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

[stereologist]

Thanks for your pathetic contributions.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If it's false, then prove that "insurance companies are easy to deal with compared to government bureaucracies. " I've had the exact opposite experience, and that alone shows your claim to be incorrect.

 

My experience is the opposite as is everyone I know so that alone makes your claim preposterous.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Doesn't change the fact that I provided a counter example to your claim that "government run services are never as good as privately run services and are always more expensive. "

 

Your example is still false.

[iNow]

Thanks for your pathetic contributions.

 

My experience is the opposite as is everyone I know so that alone makes your claim preposterous.

 

Your example is still false.

 

Thank you for the clarification and citations. I can definitely see where you're coming from now.

[bascule]

My experience is the opposite as is everyone I know so that alone makes your claim preposterous

 

This is a textbook example of an argument from incredulity

[iNow]

This is a textbook example of an argument from incredulity

 

Well, yeah... that... and not to mention the fact that his experience and the experience of everyone he knows has absolutely zero bearing on the reasonability, sensibility, and reality of my experience, and in no way supports his stance the the counter example I gave is "preposterous."

 

 

I predict his next argument will be a solid one, though... Something profound like "lol."

[Pangloss]

The cost increase is best explained by the capitalist nature of our current system, and the lack of protections for patients (such as denial of coverage issues and pre-existing condition limitations).

 

This is not a valid explanation of why the costs in the US are higher than everywhere else. It is an opinion backed by some interesting and promising evidence.

 

 

This is wholly irrelevant. Their political leanings have nothing whatsoever to do with the indicators they chose.

 

He can question the WHO's political motivations and discuss them if he wants to. DJBruce and Bascule had more appropriate (and interesting) responses on this point. In the end this is also a matter of opinion, and all of you are going to have to take a deep breath on this issue and recognize the fact that there are very few certainties in this world when it comes to health care.

 

 

I pointed out that people are ALSO satisfied with medicare and medicaid, so my point stands, and your response remains irrelevant.

 

No, it isn't. Your opinions do not rise to "stand" above those of others.

 

 

Your attempt to poison the well does nothing to support your claim that the WHO study was not scientific.

 

He's not the one poisoning this well. Attempting to make one opinion "stand" over others is an example of poisoning the well, though. Please bear this in mind for future replies.

 

 

It seems you have nothing of importance to say - tedious' date=' vacuous, dullness.

 

A nice summation of your posts.

 

Thanks for your pathetic contributions.[/quote']

 

Stereologist, this is inappropriate and if you continue along these lines I'll remove your posts from this thread and issue a citation.

 

 

You are very lacking in the basic quality of academic integrity, my friend.

 

iNow, this is inappropriate and if you continue along these lines I'll remove your posts from this thread and issue a citation.

 

 

Don't make me close this thread, folks. None of you will get the last word or have your opinions "stand" over others if I do that. If you can't play nice you won't play in my sandbox at all.

[JohnB]

Navigator, for all the arguments against the WHO report, there are two factors that can't be challenged.

 

From the thread that iNow linked to previously (and shamelessly quoting myself:D):

According to the CIA Factbook' date=' Infant mortality is 6.26/1,000 births. For comparison:

Cuba: 5.82

Canada: 5.04

United Kingdom: 4.85

Australia: 4.75

Sweden: 2.75

 

Do you see what the figures show? Cuba has a better infant mortality rate than you do. (And Sweden leaves all of us far behind)

 

Life Expectancy for a person born in 2006 (drawn from the WHO Annual Report)

US: 78

UK: 79

Aust: 82

Cuba: 78

 

Nations with a longer life expectancy than the US:

Andorra

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Cyprus

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Iceland

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Luxembourg

Malta

Monaco

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Portugal

Republic of Korea

San Marino

Singapore

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

 

In every single one of those nations, the people expect to live longer than people in the US.

 

In the CIA list there are 224 nations listed from worst mortality to best. The US comes in at 179. This means that out of 223 other nations on the list 45 have lower mortality rates than the US. The "best health care"? you barely make it to the top 25%.

 

As for life expectancy, the US doesn't even make it to the top 10%.

 

Have a good hard look at what nations equal you in life expectancy and see if you like the company you keep:

Chile

Costa Rica

Cuba

Kuwait

Slovenia

United Arab Emirates

 

All the arguments concerning costs are presuming that you are getting what you pay for. You're paying absolute top dollar for your healthcare, but the figures show that you aren't getting top value for the money.

 

Think about this for a minute: A person born in Cuba has a higher chance of survival at birth and exactly the same life expectancy as a person born in the US. On the only scale that counts, [i']how many live[/i], Cuba is better than you.

