Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
whembly wrote:@labmouse42: look at this:
http://voteview.com/Clinton_and_Obama.htm This was done during the Democratic Primary '08. You'll see that Obama and H. Clinton has very similar voting records in the Senate. You'll see here that most Congressional Democrats are pulling hard to the left (just as the Republican to the right).
Especially look at the last graph (cant figure out how to insert that gif here).... see the trend? Both parties are pulling away from each other... and this is in '08! I'd bet a case a beer that it's even MORE profound now.
Whembly, that's an excellent article. It gives a prime example of the hard shift of the right by the Republican Party. We also see a shift by the Democratic party, but its not as great.
90th Congress Democratic Party -0.264
110th Congress Democratic Party -0.370
This is a total shift of -1.06 points.
90th Congress Republican Party 0.246
110th Congress Republican Party 0.473
This is a total shift of 2.27 points.
Over the course of 40 years, according to this study, the Republican party shifted over twice as much as the Democratic party.
Spoiler:
This study was done in 2007, and the Republican party has shifted even more right with the rise of the tea party. If the article that you linked continued to the current day, I would expect us to see a even more dramatic shift in both directions, and therefore I would never bet a case of beer on it.
I don't repeat Democratic talking points, or post spam from political blogs / emails.
I could even be convinced to vote conservative if we had any running. We don't. We have mostly neocons running, but the conservatives have been attacked as "RINO" over the recent years. Since the Democrats have mostly dropped the gun control issue and are effectively a moderate right wing liberal party (hell, they're basically the Republican party from the 90s, but with less conservative social views), there's really no reason for me to vote Republican.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/16 14:14:32
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/16 14:42:38
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Idiotic nonsense that have long since been disproven.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/16 14:59:11
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
ShumaGorath wrote:I know, I've witnessed you do the same. Many times.
Keep telling yourself that, someday you might even believe it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/16 15:02:29
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
This is an example of how awful moderates are in this country.
The Republicans have gone insane. Totally off the rails. Now whenever anyone points it out they are painted as equally partisan as the Republicans, which in turn helps make the insanity they are spewing legitimate.
I imagine if Melissia and I were to talk about a lot of issues I'd end up yelling things about how they are enablers of the bourgeois class and that Melissia is waging class warefare against the heroic proletariat, but on the whole Melissia is fine and has been intellectually honest.
whembly wrote:His bill doesn't go FAR enough. Did you know that overall government spending still goes up with his plan? Just not at the higher rate that the Obama/Democrate's plan.
Only if you look at it in raw dollars, and not relative to GDP. You shouldn't ever just look at the raw dollars. Hell, even per capita would make more sense.
Oh, and you didn't comment on leaving out the impact on aggregate demand.
Okay, you got me there... from a macro-economic standpoint, government spending could (not always) have a positive impact. What I'm trying to articulate is that all to often "government intervention" is the go-to tool to attempt to address these concerns.
Yeah... can't argue that. I'd just think Rubio is a better strategic pick to win the WH.
Possibly. There is a reasonable chance Rubio said no, though.
True... I hadn't thought about it much since that was speculated.
No... don't tell me what I'm "supposed" to believe in... that kind of thinking is the path to socialism and eventually communism (the most destructive economic policies in history). The Risk takers and those who work hard striving for excellence are the driving force in a healthy robust economy. Government's jobs is to provide a stable framework. Excessive government intervention puts a damper on that. The real question is... when is it enough?
"The risk takers are the driving force" thing is standard Republican line... and the philosophy underpinning that is that when they succeed jobs and opportunities are created for the middle and working classes. Like I said 'a rising tide lifts all ships'.
Which is what shared prosperity is. It means the wealth that's created is on some level shared. Everyone wants that. So freaking out when a democrat says is just politics by the stupid, for the stupid.
Right... but it's all about "context". If a plain jane/joe politician said this, it wouldn't be on anyone's radar. But coming from someone who "coined" the following phrases (and I'm paraphrasing):
"... you didn't build that..."
"...we have the spread the wealth around"
"...etc..."
And let me pre-empt anyone. I don't hate Obama... I don't think he's "working to destroy America"... he truly believes in these kind of things and he's been consistent (I'm not being snarky... in a politician, that's admirable).
...snip
Yup... current entitlement will be on the conversation now... at some point, we'll elect enough adults to address this.
