Obama: Healthcare debate is "over"

[retro]

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

But dont tell me, you're one of those paranoid kneejerkers who still haven't realised McCarthy was a twat and who think that the WHO is socialist and therefore evilly trying to destroy the world?

McCarthy was a moron who used fear as a weapon... kinda like GWB and Obama. Regardless, that study is so ridiculously weighted towards UHC that it's quite laughable.

 

[Peter Parka]

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

But dont tell me, you're one of those paranoid kneejerkers who still haven't realised McCarthy was a twat and who think that the WHO is socialist and therefore evilly trying to destroy the world?

McCarthy was a moron who used fear as a weapon... kinda like GWB and Obama. Regardless, that study is so ridiculously weighted towards UHC that it's quite laughable.

Yup, thought so.

 

[retro]

Yup, thought so.

I'm neither a paranoid knee-jerker, nor do I deny that McCarthy was a douchebag, nor do I think that WHO is out to destroy the world... but since I don't agree with a weighted and biased WHO study, therefore my opinion doesn't count. Does that basically cover it? Give me an fucking break here. Fucking pathetic.

 

[nova]

After new rules are established, if you really want reform, then you'll need government regulations and regulators governing the system. I am aware of no case were corporate self regulation works in the long run.

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

But dont tell me, you're one of those paranoid kneejerkers who still haven't realised McCarthy was a twat and who think that the WHO is socialist and therefore evilly trying to destroy the world?

Ahh, yes the wonderfully biased WHO study. Dig into it a bit and you'll notice that of the 3 main ranking metrics, the one with the highest weighting is, wait for it, how FAIR (socialized) the systems are.

That makes absolutely perfect sense to me. Lets use a study that ranks systems based on how socialized they are to push for a socialized system.

Begging the question with goofy statistics is fun isn't it?

Whats even funnier, is that when you really dig into the other ranking metrics of the study, responsiveness to patient needs and patient outcomes, oddly enough the US ranks in the top 5 on both of those, but yet somehow ends up 37th in the overall ranking. Just a bit fishy don't you think?

Liberals dredge this stupid shit up at least every 3 months and not one that I have ever found has even bothered to read the actual text of the study, they just go with the soundbite of "US ranked 37th behind Camaroon" or some other such stupidity...

 

[Peter Parka]

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

But dont tell me, you're one of those paranoid kneejerkers who still haven't realised McCarthy was a twat and who think that the WHO is socialist and therefore evilly trying to destroy the world?

Ahh, yes the wonderfully biased WHO study. Dig into it a bit and you'll notice that of the 3 main ranking metrics, the one with the highest weighting is, wait for it, how FAIR (socialized) the systems are.

That makes absolutely perfect sense to me. Lets use a study that ranks systems based on how socialized they are to push for a socialized system.

Begging the question with goofy statistics is fun isn't it?

Whats even funnier, is that when you really dig into the other ranking metrics of the study, responsiveness to patient needs and patient outcomes, oddly enough the US ranks in the top 5 on both of those, but yet somehow ends up 37th in the overall ranking. Just a bit fishy don't you think?

Liberals dredge this stupid shit up at least every 3 months and not one that I have ever found has even bothered to read the actual text of the study, they just go with the soundbite of "US ranked 37th behind Camaroon" or some other such stupidity...

Yup too.

 

[retro]

Yup too.

no really, don't bother actually responding... just roll your eyes and act like everyone who doesn't agree with you is a fucking idiot. That's a brilliant plan.

 

[Codrus]

no really, don't bother actually responding... just roll your eyes and act like everyone who doesn't agree with you is a fucking idiot. That's a brilliant plan.

well thats what i usually do......works out ok for me:24:

 

[nova]

Yup too.

Do you have some problem with reading comprehension or what? Have you even read the actual text of the study? I have.

Heres a link, you can go read it yourself before you run your mouth anymore...

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf

Here's a quote from page 26, that tells you exactly what the fairness ranking metric means

But it is not always satisfactory
to protect or improve the average health of the population, if at the same time inequality worsens or remains high because the gain accrues disproportionately to those already enjoying better health.

​

​

​

​

The health system also has the responsibility to try to reduce inequalities
by preferentially improving the health of the worse-off, wherever these inequalities​

are caused by conditions amenable to intervention

​

​

​

​

​

IE, no matter how well the system takes care of people, if its not fair in their eyes, the ranking will be lower...

I'll say again, the US is ranked 55th for fairness, 1st in responsivness and tied for 3rd in distribution, still manages to make 24 in attainment due to slim differences in life expectancy and yet somehow ends up ranked 37th overall. Mathematically that means that fairness is heavily weighted in the study.​

Overall I found the methodology in the study to be pretty well done. The only problem comes when you try and use that study to push for a socialized system. Its assinine circular logic to do that.

