| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JTEM" |
| Date: |
31 Oct 2005 10:06:39 AM |
| Object: |
Not exactly off topic... |
So, did anyone else catch Tucker Carlson on Bill
Maher's show?
When I saw the immoral little dwarf was going to
be on the show I almost didn't watch. And I didn't...
at first. I skipped it Friday (didn't even Tivo it),
but ended up catching it later.
What a load of *****.
Seriously. How can people stomach that thing?
He actually said -- now get this -- that healthcare
costs MORE in nations with universal healthcare
coverage than it does here in the United States.
There's being "Wrong," and then there's lying because
you're a worthless little immoral ***** who gets a
tingle out of it.
Come on! You can't manage a 30-second google
search without finding cite after cite, fact after
fact demonstrating that the U.S. not only spends
more on Healthcare than any other nation on Earth,
but more per capita.
Not that we have "the best" healthcare either.
The United States ranks 46th in life expectancy.
If you've heard a much lower figure -- something
like 24th -- you DID NOT hear wrong. The error
wasn't on your part. It was on the U.N.'s part.
You see, we get so >little< in exchange for our
healthcare dollars here in the United States, and
there is so *Much* money being made off of
healthcare by the GOP cronies, that Bush actually
went so far as to strong-arming the U.N. into
CHANGING the way they determine life expectancy.
"Life expectancy? That's easy! You just note how
old people are when they die, then figure out the
average. Right?"
Not any more!
Now they've got what they call "Quality of Life."
Yup.
If you've got crappy healthcare, see, then you die
very soon after getting sick. So you're not sick
for very long. And if you've getting the decent
healthcare that you're paying for, you understand,
then you may get better BUT maybe not until after
you've been sick for a long time. So, we deduct the
time you were sick from your "life" (because that
ain't "quality"), and that brings your life expectancy
closer to an American's.
Doing it *This* way, the Bush way, American's now
rank 24th in life expectancy.
Still not very impressive for the most expensive
healthcare on the planet, but "good enough" for
Bush and his cronies to defend 'with their dying
breath.
In reality though, as I stated, the U.S. ranks 46th
in life expectancy.
.
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
31 Oct 2005 04:18:00 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
So, did anyone else catch Tucker Carlson on Bill
Maher's show?
When I saw the immoral little dwarf was going to
be on the show I almost didn't watch. And I didn't...
at first. I skipped it Friday (didn't even Tivo it),
but ended up catching it later.
What a load of *****.
Seriously. How can people stomach that thing?
He actually said -- now get this -- that healthcare
costs MORE in nations with universal healthcare
coverage than it does here in the United States.
There's being "Wrong," and then there's lying because
you're a worthless little immoral ***** who gets a
tingle out of it.
Come on! You can't manage a 30-second google
search without finding cite after cite, fact after
fact demonstrating that the U.S. not only spends
more on Healthcare than any other nation on Earth,
but more per capita.
Not that we have "the best" healthcare either.
The United States ranks 46th in life expectancy.
If you've heard a much lower figure -- something
like 24th -- you DID NOT hear wrong. The error
wasn't on your part. It was on the U.N.'s part.
You see, we get so >little< in exchange for our
healthcare dollars here in the United States, and
there is so *Much* money being made off of
healthcare by the GOP cronies, that Bush actually
went so far as to strong-arming the U.N. into
CHANGING the way they determine life expectancy.
"Life expectancy? That's easy! You just note how
old people are when they die, then figure out the
average. Right?"
Not any more!
Now they've got what they call "Quality of Life."
Yup.
If you've got crappy healthcare, see, then you die
very soon after getting sick. So you're not sick
for very long. And if you've getting the decent
healthcare that you're paying for, you understand,
then you may get better BUT maybe not until after
you've been sick for a long time. So, we deduct the
time you were sick from your "life" (because that
ain't "quality"), and that brings your life expectancy
closer to an American's.
Doing it *This* way, the Bush way, American's now
rank 24th in life expectancy.
Still not very impressive for the most expensive
healthcare on the planet, but "good enough" for
Bush and his cronies to defend 'with their dying
breath.
In reality though, as I stated, the U.S. ranks 46th
in life expectancy.
What does life expectancy have to do with healthcare exactly?
