 

 

Now... again... please stop with the personal attacks. Please stop with the misrepresentations. Please stop with the red herrings, and continued efforts to poison the well instead of support your position.

 

And finally... Answer the question.

Edited August 15, 2009 by iNow

[navigator]

I too cannot understand how you connect those two factors, so if you could clarify this point I would really appreciate it. Like I had mentioned before, we are only adding one more insurance option which is government backed, and requiring that everybody has insurance of some kind.

 

Probably could, the statistics support freedom and not government control.

 

I am still working on locating info in the bill to see if I can put the pieces together, but it is very long and complex.

 

So far, IMO, the bill says I can keep what I currently have, currently. I am against a government deference, telling me I can keep my plan under the guise of allowing enormous constraints on the private health care providers, that don't adhere to the government guidelines, which constitute the public option. Further, the employer is not only reponsible for the funding, but also taxed, if the employers choose to offer private health care providers that do not fall under the public option, to new employees, in the health care exchange.

 

/sorrybouthterunonsentences/

[iNow]

Probably could, the statistics support freedom and not government control.

 

I am still working on locating info in the bill to see if I can put the pieces together, but it is very long and complex.

Zuh? WTF? The content of the bill is wholly irrelevant to the claim you made. You cannot possibly support your claim that our "freedom makes us die sooner" by locating info in the bill. And how... pray tell... do "statistics supporting freedom and not government" have anything to do with this?

 

 

The mind just continues to boggle...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

a6BcRlMstmU

Edited August 15, 2009 by iNow

[Pangloss]

I'm afraid I've lost track of this WHO and abortion business, or why it is important. It sounds like something you guys need to move on from. It looked to me like navigator acknowledged a source but expressed doubt about its veracity. He can do that if it's just an opinion, and several people have suggested that he may be passing that judgment in error, so let's move on.

[ParanoiA]

The WHO's study merely points out what we already know. Quality of care availabile in America is second to none, but the other 4 points of measure are more about distribution of that quality, one of them flat out all about the location of financial burden. From iNow's post:

 

WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

 

It's not that the WHO's study isn't scientific, it most certainly is. It's the ideologically based conclusions that don't match the measured parameters.

 

Financial burden alone is a subjective ideologists dream. If the rich paid for everyone, they may or may not call that "fair", I really don't know. That doesn't suggest "fair cost distribution" since the definition of "fair" is about as objective as the definition of "good". Rather it's cost would be consolidated onto a minority class. Although accessiblity would be good for all.

 

If the costs were distributed per need, regardless of financial class, that could satisfy someone else's idea of "fair". I doubt the WHO would agree, but again, I really don't know. Accessibility would be a fat negative rating, I'm sure.

 

The WHO's rating system sythesizes quality and distribution of the service. The dynamics of the distribution is measured by a subjective standard we don't all agree with, while others are more objective. I think that's the essential point that navigator is trying to make. There's an ideological bias codified in the distribution side of the study. CATO makes good arguments about it. It's a libertarian think-tank organization, but the arguments presented in that excerpt that navigator provided are valid. And the other sources and excerpts he provided were informative as well. They don't invalidate the study, they frame it for what it is.

 

There is no doubt that distribution is the problem with our healthcare system. So overall, the WHO's study doesn't really reveal anything we didn't already know. Quality great, accessibility/distribution is poor. Not exactly earth shattering. And that's why the current house bill is all about that. We don't agree how it's trying to achieve it, but it's all about covering everyone - giving everyone access.

 

 

The opposition is pissed. It's pissed because these are huge changes. Most legislation isn't really "felt" to this kind of degree. Most of us greet new legislation with a watered down effect - by the time the ripples hit us it's fairly non-impacting, overall. But this legislation will be felt by all of us, bigtime. And it's scary. It's a huge change and supporters seem to be more focused on hasty decision making - too much political opportunist thinking for our comfort level.

 

These changes represent a restriction of trading rights. It's expensive as hell, and the more marginalized the opposition gets by the supporters (like Specter), the more pissed they get.