Hopefully the present mood in congress will pass, and hopefully at some point enough people will get sick of partisan games and instinctively look to politicians who talk to them like adults. Hopefully.
I think we're getting there.
You say bankruptcy is a "bad thing". In a healthy economic society, bankruptcy is a GOOD thing. It's a reset button. So... according to this statistics:
It's a good thing compared to be trapped in debt forever. But it's a terrible thing compared being given a manageable bill and then carrying on in your life while still owning your own house and car.
http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/BankruptcyStatistics.aspx From March '11 to March '12 there were over 1.3 million bankruptcies filed. Out of that, based on a recent Harvard studies (I have issues with this study, but lets roll with it), about 40% of those were due to medical expenses. So, during this time period about 520K people filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses.
So... yes, we can make it work.
I have absolutely no fething clue what so ever how 520 thousand people declaring bankruptcy because they got sick can be considered 'making it work'. That's a terrible stat that should shock people into action.
That's the disconnect I have with you.. we don't have universal healthcare. Basic healthcare isn't a "right" (whether is should be, that's a different discussion) It's a service oriented industry. This is what we have (the ACA bill doesn't really change that... might mitigate it... ).
So... through combination of bad luck, poor planning, and/or gak hits the fan... yes, medical bills can bankrupt you. At least you have a mechanism to discharge the debt.
If we didn't have that mechanism, then yes, you'd have an argument as it'll be no different that indentured slavery.
Keep in mind, if that Harvard study is right (not sure if it's been peer reviewed yet)... the 0.0017% of the population had to file for bankruptcy due to these bills.
The politicians says the underline... in the real world... the standard of care will go down.
It isn't politicians, its the CBO. The difference is very important.
Nor will the standard of care go down. It can't. There's no provision there at all to reduce the standard of care. If the measures in place don't save that much money, what happens is that the savings end up being less.
CBO can only look at the numbers and ASSUME that the same access will be available in the future as it is today.
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Nope... it's LOADED with special interests. Big Pharma got goodies (and in the end, they still got shafted)
Oh yeah, there's plenty in there for special interests (the private insurers made the mistake of fighting the bill rather than sending their own lobbyists, which is why they were the only group to get screwed). Which is why this needs to be the first step of many, in which future steps are addressed in a bi-partisan manner without heavy political grandstanding, thereby reducing the potential impact of special interest groups.
Yup...agreed.
Right... and Democrates were serious all along polishing their halos... gotcha.
It's lazy to just assume because I acknowledge the Republicans were particularly odious on this issue that I think the Democrats are angels. They're not, they're just a political party bought and paid for major corporate interests, who do just enough to keep progressives voting for them every two years.
But seriously, the Republican opposition to HCR was overtly political from the get go. The memos were made public. It is no secret.
With other issues... I'd agree with you. See that website I posted previous showing how pull parties are pulling away from each other. But with respect to the HCR bill.
WE. DONT. WANT. IT. Not in it's current iteration...
In Missouri, we passed a non-binding resolution two years ago rejecting the current HCR bill. It passed with 71% approval... that is unheard of on a single-issue platform.
http://kcur.org/post/proposition-c-passes
It is socialism (not verbatim, but the direction).
Not really, no.
Okay... lazy on my part. Its "Top-down" government intervention.
To be fair, there are some good stuff in HCR bill. I think the problem was they tried to fix it "all at once", and in order to get it passed, you had to satisfy all the special interest groups to squeak it by and what's left is a bloated BAD law with a few redeeming stuff.
The problem is that there's so much political capital spent to just raise healthcare that any legislation is likely to be a once in a generation type affair, so it does produce a bill with a lot of mess in it.
It'd be nice if you could produce a working committee aimed at a constant series of minor, bi-partisan reforms to modernise the US healthcare system, but that's just not going to happen.
I agree!
Yeah, the extremism on both sides are at fault. But let me just say this... I'm not quite sure how I feel about it, but isn't a better (long term) if one party controls only one branch? IE, Republican Congress vs. Democrate WH? It seems that we go all ape-gak crazy when one party controls both branch of government.
I think the better option, honestly, is to take power away from the hardliners of the two parties who hate any idea of crossing the floor. It wasn't that long ago that the US was remarkable for the freedom with which members would cross the floor to vote for or against a bill.
In our Wesminster system party loyalty is strictly enforced and daring to cross the floor to vote against your party is a big deal, but that's part and parcel of our system, and there are checks and balances elsewhere in the system. Your government is set up differently, and works best when people are free to vote as they believe, not as the party dictates they must.