Certainyl I get the very *general* association of better healthcare
means that people might live a little longer. But, there is a
multitude of other factors that lead to higher or lower mortality rates
than just the healthcare. In fact, lifestyle such as whether or not
you are a smoker and how much you drink and so on probably have far
more to do with both your mortality and morbidity than just the quality
of the healthcare in your neck of the woods.
This is one of the biggest ***** statistics cited by governments to
promote their public healthcare systems with little or no actual
actuarial or scientific basis to it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
31 Oct 2005 06:24:14 PM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
What does life expectancy have to do with healthcare exactly?
Gee, I wonder...
But, there is a multitude of other factors that lead to higher
or lower mortality rates than just the healthcare.
Do spill your ignorance, please.
In fact, lifestyle such as whether or not you are a smoker
and how much you drink and so on probably have far
more to do with both your mortality and morbidity than
just the quality of the healthcare in your neck of the woods.
Smoking is more common in Europe than the United States,
at least acording to the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001589.htm
The United States ranks 21st in alcohol consumption, well
behind the "big" E.U. countries (France, Italy, Germany &
the U.K.).
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_alc_con
Nope, sorry, going by both of your examples, as well as
the fact that the U.S. out-spends every other nation on
Earth on healthcare, we should be living longer.
This is one of the biggest ***** statistics cited by governments
to promote their public healthcare systems with little or no actual
actuarial or scientific basis to it.
Pretty ironic, after the steaming pile of ***** you just
squeezed out.
The U.S. government, as I pointed out, is so certain of the
fact that America isn't getting what it's paying for that it
lobbied the U.N. to change the way to determines "Life
expectancy."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
01 Nov 2005 08:30:30 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
What does life expectancy have to do with healthcare exactly?
Gee, I wonder...
But, there is a multitude of other factors that lead to higher
or lower mortality rates than just the healthcare.
Do spill your ignorance, please.
Well, Mr. Fancy Pants, why then do life actuaries not use quality of
healthcare to price life insurance?
-snip ignorant ***** from someone that probably doesn't even know
what an actuary is-
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
01 Nov 2005 09:38:24 AM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
-snip ignorant ***** from someone that probably doesn't
even know what an actuary is-
The CDC will be most surprised to discover that they are in the
business of producing "ignorant *****."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
02 Nov 2005 07:55:32 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
-snip ignorant ***** from someone that probably doesn't
even know what an actuary is-
The CDC will be most surprised to discover that they are in the
business of producing "ignorant *****."
I doubt they will be surprised at all. All governments are out there
trying to spout such ***** to justify one thing or another.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
03 Nov 2005 09:26:36 AM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
I doubt they will be surprised at all. All governments are out there
trying to spout such ***** to justify one thing or another.
So you're saying that the government -- the Bush administration, in
fact -- is trying to make American healthcare look worse than it
is, thinking this will convince people that it should stay exactly as
it is right now.
You're a fucking idiot. No, wait. I'm serious. You are a fucking
idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
03 Nov 2005 11:11:42 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
I doubt they will be surprised at all. All governments are out there
trying to spout such ***** to justify one thing or another.
So you're saying that the government -- the Bush administration, in
fact -- is trying to make American healthcare look worse than it
is, thinking this will convince people that it should stay exactly as
it is right now.
No, but you are apprently saying that they are....
You're a fucking idiot. No, wait. I'm serious. You are a fucking
idiot.
And, you're a dumbass if you still fail to get the point....
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
03 Nov 2005 12:16:45 PM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
I doubt they will be surprised at all. All governments are out there
trying to spout such ***** to justify one thing or another.
So you definitely claimed that the Bush administration is fudging the
health figures, intentionally making our healthcare system looking
bad...
So you're saying that the government -- the Bush administration, in
fact -- is trying to make American healthcare look worse than it
is, thinking this will convince people that it should stay exactly as
it is right now.
No, but you are apprently saying that they are....
You should try reading what you write.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
05 Nov 2005 03:10:48 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
I doubt they will be surprised at all. All governments are out there
trying to spout such ***** to justify one thing or another.
So you definitely claimed that the Bush administration is fudging the
health figures, intentionally making our healthcare system looking
bad...
No, dumbass....