I'll give you an outrageous example of that kind of thought to make it obvious.

I'm going to prove which one of us is the best poster, so people can be more like the the best.

Quality of posts and name are both worth 100 points each. Quality is weighted .1 and Name is weighted .9.

Your posts are much better so you get 100 points and I get 0.
The name nova gets 100 points but Peta Parka gets 0.

So in totall, you get 10 points and I get 90 points, so I'm the best poster and need to be emulated.

Honestly, if you can't see just how lidicruous an assertion both of those scenarious are, there's no hope for you...

 

[MoonOwl]

no really, don't bother actually responding... just roll your eyes and act like everyone who doesn't agree with you is a fucking idiot. That's a brilliant plan.

hehehehehehehehehehehehe....... anyone who doesn't believe the way I believe IS a fucking idiot:rockon::24:

 

[Accountable]

I don't know why you guys bother. Brits and Yanks arguing healthcare is like vegans and carnivores arguing nutrition.

 

[Meirionnydd]

What exactly are you basing your assertion of our health care system being an "embarrassment" on? Furthermore, what are you basing Great Britain's system being superior to the US on?

Life expectancy in the United States is equal to that of Cuba, infant mortality rates in the United States is among the highest in the Western World.

Around 46 million Americans are currently uninsured, in addition to that, around another 20 million are under-insured. Organisations that provide healthcare to 3rd world countries, such as Remote Area Medical, now have to provide free clinic's for the needy in such places such as Inglewood.

In addition to that, 16,000-20,000 people die each year simply because they cannot get proper access to treatment.

For the average American, they pay more in out-of-pocket expenses each year than anyone else in the world.
Economically, the price of health insurance has been rising faster than inflation and wages. Nearly half of all bankruptcies in the United States are due to healthcare costs.

It is obvious that the health care system in the US needs reform, I think we can all agree on that. The main divergence in opinion is how it should be done.

 

[Accountable]

Life expectancy in the United States is equal to that of Cuba, infant mortality rates in the United States is among the highest in the Western World.

We definitely have work to do in the area of infancy mortality. The rate is far higher when calculating in the number of healthy fetuses aborted.

Around 46 million Americans are currently uninsured,

A bogus number that has been debunked many times.

in addition to that, around another 20 million are under-insured.

Define "underinsured". The term itself implies that insurance is needed to live, which is false. "underfed" is a valid term; "underinsured" is not.

Organisations that provide healthcare to 3rd world countries, such as Remote Area Medical, now have to provide free clinic's for the needy in such places such as Inglewood.

So?

In addition to that, 16,000-20,000 people die each year simply because they cannot get proper access to treatment.

That's an opinion disguised as a statistic.

For the average American, they pay more in out-of-pocket expenses each year than anyone else in the world.

Economically, the price of health insurance has been rising faster than inflation and wages.

Directly linked to government interference in the natural regulation effect of supply and demand.

Nearly half of all bankruptcies in the United States are due to healthcare costs.

Another opinion disguised as statistic. Things such as bankruptcy and healthcre do not happen in a vacuum. Have you read this alleged study you refer to? Does it take into account the claimants' financial lifestyle such as spending habits, other debt, etc etc? Does it negate the bankruptcies claimed unnecessarily, such as out of panic? Are you aware that bankruptcy does not leave a person destitute? Depending on the state and circumstances, some people walk away from bankruptcy still owning a home and keeping money in the bank.

It is obvious that the health care system in the US needs reform, I think we can all agree on that. The main divergence in opinion is how it should be done.

Agreed.

 

[nova]

Life expectancy in the United States is equal to that of Cuba, infant mortality rates in the United States is among the highest in the Western World.

Seriously, how many times do these things have to be debunked....

Your life expectancy assertation is only true if the stats don't adjust for differences NOT due to health care, like differences in lifestyles (all the crap food we americans eat) and the fact that for some reason, we Americans are more likely to die in accidents than any other country. When you standardize the data for just accidents alone, we here in the US come out on top oddly enough. There's no telling how far above we would be if you could adequately account for lifestyle differences...

The infant mortality rate is a difference in data collection. Here in the US, any baby that shows ANY signs of life at all at birth and then dies, even extremely deformed and premature babies, that death is counted in the infant mortality stats. In most of the EU, if a baby dies before its 4 hours old, its considered a stillbirth and not counted in the infant mortality stats. Just like with life expectancy, when you account for these differences, a funny thing happens, our infant mortality is exactly in line with every other modern industrialized nation.

Around 46 million Americans are currently uninsured, in addition to that, around another 20 million are under-insured. Organisations that provide healthcare to 3rd world countries, such as Remote Area Medical, now have to provide free clinic's for the needy in such places such as Inglewood.