Interesting about your system...
We vote every 2 years for Rep and 4 for Senator/Prez... ultimately, the responsibility falls on the voters... and most voters don't take the time to research.
Yeah... it's the stereotyping that is getting outta hand... (I know I fall into that trap).
It's more that people are actually becoming the stereotype. They're own politics are changing to conform to those of the parties. Which is just plain weird, really.
Absolutely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Right... everything here is MORE expensive. Just the way it is... So how that segues into foreigner's travel cost... that interesting 'cuz now with that, travel expenses is even more spendy for ya'll.
Not at all. In fact your country is incredibly cheap. My wife and I lived like kings over there, ate at top notch restaurants and did everything we wanted, because it was all so cheap to what stuff costs here. But that doesn't apply to health care, which is crazy expensive.
Oh, and kudos on having an awesome country. The US is an amazing place.
And also, credit to you for how you've conducted yourself in this debate. You most certainly don't owe me a drink. In fact if form is anything to go by, I'll be buying you on before long
Huh... interesting. And THANKS! I need to travel more... I'm just an ignorant mid-westerner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HudsonD wrote:You do realize Obama is considered "right wing" in most western democracies ?
Which is the funny thing. The guy is so popular in the rest of the world, but at the same time he's so far right by our standards he'd be unelectable.
And yet in the US where he's basically smack bang in the middle of things half the country is pretending he's a socialist.
I find this interesting observation... makes me wonder what happens on the other side of the pond... needless to say, I need to get out more.
[quote=whemblyHopefully the present mood in congress will pass, and hopefully at some point enough people will get sick of partisan games and instinctively look to politicians who talk to them like adults. Hopefully.
I think we're getting there.
I would be interested in seeing some evidence.
Most campaigns are working very hard to "depress" the overall vote. This means Moderates are less likely to vote and extremists more likely to vote. I mean, look at our election participation numbers, and you can see that this strategy is working all to well.
As a result, we are not going to see moderation in politics, it is only going to become more extreme.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Easy E wrote:[quote=whemblyHopefully the present mood in congress will pass, and hopefully at some point enough people will get sick of partisan games and instinctively look to politicians who talk to them like adults. Hopefully.
I think we're getting there.
I would be interested in seeing some evidence.
Most campaigns are working very hard to "depress" the overall vote. This means Moderates are less likely to vote and extremists more likely to vote. I mean, look at our election participation numbers, and you can see that this strategy is working all to well.
Maybe it's an illusion because of the access to all this information in addition to traditional media, it just seems that more people are engaged in this political process than ever before.
But, I suspect we won't know for sure until after the '12 election.
Easy E wrote:
Most campaigns are working very hard to "depress" the overall vote. This means Moderates are less likely to vote and extremists more likely to vote. I mean, look at our election participation numbers, and you can see that this strategy is working all to well.
Actually voter participation, at least in Presidential elections, has been steadily rising since 1996. You have to remember that, in the modern er (basically FDR forward) the highest turnout was ~63% in 1960. As such, a better argument might be that efforts to drum up extremism have resulted in more people being willing to make an effort to vote.
Interestingly, the highest in recorded history was 1876, with ~82% turnout. Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden despite losing the popular vote by 4 points.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/16 18:38:07
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
whembly wrote:CBO can only look at the numbers and ASSUME that the same access will be available in the future as it is today.
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Please cite the source for your silliness. As a national average, the Canadian standard of health care is far superior to that of the US. Source.
And I am really disappointed to see that I have to come back here and remind you of this. You have a very short memory, it seems.
Then be disappointed. Wiki is not the end-all-be-all with these kinds of discussion.
And "far superior"?? What a way to start a pissing match.
All I said was basically in socialized medicine, eventually, government price control are needed to rein in cost (that's what US does for Medicaid patients).