So you're saying that the government -- the Bush administration, in
fact -- is trying to make American healthcare look worse than it
is, thinking this will convince people that it should stay exactly as
it is right now.
No, but you are apprently saying that they are....
You should try reading what you write.
I will if you will....
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
05 Nov 2005 04:56:50 PM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
JTEM wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
I doubt they will be surprised at all. All governments are
out there trying to spout such ***** to justify one thing or
another.
So you definitely claimed that the Bush administration is fudging the
health figures, intentionally making our healthcare system looking
bad...
No, dumbass....
Irony; thy name is "Liberator Veritatis."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
01 Nov 2005 09:43:03 AM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
Well, Mr. Fancy Pants, why then do life actuaries not
use quality of healthcare to price life insurance?
This is funny. Seriously.
What you can't grasp is that one would have to first accept your
drool that healthcare has no impact upon life expectancy, before
ever asking such a question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
02 Nov 2005 08:02:17 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
Well, Mr. Fancy Pants, why then do life actuaries not
use quality of healthcare to price life insurance?
This is funny. Seriously.
What you can't grasp is that one would have to first accept your
drool that healthcare has no impact upon life expectancy, before
ever asking such a question.
I didn't say it has no impact. I said that the connection is quite
tenuous given that there are a large number of other factors as any
actuary will tell you. It is so tenuous that they use all variety of
other factors like age, gender, tobacco use being the most common, but
medical conditions would be an obvious next one to use for evaluating
someone's mortality risk.
No one says, "Well I see here that you have lung cancer and you smoke
and your a 70 year old male, BUT YOU HAVE SUCH GOOD HEALTHCARE!!!!
Let's rate you like a healthy 20 year old female!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
03 Nov 2005 09:30:31 AM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
I didn't say it has no impact.
You certainly implied it. In fact, if you do believe it has an impact
you have some serious explaining to do:
"What does life expectancy have to do with healthcare exactly?"
That's what you said. Why? Why did you ask such a question, implying
no impact, when you knew that wasn't true?
I said that the connection is quite tenuous given that there are a large
number of other factors as any actuary will tell you.
No those weren't your words. See above. And the "other factors" you
introduced here were quite insane. American smoke & drink LESS
than their European counterparts, not more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
03 Nov 2005 11:16:07 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
I didn't say it has no impact.
You certainly implied it. In fact, if you do believe it has an impact
you have some serious explaining to do:
"What does life expectancy have to do with healthcare exactly?"
That's what you said. Why? Why did you ask such a question, implying
no impact, when you knew that wasn't true?
You are just a lying sack of *****, aren't you? What I said was:
"What does life expectancy have to do with healthcare exactly?
Certainyl I get the very *general* association of better healthcare
means that people might live a little longer. But, there is a
multitude of other factors that lead to higher or lower mortality rates
than just the healthcare."
So, then as well as now, I say that the quality of healthcare has far
less impact on life expectancy than a multitude of other factors. That
is, in fact, well known to be the case by the professionals.
I said that the connection is quite tenuous given that there are a large
number of other factors as any actuary will tell you.
No those weren't your words. See above. And the "other factors" you
introduced here were quite insane. American smoke & drink LESS
than their European counterparts, not more.
Yes, those were my words as you can see in teh very first post, you
liar! If you think it is "insane" then perhaps you should go
revolutionize the life insurance industry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
03 Nov 2005 12:21:27 PM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
"What does life expectancy have to do with healthcare exactly?"
That's what you said. Why? Why did you ask such a question, implying
no impact, when you knew that wasn't true?
You are just a lying sack of *****, aren't you? What I said was:
Not at all. I was quoting you. It's a quote.
"What does life expectancy have to do with healthcare exactly?
Here. You quote yourself.
Certainyl I get the very *general* association of better healthcare
means that people might live a little longer. But, there is a
multitude of other factors that lead to higher or lower mortality rates
than just the healthcare."
But you were proven wrong. You named those other factors. They
were nothing more than a fantasy. They weren't factors at all, or
at least not any that supported your position. Just the opposite.
Americans drink & smoke LESS than their European counterparts,
yet don't live as long. So the bigger the factor you make them out
to be (and it was YOU that made them out to be a factor), the
WORSE our healthcare must be.