 

Talking about WHO criteria is beside the point. Your infant mortality is way too high and life expectancy is way too low.

 

While it is certainly OT for this thread, I would strongly suggest that navigator and stereologist read iNows linked thread. There are a hell of a lot of facts and figures there comparing the US to other systems, from many different sources.

 

And that's precisely my larger point, John. I'm not blaming any political party or affiliation for what's going on (not intentionally, anyway). I'm drawing attention to how ignorant and immature we continue to be in our nation when discussing such important issues. We never get past the booger throwing stage it seems...

Sorry, I took it the wrong way. I thought you were more worried about the tactics of the "antis".

 

TBH, looking at things from the outside, I see a number of points.

 

Firstly, the US system is sick and badly needs reform. I would think that most Americans would agree with this statement.

 

However, I think that President Obama is going about this the wrong way. A 1,000 page (or however big it is) Bill that is too big to read and discuss before voting on it is just plain silly.

 

Hold your Town Hall meetings to ask what things the people want, then write the damn bill. Take examples of how things work in the ROW and find out which bits people like and want.

 

Rushing legislation through that makes major changes to a system is a recipe for disaster.

 

Secondly and possibly the most important. Bloody grow up and put this bullsh*t partisanship behind you. FFS both sides of the political divide can have valid points.

 

Just because an idea comes from the left does not automatically mean that it represents some form of creeping socialism and just because an idea comes from the right doesn't mean that it represents entrenched power. (or whatever the left thinks the right represents)

 

By not having constructive dialogues, you ensure that any change to the system is going to be ideologically biased. This means that as soon as the political winds change and the other side gets in, it will be changed along ideological grounds. This is a certainty because the original change was made ideologically rather than logically and with consultation.

 

I would also point out that this is the net. The silly games that you played in your Town Halls were okay when it was kept "inhouse" so to speak. However, when you spread your dirty laundry for the entire world to see, and demonstrate so effectively that you can't debate with each other in a civil fashion, then it reflects very badly on your entire nation.

 

I finish with the words of a man far greater than I could ever be:

So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

John F. Kennedy - January 20th 1961

[navigator]

Navigator, for all the arguments against the WHO report, there are two factors that can't be challenged.

 

From the thread that iNow linked to previously (and shamelessly quoting myself:D):

 

 

Talking about WHO criteria is beside the point. Your infant mortality is way too high and life expectancy is way too low.

 

I will need more time to look at how the infant mortality rate is determined. For example, it is not clear if abortions are included in the percentage.

 

 

http://www.healthandsharing.com/21/articledetail

 

if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.

 

Homicide and accidental death rate from MVA’s are irrelevant to the quality of health care. So the US has the highest life expectancy in the context of health care.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

More than one member has stated that I haven't proven the WHO study is not scientific. Considering I did not make the claim that it was, why all of a sudden do you expect me to prove its not?

 

Why has the onus changed?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It seems we determine the quality of health care in different ways. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how fairly health care of any quality is distributed. Regardless of how fairly it is distributed, the US has the highest quality based on the value that can be determined by the revenue the health care industry recieves.

Edited August 13, 2009 by navigator
Consecutive posts merged.

[DJBruce]

I will need more time to look at how the infant mortality rate is determined. For example, it is not clear if abortions are included in the percentage.

 

Homicide and accidental death rate from MVA’s are irrelevant to the quality of health care. So the US has the highest life expectancy in the context of health care.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

More than one member has stated that I haven't proven the WHO study is not scientific. Considering I did not make the claim that it was, why all of a sudden do you expect me to prove its not?

 

Why has the onus changed?

 

Infant mortality rate is, "the number of children dying under a year of age divided by the number of live births that year." It does not take into account abortions. Infant morality is widely considered a very good indicator of a country's overall health because it takes into account many factors.

 

Actually you did state that the World Health Organization was not scientific when you stated:

If it was a scientific study it would have more credibility, but its not.

[navigator]

Actually you did state that the World Health Organization was not scientific when you stated:

 

Evidently a review is in order.

 

This was your statement that initially raised the question of whether or not the study is scientific.

 

Also say the research they conducted and published was scientific I would have to say that if the researchers did have and bias or political leaning that they would put them aside be impartial in their research.

 

And my reply.

 

If it was a scientific study it would have more credibility, but its not.

 

 

You introduced the idea that it might be, using a hypothetical to bolster your opinion.

 

IMO it seems to me this is an example of using debate technics to win the debate instead of advancing the discussion. If it is scientific then why present it by saying "also say the research..."?