Oh... if you keep bringing up wiki, then the same page has this to say about it's criticism:
The WHO rankings have been subject to much criticism concerning their methodology, scientificity, and usefulness. Dr Richard G. Fessler called the rankings "misleading" and said that tens of thousands of foreigners travel to the United States every year for care. In addition, he claims that the United States leads the world in survival rates for 13 of the 16 most common types of cancer. He also noted that the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior".[3] Dr Philip Musgrove wrote that the rankings are meaningless because they oversimplify: "numbers confer a spurious precision".[4]
Journalist John Stossel notes that the use of life expectancy figures is misleading and the life expectancy in the United States is held down by homicides, accidents, poor diet, and lack of exercise. When controlled for these facts, Stossel claims that American life expectancy is actually one of the highest in the world.[5] A publication by the Pacific Research Institute in 2006 claims to have found that Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides and car accidents.[6] Stossel also criticizes the ranking for favoring socialized healthcare, noting that "a country with high-quality care overall but 'unequal distribution' would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution."[5]
Glen Whitman claims that "it looks an awful lot like someone cherry-picked the results to make the U.S.'s relative performance look worse than it is." He also notes that the rankings favor countries where individuals or families spend little of their income directly on health care.[7] In an article in The American Spectator, Whitman notes how the rankings favor government intervention, which has nothing to do with quality of care. The rankings assume literacy rate is indicative of healthcare, but ignore many factors, such as tobacco use, nutrition, and luck. Regarding the distribution factors, Whitman says "neither measures healthcare performance" since a "healthcare system [can be] characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone." If healthcare improves for one group, but remains the same for the rest of the population, that would mean an increase in inequality, despite there being an improvement in quality.[8] Dr Fessler echoed these sentiments.[3]
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/16 19:23:51
Yes, because we measure quality of healthcare, education, and other public services in how well a society delivers them to everyone and not just the wealthy.
You are arguing that North Korea has amazing healthcare and education.
You are arguing that North Korea has amazing healthcare and education.
The general popluace of NK "ensure" their Great Leader/Dear Leader/Young Leader....what ever leader to have the best
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
TheHammer wrote:Yes, because we measure quality of healthcare, education, and other public services in how well a society delivers them to everyone and not just the wealthy.
I'm only calling their methodology in question here.
You are arguing that North Korea has amazing healthcare and education.
Wait... what?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:
You are arguing that North Korea has amazing healthcare and education.
The general popluace of NK "ensure" their Great Leader/Dear Leader/Young Leader....what ever leader to have the best
True in all fascist/dictatorship.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/16 19:49:49
TheHammer wrote:Yes, because we measure quality of healthcare, education, and other public services in how well a society delivers them to everyone and not just the wealthy.
I'm only calling their methodology in question here.
Whembly, you and I have already had this exact same conversation like four days ago. I'll remind you how that went, sent you seem to have already forgotten:
azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:Was there someone you know who was denied coverage?
My argument is that your health care system overall is crappy because it offers the best treatment to some people, and outright denies treatment to many others.
You argument is that your health care system is awesome because it gives the best treatment to some people.
You see, all those stats you quoted have the qualifier "who received treatment", which means those numbers do not reflect all the people that were denied coverage. What you have done is the equivalent of claiming that Sports Team X is the greatest ever because they have 200 wins, ignoring the fact that Sports Team X has an overall W-L-D record of 200-3000-50.
Like I said once already: health care is not the Olympics. You do not get to say you have the best health care because one guy got really great treatment. Doing so is like saying Americans are the greatest swimmers on earth because Michael Phelps is an outboard motor. We both know that it doesn't work that way, and that is why the WHO ranked the US #37 with a really crummy bullet: because they took into account the millions of Americans who are denied health care for economic reasons, whereas your skewed stats do not.
Anyway, I'll leave Shuma to take over from there if you need to discuss this one further. I'm off for now.
So, yeah... we don't get everything on a silver platter like your universal healthcare can provide, but we can make it work with what we have.
I'm willing to accept this as your surrender.
This certainly doesn't sound like someone describing the "best health care in the world". Keep in mind, this entire debate sprun forth from you claiming that the USA has the best health care system in the world; however your own story and quoted statement indicates that even you do not believe this beyond hollow jingoism. So like I said: I accept your surrender, and I hope it has led to some introspection on your decisions regarding health care.
I have enjoyed our debate, but I believe I am done now.
Good night, and good luck.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And Whembly:
If you want to call into question a methodology, then you have to make a specific allegation. That is how peer review works. That is, your claims of calling something into question are automatically invalidated unless you have a specific question to call that methodology on. You can't just cast unfounded doubt.