Yes, those were my words as you can see in teh very first post, you
liar!
You're a retard. Your own "Factors" disproved you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
05 Nov 2005 03:05:22 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
"What does life expectancy have to do with healthcare exactly?"
That's what you said. Why? Why did you ask such a question, implying
no impact, when you knew that wasn't true?
You are just a lying sack of *****, aren't you? What I said was:
"What does life expectancy have to do with healthcare exactly?
Certainyl I get the very *general* association of better healthcare
means that people might live a little longer. But, there is a
multitude of other factors that lead to higher or lower mortality rates
than just the healthcare."
The reason I have to quote myself is because you are misrepresenting
what I said by just quoting particular statements out of context.
But you were proven wrong.
On the contrary, I was not -- you have completely dodged the point --
what I am citing are examples of how life insurance actuaries, the
leading authorities on life expectancy, account for life expectancy.
They don't use quality of healthcare. They use all these other factors
You named those other factors. They
were nothing more than a fantasy. They weren't factors at all, or
at least not any that supported your position. Just the opposite.
Americans drink & smoke LESS than their European counterparts,
yet don't live as long. So the bigger the factor you make them out
to be (and it was YOU that made them out to be a factor), the
WORSE our healthcare must be.
Not even close: life expectancy is not a good measure of quality of
healthcare since the two are so weakly correlated that it, for
instance, doesn't even show up in actuarial studies to price life
insurance.
Yes, those were my words as you can see in teh very first post, you
liar!
You're a retard. Your own "Factors" disproved you.
Nope. You are just citing statistics at random. And, I'm not saying
that it is all because of *smoking* that your linking life expectancy
with quality of healthcare is *****. I'm just giving you an example
of one of many factors that (obviously) affect life expectancy far more
than anything as elusive as quality of healthcare. In fact lets look
at the actual numbers rather than the ranking for a moment: US has a
life expectancy of 77.7 years while France's is 79.6. What could cause
this "whopping" 2 year difference? Lets see, how about obesity or
hygiene or drug use or particular epidemics sweeping the country or
poverty or fast food...? Sanitation, personal hygiene and non-medical
technological advances have improved our longevity far more than
medical advances have. It isn't because of our quadruple bipasses and
elaborate brain surgeries that people live longer today than they did
two centuries ago. It is far more the result of industrialization,
pasteurization, and so on -- not healthcare.
So, who knows why France's life expectancy is 2 years higher than in
the US -- it almost surely isn't all the great healthcare! Even if you
imagine that it might be, the difference is so small compared to the
various other things that have taken us from an average life span of 40
years to almost double that. So, how do you know that it isn't just
that the French aren't as obese or that they just didn't quite measure
theirs the same way we did ours or that they just have fewer epidemics
than we do or less violent crime or that they have a younger (on
average) population or...?
Other than America bashing, how far are you willing to take your life
expectancy measuring stick? You think that places like Greece, Jordan,
Puerto Rico and even Bosnia have better healthcare than the US because
they have higher life expectancy. Conversely, the US has better
healthcare than Denmark or Ireland, according to you. I guess you
think that Singapore has better healthcare than virtually any European
country and much better than the US. According to them, the government
spent about 1/3 of the total expenditures for healthcare in 2003. But,
in 2002, the US government accounted for about 46% of the total. So,
according to your logic we need to further privatize our healthcare so
that we can be more like Singapore.
Mortality Rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Singapore Healthcare Statistics:
http://www.moh.gov.sg/corp/financing/overview.do
US Healthcare Statistics:
ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Publications/Health_US/hus04tables/04listtables.pdf)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
05 Nov 2005 03:48:57 PM |
|
|
Le Sat, 05 Nov 2005 01:05:22 -0800, Liberator Veritatis a écrit :
You think that places like Greece, Jordan,
Puerto Rico and even Bosnia have better healthcare than the US because
they have higher life expectanc
As a whole, Greece might have a better healthcare. I doubt they have 20%
of their populace w/o any health insurance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
05 Nov 2005 04:05:15 PM |
|
|
Divin Marquis wrote:
Le Sat, 05 Nov 2005 01:05:22 -0800, Liberator Veritatis a =E9crit :
You think that places like Greece, Jordan,
Puerto Rico and even Bosnia have better healthcare than the US because
they have higher life expectanc
As a whole, Greece might have a better healthcare. I doubt they have 20%
of their populace w/o any health insurance.