 

[Minor Axis]

Seriously, how many times do these things have to be debunked....

You truly are the voice of authority, but I have chart that shows the U.S. in 35th or 50th place depending on who you want to believe, the CIA or U.N.

 

[nova]

You truly are the voice of authority, but I have chart that shows the U.S. in 35th or 50th place depending on who you want to believe, the CIA or U.N.

And what exactly is the basis for the numbers? How were they determined? How were they adjusted? Just what all factors do they take into account? If you can't tell me those things, the data is useless in providing any meaningful information beyond its base information...

Its not a matter of who you want to believe, its a matter of utilizing the correct metrics to make meaningfull byond the base information..

If you want to use life expectancy as a comparison of health care systems, then you have to adjust the data for factors unrelated to the health care system, again like lifestyles and accidental deaths.

Its the same reason many many statistics are given in "per capita" terms because you can't compare raw numbers in countries of different sizes.

Its the same reason when I'm determining aircraft performance numbers from raw flight test data, I adjust and normalize the data from test day density alititude conditions to "standard day" conditions based on the international standard atmosphere. If I didn't, I would never be able to quantify performance data to facilitate any meaningful comparisons between different aircraft on different days.

This is not some new concept, its standard data analysis. The mathematical guts of it can be quite complex but the concepts of why you do it are not.


Using my vast detective skills and actually reading your nice little wiki article though, I would venture to guess that these are simply raw life expectancy numbers with no adjustments.

The figures reflect the quality of healthcare in the countries listed as well as other factors including ongoing wars and HIV/AIDS infections.

Might the fact that we're engaged in a couple wars have an impact of life expectancy? How about our murder and accident rate? Or the fact that we sit around on our duffs and eat fast food all the time?

 

[Minor Axis]

Your detective and reading skills are unsurpassed! Bravo! Unless you were there gathering the data, or have high factual confidence in the neutrality of the data, it's exactly a matter of who you want to believe.

 

[nova]

Your detective and reading skills are unsurpassed! Bravo! Unless you were there gathering the data, or have high factual confidence in the neutrality of the data, it's exactly a matter of who you want to believe.

Nowhere have I claimed the data is biased. I just said its not in a form and format conducive to drawing meaningful comparisons, which its not.

Again, take GDP. I can't compare the raw GDP data of the US and say Camaroon and say US workers are more productive. The fact that US GDP is something like 1000X that of Cameroon doesn't tell me shit about how productive US workers are compared to workers in Camaroon. All it tells you is that the total value of goods and services produced in the US is higher than Camaroon.

Now take and adjust that GDP data for population, ie per capita GDP. That will give you a meaninful comparison as to how productive the workers are. If on average a US worker produces $10k in goods and services and the average worker in Camaroon produces $100 in goods and services, you can reasonably say that US workers are more productive.

You CAN NOT use life expectancy values that include factors COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO HEALTH CARE to compare how good health care systems are. Think of it this way, with the unrelated factors, if two health care systems were both equally effective, keeping sick people alive to age 100, the one with more accidental instant deaths (car accidents and the like) would have a lower life expectancy. Thats just the way the math works.

The burden is not on me to disprove the numbers the posted as a viable comparison, the burden is on you to show that they are. It should be a simple task to just read the methodology and make a rational logical decision.

In contrast, the table I posted tells you exactly what they did to adjust the data. Its normalized for accidental death. The full mathematical methodology is also included in the full text.

Now maybe this concept is non-obvious to people who don't deal with data on a daily basis, but the concept shouldn't be hard to understand...

 

[Meirionnydd]

The percentage without health insurance was 15.3 percent in 2007, down from 15.8 percent in 2006, and the number of uninsured was 45.7 million, down from 47.0 million (Table 6).27

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf - It's on page 19.

Another opinion disguised as statistic. Things such as bankruptcy and healthcre do not happen in a vacuum. Have you read this alleged study you refer to? Does it take into account the claimants' financial lifestyle such as spending habits, other debt, etc etc? Does it negate the bankruptcies claimed unnecessarily, such as out of panic? Are you aware that bankruptcy does not leave a person destitute? Depending on the state and circumstances, some people walk away from bankruptcy still owning a home and keeping money in the bank.

I don't understand when you say, 'opinion disguised as statistic'. The study I quoted is below, along with an abstract of the results of the study written by the researchers.

RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/american_journal_of_medicine_09.pdf

 

[MoonOwl]

I'll be darned. My local Fox news actually covered the protest in DC. What a difference a Democratic President makes.....:24:

 

[Accountable]

I'll be darned. My local Fox news actually covered the protest in DC. What a difference a Democratic President makes.....:24:

Yeh, but nobody else did, so all is still right with the world.