So please, tell me: what are your doubts about that study? How about the source I cited? Sure, it's a wiki, but it's also a wiki with cited sources. I felt you might appreciate the concise version that the wiki presents, rather than several hundred pages of statistical journals to read.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/16 22:20:47
If you want to call into question a methodology, then you have to make a specific allegation. That is how peer review works. That is, your claims of calling something into question are automatically invalidated unless you have a specific question to call that methodology on. You can't just cast unfounded doubt.
So please, tell me: what are your doubts about that study? How about the source I cited? Sure, it's a wiki, but it's also a wiki with cited sources. I felt you might appreciate the concise version that the wiki presents, rather than several hundred pages of statistical journals to read.
In short:
For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.
So, when we say "the best"... what are we really asking?
(I stole this quote) To put it succinctly: Total Government-run health care, that is socialized medicine, inevitably leads to therationing of care: first the de facto rationing of long wait lists for needed care, following inevitably by outright government rationing, implemented by government bureaucrats. That's what I was articulating before you jumped on me again...
If you want to call into question a methodology, then you have to make a specific allegation. That is how peer review works. That is, your claims of calling something into question are automatically invalidated unless you have a specific question to call that methodology on. You can't just cast unfounded doubt.
So please, tell me: what are your doubts about that study? How about the source I cited? Sure, it's a wiki, but it's also a wiki with cited sources. I felt you might appreciate the concise version that the wiki presents, rather than several hundred pages of statistical journals to read.
In short:
For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.
So, when we say "the best"... what are we really asking?
(I stole this quote) To put it succinctly: Total Government-run health care, that is socialized medicine, inevitably leads to therationing of care: first the de facto rationing of long wait lists for needed care, following inevitably by outright government rationing, implemented by government bureaucrats. That's what I was articulating before you jumped on me again...
This word, "articulating"... contrary to what you may think, its definition is not "parrot conservative talking points". You're currently one step away from citing Truthers and Alex Jones. Please cite peer-reviewed sources, or do not cite anyhting at all. I cannot stress this enough.
In fact, I will repeat it for you in its simplest terms: Please stop parading non-peer-reviewed conservative zines as though they are scientific studies. If you cannot tell the difference, then you should remove yourself from this conversation.
Pacific Research is a right-wing think-tank formed during the Carter administration, and is not a peer-reviewed academic source, and the American Spectator is a conservative magazine, also not subject to academic standards or peer review. What I am trying to get at, is that you are currently trying to back up your claims with unfounded claims and individual editorials, and not proper studies. And I am not willing to get into an argument that is essentially "yuh-huh!" vs. "nuh-uh!".
The CBS news article you linked quotes two different people: a health-care policy professor at a university, who claims that our cherised Canadian health care system is very good, and a lobbyist group for the privatization of health care, and feth whatever those guys think; they represent a collective of private insurance companies. In Canada they perpectually walk a thin line between being politely ignored and getting curbstomped. And if you look at the points put forward in that article, it states a problem is that our single-payer system is costing too much; and this could be interpreted as meaning the price should be more heavily regulated. Currently out hospitals are run as for-profit services, which are paid by the government. One excellent solution to this is to simply regulate the price of health care further than it is now, and continue with a single-payer system.
The David Gratzer piece, just like your silly little right-wing propaganda pieces, has no sources to cite for his statements. It is purely anecdotal and merely an editorial piece. If is no more relevant to this discussion than would be your own opinion posted on a Tumblr blog, and its only draw is its demagoguery.
I would be very happy to continue this debate with you, but before that happens, you must first learn the difference between peer-reviewed academic sources, and non-reviewed magazine articles. I'm sorry if this sounds condescending; I prefer to think of it as being magnanimous. Because I am better than a handful of Tea Party pamphlets and empty propaganda. I would like to think that you are too, but lately you have not been demonstrating this.
If you want to call into question a methodology, then you have to make a specific allegation. That is how peer review works. That is, your claims of calling something into question are automatically invalidated unless you have a specific question to call that methodology on. You can't just cast unfounded doubt.
So please, tell me: what are your doubts about that study? How about the source I cited? Sure, it's a wiki, but it's also a wiki with cited sources. I felt you might appreciate the concise version that the wiki presents, rather than several hundred pages of statistical journals to read.
In short:
For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.
So, when we say "the best"... what are we really asking?
(I stole this quote) To put it succinctly: Total Government-run health care, that is socialized medicine, inevitably leads to therationing of care: first the de facto rationing of long wait lists for needed care, following inevitably by outright government rationing, implemented by government bureaucrats. That's what I was articulating before you jumped on me again...