 

I can tell you from second hand experience, the two townhall meetings in my area had organized support in the front of the room, hastily organized opposition in the back. The supporters protected their representative/senator with professional signs and side-door access while the opposition consisted of far more home-grown folks, homemade signs, restricted access no matter how early they showed up.

 

Consequently, their arguments were about as homemade as well. The supporters had their verbiage canned and ready to use, while the opposition remained vague and unimpressive. The whole thing was a disapointment really. Further, Mccaskell subverted the whole thing by disavowing the house bill altogether and instead pointed to her laptop and stated the senate bill (1 of 4) contained none of the stuff that angered everyone - something no one there had access to read. Waste of freaking time.

[iNow]

I'm afraid I've lost track of this WHO and abortion business, or why it is important. It sounds like something you guys need to move on from. It looked to me like navigator acknowledged a source but expressed doubt about its veracity. He can do that if it's just an opinion, and several people have suggested that he may be passing that judgment in error,

 

Again, Pangloss... It's not about opinion, so please restrain yourself from continually suggesting such a thing. If you've lost track, then please look back at the preceding posts and catch yourself up prior to commenting (not to mention that nobody here is talking about abortion, so it's obvious that's coming from another forum you've been frequenting and that you're struggling to separate those conversations from the ones taking place here).

 

Here at SFN, however, Navigator has continued to state that the study was inaccurate. I have a pretty inescapable personal problem dealing with liars, and he is right now lying. If he wishes me to take back this comment, to concede I am mistaken in suggesting such a thing, then he needs to demonstrate said inaccuracies of the WHO report in a clear and scientific fashion. Until then, I'm going to be calling him what he is. A liar who is sharing misinformation and making things up to support his preconceived notions.

 

A bunch of hand-waving and empty assertions simply ain't gonna cut it. If it's inaccurate, show where and how and what order of magnitude these inaccuracies have on the conclusions. It's simple scientific method, and I encourage you to read up a bit on it. This may be the Politics board, but it's still a science site.

 

It would be one thing if he raised objections to their methods (as ParanioA described above... discussing how the indicators chosen may have resulted in a narrowing of the potential outcome window). That's fine. That's a good discussion to have.

 

However, I simply won't stand for someone who calls a report "unscientific" when it is not, nor will I stand for someone saying the report is "inaccurate" when it is not. On top of that, despite REPEATED requests at clarification, he has failed to support his argument that we in the US "die sooner because we are more free." So, yeah... there's always that, too.

 

This is about very basic academic integrity, and it's time for our friend Mr. Navigator to start demonstrating some.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The WHO's study merely points out what we already know. Quality of care availabile in America is second to none...

 

<...>

 

So overall, the WHO's study doesn't really reveal anything we didn't already know. Quality great, accessibility/distribution is poor. Not exactly earth shattering.

I completely disagree with your assessment. As mentioned earlier, and brilliantly argued by JohnB in another thread to which I linked, even if you throw the entire WHO report into the trash with the garbage, other indicators STILL show that we are not doing well in quality of care.

 

For instance, the quality of care argument is directly contradicted by the fact that we rank only 50th in life expectancy outcome (with 49 other nations before us having a higher life expectancy), and only 180th in infant mortality (yes... there are 179 other nations with a lower infant mortality rate than we have in the US).

 

 

If that's your version of "great quality, second to none," then you and I are working from a completely different understanding of what the word "quality" actually means.

 

 

 

Btw... It's nice seeing your posts this morning. I've been missing your well informed and well articulated perspective to check and challenge my own biases and understandings on all of these socioeconomic issues. Cheers, mate.

Edited August 15, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[ParanoiA]

I completely disagree with your assessment. As mentioned earlier' date=' and brilliantly argued by JohnB in another thread to which I linked, even if you throw the entire WHO report into the trash with the garbage, other indicators STILL show that we are not doing well in quality of care.

 

For instance, the quality of care argument is directly contradicted by the fact that we rank only 50th in life expectancy outcome (with 49 other nations before us having a higher life expectancy), and only 180th in infant mortality (yes... there are 179 other nations with a lower infant mortality rate than we have in the US).