 

Maybe I should have just said "the onus is on you to prove it", duly noted, it would have saved several posts wasted on this back and forth whether its scientific or not. I thought the more civil way to reply was the way I did, at least acknowledging part of your statement.

[iNow]

He can question the WHO's political motivations and discuss them if he wants to.

Yes, Pangloss... I agree, but if you will please look again, he asked which indicators they were using. I provided an accurate and factual answer to that question, and my answer was supported with a link to the report itself.

 

My response did not imply that these indicators were perfect, nor did I respond because I felt like defending those criteria. I simply answered the question which was asked, and it was inappropriate of navigator to attack my response in the way he did. That is all.

 

I answered the question. Nothing more. I had no interest in chasing him down that rabbit hole about the flaws of the WHO report. He's free to discuss it if he wants. The issue was that he was challenging me to support a position I never put forth, and I had zero desire to do so.

 

 

DJBruce and Bascule had more appropriate (and interesting) responses on this point.

Weren't you the one just now saying how important it is to separate fact from opinion?

 

 

No, it isn't. Your opinions do not rise to "stand" above those of others.

Nothing to do with opinion, friend. I was merely pointing to the fact that he was being inconsistent with his measurement criteria for success, applying one measurement to private health care and a completely separate success criteria to existing government programs. That was not an opinion, it was a fact, and I asked why he was using different measurements. He never bothered to answer that question, nor was his response relevant to the flaw I noted (of different/inconsistent application of success criteria being used to make his argument that one is better than the other).

 

 

 

He's not the one poisoning this well.

Sorry, Pangloss, but that's just wrong. For example, here is navigator poisoning the well:

 

 

No, try again. What gives the World Health Organization more credibility than Cato? That may seem absurd to you, but honestly, their political leanings?

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Rushing legislation through that makes major changes to a system is a recipe for disaster.

I wonder what time period you are suggesting when you say "rushing things through." All major indicators, including from those people actually sitting at the negotiating table, suggest that this thing won't be done until at least the end of the year... still 4 months out... and that's not to mention the fact that we've been working on it for 15 years already. If that's your idea of fast, I want to race you in something and put some serious money on the competition!

Edited August 13, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mokele]

navigator, can you give any good reason to reject the WHO study? Not "I don't like the conclusions", or baseless accusations of bias - Show *EVIDENCE* that it's biased, such as poor choice of variables or that the study was run by former lobbyists (to make up two hypotheticals). You cannot just reject a study because you don't like it or have vague suspicions - there must be a documented reason.

 

Also, since when did accident and homicide not count? News flash - in both of those, the subject frequently does go to the hospital and receives treatment (successful or not in saving them), therefore they *do* reflect on the US medical system.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Mokele

[Syntho-sis]

Also, since when did accident and homicide not count? News flash - in both of those, the subject frequently does go to the hospital and receives treatment (successful or not in saving them), therefore they *do* reflect on the US medical system.

 

I disagree with this line of thinking. Specifically that accidents are a reflection of the healthcare system.

 

For all intents and purposes we'll just call them "Acts of God," which include, but is not limited to, events outside of human control such as floods, natural disasters, motor vehicles accidents, mechanical and building failure, and so on.

 

By definition, they are also events for which no one can be held accountable. (With certain exceptions of course such as engineer's failings to design a device with safety in mind.)

 

So if you have 3,000 people come into the ER, and all of them have suffered severe trauma and the ER is not able to save them and they all die, that sir, cannot be held against that specific medical facility.

 

I would not pin that down as a reflection of any healthcare system of any country, if the country happens to be in a high-accident area. They are obviously not held to the same standard as a country with a lower accident rate.

 

In a nutshell- If a medical facility such as an ER, is in an area where accidents occur commonly (natural disasters for example) and the ER is required to treat all individuals who enter it, individual cases (in which the person dies-and the person is the victim of the said natural disaster) cannot be attributed to lack of proper medical care.

 

Multiply this by a nation, and assign it to every country in the world and you would have a reasonable system in which to judge how effective a healthcare system really is.

 

I'll add more later..

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The Cato analysis was only used to high light the lack of objectability in the WHO study. My assertion is that it is the best because it is the highest quality money can buy.

And the highest quantity of money is required to buy it. That is the problem.

[DJBruce]

navigator, can you give any good reason to reject the WHO study? Not "I don't like the conclusions", or baseless accusations of bias - Show *EVIDENCE* that it's biased, such as poor choice of variables or that the study was run by former lobbyists (to make up two hypotheticals). You cannot just reject a study because you don't like it or have vague suspicions - there must be a documented reason.