This word, "articulating"... contrary to what you may think, its definition is not "parrot conservative talking points". You're currently one step away from citing Truthers and Alex Jones. Please cite peer-reviewed sources, or do not cite anyhting at all. I cannot stress this enough.
In fact, I will repeat it for you in its simplest terms: Please stop parading non-peer-reviewed conservative zines as though they are scientific studies. If you cannot tell the difference, then you should remove yourself from this conversation.
Pacific Research is a right-wing think-tank formed during the Carter administration, and is not a peer-reviewed academic source, and the American Spectator is a conservative magazine, also not subject to academic standards or peer review. What I am trying to get at, is that you are currently trying to back up your claims with unfounded claims and individual editorials, and not proper studies. And I am not willing to get into an argument that is essentially "yuh-huh!" vs. "nuh-uh!".
The CBS news article you linked quotes two different people: a health-care policy professor at a university, who claims that our cherised Canadian health care system is very good, and a lobbyist group for the privatization of health care, and feth whatever those guys think; they represent a collective of private insurance companies. In Canada they perpectually walk a thin line between being politely ignored and getting curbstomped. And if you look at the points put forward in that article, it states a problem is that our single-payer system is costing too much; and this could be interpreted as meaning the price should be more heavily regulated. Currently out hospitals are run as for-profit services, which are paid by the government. One excellent solution to this is to simply regulate the price of health care further than it is now, and continue with a single-payer system.
The David Gratzer piece, just like your silly little right-wing propaganda pieces, has no sources to cite for his statements. It is purely anecdotal and merely an editorial piece. If is no more relevant to this discussion than would be your own opinion posted on a Tumblr blog, and its only draw is its demagoguery.
I would be very happy to continue this debate with you, but before that happens, you must first learn the difference between peer-reviewed academic sources, and non-reviewed magazine articles. I'm sorry if this sounds condescending; I prefer to think of it as being magnanimous. Because I am better than a handful of Tea Party pamphlets and empty propaganda. I would like to think that you are too, but lately you have not been demonstrating this.
Wow... touched a nerve there didn't i?... that was epic.
Let me direct you the criticism section of that same wiki page as it mirrors my objection:
Spoiler:
Criticism
The WHO rankings have been subject to much criticism concerning their methodology, scientificity, and usefulness. Dr Richard G. Fessler called the rankings "misleading" and said that tens of thousands of foreigners travel to the United States every year for care. In addition, he claims that the United States leads the world in survival rates for 13 of the 16 most common types of cancer. He also noted that the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior".[3] Dr Philip Musgrove wrote that the rankings are meaningless because they oversimplify: "numbers confer a spurious precision".[4]
Journalist John Stossel notes that the use of life expectancy figures is misleading and the life expectancy in the United States is held down by homicides, accidents, poor diet, and lack of exercise. When controlled for these facts, Stossel claims that American life expectancy is actually one of the highest in the world.[5] A publication by the Pacific Research Institute in 2006 claims to have found that Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides and car accidents.[6] Stossel also criticizes the ranking for favoring socialized healthcare, noting that "a country with high-quality care overall but 'unequal distribution' would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution."[5]
However, another study on the effects of firearms on life expectancy by Jean Lemaire [7] of the Wharton School concluded that only 0.28 years of the 2.29 life expectancy gap between the US (76.9 years) and the other 33 richest countries (79.19 years) can be attributed to firearm deaths. The author also points out that this conclusion does not calculate for a substitution effect. Some successful firearm suicides might have used other means in the absence of firearms. Though other methods of suicide are not as effective as firearms, they cannot be expected to have been zero. Therefore, simply adjusting a life expectancy calculation by subtracting all suicides due to firearms will tend to overstate average life expectancy.
Glen Whitman claims that "it looks an awful lot like someone cherry-picked the results to make the U.S.'s relative performance look worse than it is." He also notes that the rankings favor countries where individuals or families spend little of their income directly on health care.[8] In an article in The American Spectator, Whitman notes how the rankings favor government intervention, which has nothing to do with quality of care. The rankings assume literacy rate is indicative of healthcare, but ignore many factors, such as tobacco use, nutrition, and luck. Regarding the distribution factors, Whitman says "neither measures healthcare performance" since a "healthcare system [can be] characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone." If healthcare improves for one group, but remains the same for the rest of the population, that would mean an increase in inequality, despite there being an improvement in quality.[9] Dr Fessler echoed these sentiments.[3]
So you say "One excellent solution to this is to simply regulate the price of health care further than it is now, and continue with a single-payer system. "... my retort would be: "It's your system... have at it. When you regulate cost, standard of care will drop because the incentive to PROVIDE for those services would drop.".