 

 

If that's your version of "great quality, second to none," then you and I are working from a completely different understanding of what the word "quality" actually means.[/quote']

 

We are definitely working from a different understanding. Are you telling me you'd trust the performance of a Bosnian hospital over an American one? You really believe that Jordan is offering a higher standard of care than America?

 

Infant mortality and life expectancy rates tell us about our culture and socioeconomic conditions as well as equal access to healthcare. Another point that I suspect navigator was trying to make with the freedom comment. We eat horribly and indulgently as we make number 9 on the Forbes list of fattest countries:

 

1. Nauru %94.5

2. Micronesia, Federated States of %91.1

3. Cook Islands %90.9

4. Tonga %90.8

5. Niue %81.7

6. Samoa %80.4

7. Palau %78.4

8. Kuwait %74.2

9. United States %74.1

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat_2.html

 

And surprise...guess where those countries rank on that life expectancy chart you and JohnB referenced by the CIA:

 

1. Nauru (#168)

2. Micronesia, Federated States of (#134)

3. Cook Islands (#90)

4. Tonga (#140)

5. Niue (couldn't find them on the list)

6. Samoa (#124)

7. Palau (#129)

8. Kuwait (#53)

9. United States (#50)

 

We're actually performing very well for a bunch of fat asses...

 

Those same countries also score lower than us on the WHO ranking system, as well, by the way. Not sure about their individual healthcare systems, but I'd bet it's yet more equal accessibility disparity.

 

And how does the CIA gather their infant mortality rates? Navigator gave some very reasonable exceptions to consider, which could be easily remedied by verifying how they mined the data. There's nothing anti-scientific about that question. I still find it troubling, whatever the case.

 

I'm not including accessibility/distribution with quality, because they are two different things. Not everyone gets access to our healthcare system equally, and I think it's worth measuring the performance and talent of our medical staff and technological advancement separately from how many people have access to it, and how it's paid for. That's the part I claim is second to none.

 

And, again...the bill suggests the same thing. Its aim is coverage; accessibility. It attempts to do so in a dangerous power grab methodology that leaves insurance lobbyists and third-party buffer zones of ignorance firmly entrenched. But, that is its focus nonetheless.

 

Btw... It's nice seeing your posts this morning.

 

Thanks man, sincerely. The healthcare thing has gotten huge as of late. Intended to be a temporary stay, kind of like a room at the Holiday Inn. I'm hoping to say, 'No, I'm not a healthcare expert, but I did post on a science forum last night'.

Edited August 15, 2009 by ParanoiA

[bascule]

Are you implying that when the WHO conducted their study they went through each stillborns chart, in each and every country, to determine if there was a sign of life?

 

I don't know what the WHO's methodology in making the assessment was. Do you? I don't think you do.

 

Can you find a definitive (i.e. better than an op ed) source to support this statement:

 

The WHO does not accurately reflect infant mortality rate

 

This seems to be a big problem for you. You make many claims and provide no supporting evidence of them. You should try to work on that, supporting your claims with evidence.

 

So far the syllogism for your argument reads something like this:

 

Premise 1) Different countries use different criteria in determining their infant mortality rate

Premise 2) ??????????????

Conclusion) The WHO assessment is inaccurate

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This thread seems to have become so focused on infant mortality rate studies that it has lost sight of what it is actually supposed to be arguing about. I don't mind a discussion about relative qualities of care here -- quality of care is certainly related to healthcare reform and its merits -- but must we keep arguing about one little detail when there is so much more to be discussed.

 

This is the problem with online arguments. It's too easy to pick out pieces of someone else's post to argue with, so you end up arguing one little detail for days instead of discussing the main point. So can we get back on to some decent topic, please?

 

 

ParanoiA, nice to see you back at the ScienceForums Inn, even if temporarily. Let room service know if there's anything you need.

[Pangloss]

Hey, awesome, good to see the P-man back in action.

 

It's not that the WHO's study isn't scientific' date=' it most certainly is. It's the ideologically based conclusions that don't match the measured parameters.