 

Also, since when did accident and homicide not count? News flash - in both of those, the subject frequently does go to the hospital and receives treatment (successful or not in saving them), therefore they *do* reflect on the US medical system.

 

My point exactly, thank you for verbalizing it so well.

 

Also, Navigator you held one position on the subject I held the other. I back up my position by saying the World Health Organization is a prestigious institute who would not publish something that is unscientific, and that the research was conducted in a scientific and objective manner, although this is unneeded as it is considered the norm for the World Health Organization. You on the other hand have refused to back up you position, first denying you ever held that position and then once shown that you had taken that position you used the burden of proof fallacy to avoid answering the question. So again if you make a claim whether in rebuttal or otherwise please support your opinion.

[swansont]

Love the misrepresentation. Not what I said at all is it?

 

The post office is an example of a service which is always running in the red.

 

Government run services are never as good as privately run services and are always more expensive. The post office is supported by taxes to keep it from going bankrupt.

 

The post office isn't supported by taxes, other than the government paying them for things like free mail for the blind and for overseas voting, and for free mail from congressmen (franking) i.e. the government is a customer and pays for certain services. They haven't gotten operating appropriations for quite some time (1971, I think), when they stopped being a government department.

 

They even show a profit on occasion. When they start losing money, the raise the price of stamps.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2008/02/12/postal-service-turns-a-profit-in-q1.htm

 

Compare the quality of the US postal service to foreign counterparts. A letter takes 2 or 3 days to go cross country - anywhere, as opposed to weeks in some places. They're pretty good, for all our complaining to the contrary.

[navigator]

And the highest quantity of money is required to buy it. That is the problem.

 

No different than any other service that has the hightest value. I think our differences can be found in whether health care is a priviledge or a right.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Navigator, for all the arguments against the WHO report, there are two factors that can't be challenged.

 

 

Talking about WHO criteria is beside the point. Your infant mortality is way too high and life expectancy is way too low.

 

 

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.

 

 

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm

 

In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

 

What I find interesting is the WHO uses infant mortality rate to help form their ratings, but they rate the countries that use a lower standard than their own, higher in infant mortality than the US.

 

 

http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_education_En/Live_birth_definition.htm

 

World Health Organization, 1950

A live birth is the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life, such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or any definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.

 

A fetal death is death prior to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, as indicated by the fact that after such expulsion or extraction the fetus does not breathe or show any evidence of life, such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.

 

This supports both my assertions that the study is not only inaccurate, but also driven by ideology.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

navigator, can you give any good reason to reject the WHO study? Not "I don't like the conclusions", or baseless accusations of bias - Show *EVIDENCE* that it's biased, such as poor choice of variables or that the study was run by former lobbyists (to make up two hypotheticals). You cannot just reject a study because you don't like it or have vague suspicions - there must be a documented reason.

 

IMO, the WHO study places too much emphasis on the distibution of health care and not the actual quality. In the financial fairness section, a country with terrible health care, but all the citizens pay a uniform high price would score higher than a country with excellent health care across the board, with 50% of the citizens paying for all health care costs. The the only factor is how evenly the cost is spread throughout the population. If you don't understand my position I would say you feel health care is a right.

 

Also, since when did accident and homicide not count? News flash - in both of those, the subject frequently does go to the hospital and receives treatment (successful or not in saving them), therefore they *do* reflect on the US medical system.

 

Regardless, whether they make it to the hospital alive, the US has a much higher rate of homicides and MVAs. If the intent of the study was to be accurate then this should have benn accounted for. It is imperative on those developing a study to eliminate contrasts like these to insure its veracity.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Sheila Jackson Lee, a congress woman from Texas took a cell phone call during a town meeting while a person was trying to answer a question.

 

Not only was she rude, obviously ignoring an opponents question of HR3200 by answering her phone in the middle of the question, she mislead the crowd, by labeling one of those in favor who asked a question, as a pediatric primary care physician.

 

 

http://blogs.chron.com/texassparkle/2009/08/playing_a_doctor_at_a_townhall.html

 

On Aug. 11th our own Houston Chronicle displayed a picture of Shelia Jackson Lee hugging a woman who had asked a question at the townhall as well, but her question was in full support of the health care bill. The woman was identified as "Dr. Roxana Mayer, a pediatric primary care physician." Turns out, she isn't a doctor at all though. She had identified herself to the Chonicle that way though.