I just disagree with the WHO ranking because of the methodolgy they used (particulary the "access" and "fairness" portion).... am I not allowed to have an opinion?
You keep pining for me to "find" peer-reviewed analysis supporting my opinion as if its your shield against a possibility that I *may* be right. Or, you simply want me to prove to you that I was able to reverse engineer the WHO study, pick it apart and write up my own desertation to be peer'ed review.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:I'm just gonna post left talking points to balance out this thread a bit:
Heh... touche.
Still watching it
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/17 02:47:19
whembly wrote:
I just disagree with the WHO ranking because of the methodolgy they used (particulary the "access" and "fairness" portion).... am I not allowed to have an opinion?
You're allowed your opinions. You're not allowed your own facts.
whembly wrote:
I just disagree with the WHO ranking because of the methodolgy they used (particulary the "access" and "fairness" portion).... am I not allowed to have an opinion?
You're allowed your opinions. You're not allowed your own facts.
As an American physician, I have seen the "US Ranks 37th World Health Systems" information tossed around quite a bit to justify some of the proposed legislation in Washington. Prior to reading the report, I assumed the WHO was looking at life expectancy, infant mortality rates, cancer survival rates, pre-term delivery rates, myocardial infarction survival rates, and maternal mortality rates. Silly me. All of the following information is taken from the WHO's press release. My thoughts are in italics.
The WHO rankings actually look at 5 indicators:
1) Overall level of population health
2) Health inequalities (or disparities) within the population
3) Overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts)
4) Distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system)
5) The distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)
More interestingly: "In designing the framework for health system performance, WHO broke new methodological ground, employing a technique not previously used for health systems. It compares each country’s system to what the experts estimate to be the upper limit of what can be done with the level of resources available in that country." In other words, the rankings are biased by the expectations of the experts. (Does this sound like the global warming crowd to anyone else?)
In medicine, we strive to provide care based upon objective criteria: is treatment A more successful than treatment B? If A is more effective, do the costs/side effects override the increased effectiveness? We determine the most successful treatments by clinical studies, preferrably randomized, double blinded controlled clinical trials, so that the inherent biases of the investigators cannot affect patient care. It appears the WHO did not take the same approach. In fact, at least one of the indicators utilized to achieve the rankings simply focuses on the disparity between the healthiest and least healthy members of the population. A homogenously poor and/or unhealthy populace would actually score higher than the U.S. where the health of a healthy octogenarian who has exercised daily for 50 years would be compared to that of a meth addict. The WHO explicitly stated "It is not sufficient 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."
Like it or not, we do have disparities in the U.S. We have a very inhomogenous population compared to most of the countries in the WHO report; we have disparities in incomes. We also have opportunities that aren't available in many of the countries that were looked at.
If someone wants to talk health care reform, wonderful. We should always strive to improve. Just please don't use the WHO report to tell me that the U.S. health system is abysmal.
He also noted that the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior".[3]
This is not an acceptable criticism, because he is complaining that he will always lose because his system is fundamentally inferior. This is no more a valid criticism than would be claiming that the rankings are unfair because they don't ignore all the people that can't afford health care. You do see that, don't you?
whembly wrote:
Journalist John Stossel notes that the use of life expectancy figures is misleading and the life expectancy in the United States is held down by homicides, accidents, poor diet, and lack of exercise. When controlled for these facts, Stossel claims that American life expectancy is actually one of the highest in the world.[5] A publication by the Pacific Research Institute in 2006 claims to have found that Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides and car accidents.[6] Stossel also criticizes the ranking for favoring socialized healthcare, noting that "a country with high-quality care overall but 'unequal distribution' would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution."[5]
There's the Pacific Research Institute, who are not peer reviewed and therefore only express an opinion, not facts. And this is also a reiteration of the same invalid criticism from the previous quote.
whembly wrote:
However, another study on the effects of firearms on life expectancy by Jean Lemaire [7] of the Wharton School concluded that only 0.28 years of the 2.29 life expectancy gap between the US (76.9 years) and the other 33 richest countries (79.19 years) can be attributed to firearm deaths. The author also points out that this conclusion does not calculate for a substitution effect. Some successful firearm suicides might have used other means in the absence of firearms. Though other methods of suicide are not as effective as firearms, they cannot be expected to have been zero. Therefore, simply adjusting a life expectancy calculation by subtracting all suicides due to firearms will tend to overstate average life expectancy.