 

The WHO's rating system sythesizes quality and distribution of the service. The dynamics of the distribution is measured by a subjective standard we don't all agree with, while others are more objective. I think that's the essential point that navigator is trying to make. There's an ideological bias codified in the distribution side of the study. CATO makes good arguments about it. It's a libertarian think-tank organization, but the arguments presented in that excerpt that navigator provided are valid. And the other sources and excerpts he provided were informative as well. They don't invalidate the study, they frame it for what it is.[/quote']

 

Bravo. Well said and supported.

 

 

so please restrain yourself from continually suggesting such a thing.

 

No.

[iNow]

In regards to this suggestion that we in the US have some of the highest quality of care in the world... the best healthcare available... It was refuted with multiple lines of evidence on Meet the Press.

 

In addition to the WHO and CIA measures many of us have shared with you here in this thread, there were other references showing this claim about US care being "the best in the world" to be specious and unfounded. The suggestions of the opposition (represented by former House Majority Leader Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) and Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK)) were shot down and shown unrelated to the conversation, and based on logical fallacies and false premises.

 

I especially liked Senator Tom Daschle's comment, and wanted to share it with you here today. It really puts this suggestion that American has the best healthcare in the world into perspective.

 

 

From Meet the Press, Sunday, August 16, 2009:

 

You can rationalize all you want... The fact is about the quality in this country... we have islands of excellence, but we have a sea of mediocrity, and we've got address that.

[Mokele]

Can you link to either a video or transcript of that Meet The Press?

[Pangloss]

Got it.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32420049/ns/meet_the_press/

[iNow]

Can you link to either a video or transcript of that Meet The Press?

 

Here's the video. The parts to which I referred are primarily at the beginning:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32437249#32437249

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Got it.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32420049/ns/meet_the_press/

 

Thanks.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This really isn't very hard to understand. It's time for people to stop acting like it is.

 

 

http://www.donkeylicious.com/2009/08/flowchart.html

Edited August 18, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

Nice chart -- thanks for passing that along.

[ParanoiA]

In regards to this suggestion that we in the US have some of the highest quality of care in the world... the best healthcare available... It was refuted with multiple lines of evidence on Meet the Press.

 

In addition to the WHO and CIA measures many of us have shared with you here in this thread' date=' there were other references showing this claim about US care being "the best in the world" to be specious and unfounded. The suggestions of the opposition (represented by former House Majority Leader Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) and Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK)) were shot down and shown unrelated to the conversation, and based on logical fallacies and false premises.[/quote']

 

Again...this would be far more productive if you could acknowledge the argument on the difference between accessibility/distribution and quality of talent and technology.

 

When Daschle makes his comment on "islands of excellence in a sea of mediocrity", it sounds like he's acknowledging the difference between the two. When you look at the bill, it reads like it acknowledges the difference between the two.

 

Are you acknowledging the difference between the two. And if you are, how then do you rate our talent and tech? How do you rate the quality of care for the few that get it? I haven't seen any studies on that at all. Only on the "system", not that particular parameter.

 

I ask that because by conflating the two the left and right are talking past each other. The supporters are citing our "system", as in distribution and accessibility is terribly flawed. The opposition is citing the quality of care itself, the talent and medical education and technology present.

 

As long as we talk past each other, we aren't arguing productively, nor honestly.

 

Accessibility and distribution of the service is a pressing issue worth dealing with and reform is certainly called-for. The other measurement is a mere hair splitting exercise of superiority and should not be screwed with.

 

This really isn't very hard to understand. It's time for people to stop acting like it is.

 

Charts like that don't reflect the power grab and the lobbyist's porno fantasy consolidation buried in those 1018 pages of the house bill. Yes, it's easy to understand the goal and intent of the bill, and just as easy to ignore the foundation it's built on.

 

We could have built our republic with one branch over the others, with the same noble intention, and an equally eye appealing simplified chart, but it would also ignore the danger of such an arrangement. There are other ways to role out the intent of the bill without providing a central hub for lobbyists and politicians to exploit.