 

Patterico, a lawyer and LA blogger smelled something fishy, found her on MySpace, saw that she was clearly not a doctor, and e-mailed her to ask her to make sure. She did e-mail back and admit to the lie. It seems she was also an Obama delegate (actually true), which she also told the Chronicle, but the reporter failed to mention that little fact about her.

 

So, here we have someone asking a question, giving favor in support of the health care bill, posing as a doctor to give more credibility to her support. When in reality she was an Obama delegate and NOT a doctor.

Edited August 13, 2009 by navigator
Consecutive posts merged.

[padren]

Please don't let this derail the conversation but I found the idea amusing and thought I'd share it - I'd love to see an onion news video parodying smug Fox News coverage of this stuff but about the Moon Landing: "Now, an interesting story, some people are saying - and this one is just not going away - that they are fed up being lied to by NASA for over 40 years about land-ing on-the moon..."

Complete with angry mobs at a NASA press conference and some old guy shouting in the background "You claim you landed on CHEESE! You CAN'T land on CHEESE! Do you think we were born yesterday??"

 

Like I said I don't want to derail, thought it was funny and some may agree... those that don't I respect that too.

[DJBruce]

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.

 

What I find interesting is the WHO uses infant mortality rate to help form their ratings, but they rate the countries that use a lower standard than their own, higher in infant mortality than the US.

 

This supports both my assertions that the study is not only inaccurate, but also driven by ideology.

 

IMO, the WHO study places too much emphasis on the distibution of health care and not the actual quality. In the financial fairness section, a country with terrible health care, but all the citizens pay a uniform high price would score higher than a country with excellent health care across the board, with 50% of the citizens paying for all health care costs. The the only factor is how evenly the cost is spread throughout the population. If you don't understand my position I would say you feel health care is a right.

 

First is their any statistic that you consider reliable for comparing the overall state of healthcare in different countries?

 

Again, their is a difference between you disliking the studies results and the study being unscientific. As myself and numerous others in this thread have asked please show the evidence that makes the World Health Organization study unscientific.

[navigator]

First is their any statistic that you consider reliable for comparing the overall state of healthcare in different countries?

 

The main one for me is how well does it serve the sick. The US leads the world in 13 of 16 catagories of cancer in another study.

 

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

 

Overall Cancer Survival Rates. According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology.

 

American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men. Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent. For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.

 

 

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299282509335931

 

Since the spring of 2006, Ontario's government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain." Other provinces have followed Ontario's example.

 

How much contribution is made to leading edge technology and drug developments. We have a robust market for medical research because there is a demand for it and people can afford it. As you get older whats more important, a car, a house, one year of life?

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30229507/

The U.S. leads the world in many high-value fields, producing more than half of the $175 billion in health care technology products purchased worldwide each year

 

Wait time is another one. Having access to a wait line is not health care.

 

 

 

Again, their is a difference between you disliking the studies results and the study being unscientific. As myself and numerous others in this thread have asked please show the evidence that makes the World Health Organization study unscientific.

 

Whether you label the study scientific or not doesn't change the fact the results are inaccurate.

[iNow]

Whether you label the study scientific or not doesn't change the fact the results are inaccurate.

Despite being asked like 10 or 12 times already, you have yet to demonstrate where and how this inaccuracy exists. You are free to support your claim using actual logic and evidence, and I sincerely encourage you to do so since it would teach me something, and help me to correct potential inaccuracies in my own understanding. However, right now, you have not done this... not even close... and I'm of the opinion that the WHO report is a very telling and accurate indicator about how poor our system is despite the mountains of money we spend on it. If I'm wrong in this opinion, then prove it, and back up what you say. Simply repeating an unproven assertion does not suddenly make it valid.

 

Further, as JohnB already demonstrated, even if you toss the WHO report into the trash, we STILL fail pretty miserably in terms of infant mortality and life expectancy. So really, you're essentially tilting at windmills with your continued attempts to dismiss the WHO report as somehow flawed.

Edited August 14, 2009 by iNow

[padren]

How much contribution is made to leading edge technology and drug developments. We have a robust market for medical research because there is a demand for it and people can afford it. As you get older whats more important, a car, a house, one year of life?

 

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.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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.

They certainly spur innovations in the mortuary marketing business.

 

"All new! Lifetime warranties on all caskets!"

[Pangloss]

That was really well put, Padren.

[JohnB]

The WHO does not accurately reflect infant mortality rate, because different countries have different ways of defining a stillbirth. Of course 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.

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.

 

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?

 

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.

[bascule]

The main one for me is how well does it serve the sick. The US leads the world in 13 of 16 catagories of cancer

 

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?