Sounds like this quote is actually invalidating the criticism that firearm deaths are skewing the results.
whembly wrote:
Glen Whitman claims that "it looks an awful lot like someone cherry-picked the results to make the U.S.'s relative performance look worse than it is." He also notes that the rankings favor countries where individuals or families spend little of their income directly on health care.[8] In an article in The American Spectator, Whitman notes how the rankings favor government intervention, which has nothing to do with quality of care. The rankings assume literacy rate is indicative of healthcare, but ignore many factors, such as tobacco use, nutrition, and luck. Regarding the distribution factors, Whitman says "neither measures healthcare performance" since a "healthcare system [can be] characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone." If healthcare improves for one group, but remains the same for the rest of the population, that would mean an increase in inequality, despite there being an improvement in quality.[9] Dr Fessler echoed these sentiments.[3]
Luck? So what, American are unluckier than everyone else in the world? Try again, ...American Spectator!? Again? Again you're citing a non-reviewed conservative magazine? I've asked you to stop quoting editorial magazines as factual. Why are you incapable of doing this?
whembly wrote:You keep pining for me to "find" peer-reviewed analysis supporting my opinion as if its your shield against a possibility that I *may* be right. Or, you simply want me to prove to you that I was able to reverse engineer the WHO study, pick it apart and write up my own desertation to be peer'ed review.
No, I keep pining for you to find peer-reviewed analysis supporting your opinion because otherwise you are jus wasting my time. For every editorial magazine you cite, I can cite some dumb kid's blog post, and we can continue to waste each other's time. I'm trying to get you to engage in a debate centered around FACTS, not OPINIONS. I've heard your opinion already, so repeating with without bolstering its credibility is not substantiating it.
Hit a nerve? not really. But I truly dislike having to repeat myself, particularly when I'm trying to teach you how to debate like a rational person, and not like Glenn Beck. So here's the deal: if you want to claim something is fact, rather than opinion, then find a source to back it up that is not merely an editorial opinion itself. That's all I'm asking. That way, I don't have to waste my time reading through pages of "nuh-uh!" responses. I recognize that I'm never going to change your opinion. But I do hope that I can at least teach you the different between opinion and fact.
Idiotic nonsense that have long since been disproven.
TBH... I'm all over the map...
That first linky, you're right, that wasn't what the fig was about.
The second one was definately spin in a sense that he "refused" to put his hand over his heart. He wasn't being a rebel or anything, just wasn't observing custom, which is standing attention during the national anthem. A VET pointed that out to me... otherwise, I wouldn't have noticed it at the time. He's was running for prez for feth sakes! It's bad optic.
But, I didn't really care about that...
I had issues with his association with Ayers and Rev Wright.
Just like I'd have issues if he was a Cubs fan, but thankfully, he's a White Sox fan... so, that's cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @azeael the cat.
I'm done trying to convey where I'm coming from. Sorry man.
With that Physician above and this...
In 2000, when the report was issued, WHO was run by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former prime minister of Norway and a socialist. She doesn’t think the results of a health system alone are important. Rather, she wants to know if the system is “fair.” In introducing the WHO report she wrote that while the goal of a health system “is to improve and protect health,” it also has “other intrinsic goals [that] are concerned with fairness in the way people pay for health care.” She is clear about the ideological factors she thinks are important: “Where health and responsiveness are concerned, achieving a high average level is not good enough: the goals of a health system must also include reducing inequalities, in ways that improve the situation of the worst-off. In this report attainment in relation to these goals provides the basis for measuring the performance of health systems.”
True to her ideological roots, Brundtland prefers socialized medicine over private care. Drawing her first conclusion about what makes a good medical system, she declares: “Ultimate responsibility for the performance of a country’s health system lies with government. The careful and responsible management of the well-being of the population—stewardship—is the very essence of good government. The health of people is always a national priority: government responsibility for it is continuous and permanent.”
Those are red flags man...
Can't you see that some of us neanderthals may consider that there's bias with this?
Alright... I'm done.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/17 06:49:11
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