Well, there's another good example of two things that don't equate.
Health *insurance* is not healthcare. And just because you don't have
health insurance, that doesn't mean you go without healthcare. It just
means you have to pay for it yourself. And, even if you can't and it
is an emergency hospitals are still required to treat you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
07 Nov 2005 06:54:51 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:05:15 -0800, Liberator Veritatis wrote:
Well, there's another good example of two things that don't equate.
Health *insurance* is not healthcare. And just because you don't have
health insurance, that doesn't mean you go without healthcare. It just
means you have to pay for it yourself. And, even if you can't and it
is an emergency hospitals are still required to treat you.
That's great! So if you get glaucoma, they treat once you're blind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
07 Nov 2005 09:40:15 AM |
|
|
No, you just pay for it yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
07 Nov 2005 10:25:50 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:40:15 -0800, Liberator Veritatis wrote:
No, you just pay for it yourself.
How much is the visit to an eye specialist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Not exactly off topic... |
07 Nov 2005 01:42:31 PM |
|
|
"Divin Marquis" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.11.07.16.25.50.559106@127.0.0.1...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:40:15 -0800, Liberator Veritatis wrote:
No, you just pay for it yourself.
How much is the visit to an eye specialist?
And more importantly: will he or she allow you to *spread the cost* over
*your 50+ taxpaying years*...?!?
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Let's look at another stat Re: Not exactly off topic... |
05 Nov 2005 03:51:26 PM |
|
|
Le Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:16:07 -0800, Liberator Veritatis a écrit :
So, then as well as now, I say that the quality of healthcare has far less
impact on life expectancy than a multitude of other factors. That is, in
fact, well known to be the case by the professionals.
I disagree, but let's look at another stat (other than life expectancy),
that's related.
Take infant mortality.
Higher in the US than in Cuba.
Lower in France still.
Isn't that related to health care?
Isn't it interesting that those rankings are closely related?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look at another stat Re: Not exactly off topic... |
05 Nov 2005 04:09:15 PM |
|
|
Divin Marquis <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:pan.2005.11.05.21.51.26.457686@127.0.0.1:
Le Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:16:07 -0800, Liberator Veritatis a écrit :
So, then as well as now, I say that the quality of healthcare has far
less impact on life expectancy than a multitude of other factors.
That is, in fact, well known to be the case by the professionals.
I disagree, but let's look at another stat (other than life
expectancy), that's related.
Take infant mortality.
Higher in the US than in Cuba.
Lower in France still.
Isn't that related to health care?
Isn't it interesting that those rankings are closely related?
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba141.html
Tuesday, November 15, 1994
If you needed heart surgery, would you prefer to have the surgery done
in Cuba? Barbados? Costa Rica? Or the United States?
For the last several years, some critics of the American health care
system have claimed that life expectancy is a good indicator of the
quality of a country's health care system. If they are right, you should
be indifferent about having your surgery in Cuba or in the United States
because the two countries have the same life expectancy, 75.6 years. And
you would have to say that the health care system of Barbados was nearly
as good as that of the United States, since average life expectancy in
Barbados (75.3 years) is almost the same. In fact, if general life
expectancy is the right guide, you would probably want the surgery done
in Costa Rica, since life expectancy there (76 years) is higher than in
the United States.
Sound silly? Of course it is. And critics of the American health care
system cite several other statistics that are also poor indicators of a
health care system's quality. Let's see why.
Life Expectancy.
While a good health care system may, by intervention, extend the life of
a small percentage of a population, it has very little to do with
overall life spans. Life expectancy " in all but the least-developed
countries " is primarily a result of genetic and social factors (e.g.,
lifestyle, environment, education, etc.) rather than the quality of
medical care.
For example, Japan's average life expectancy (78.6 years) is one of the
highest in the world, about three years higher than that in the U.S. If
the three-year difference were the result of lower-quality health care
in the United States, you would expect Japanese-Americans living in this
country to experience shortened life spans. They don't. According to the
National Asian Pacific Center on Aging, in 1980 (the latest numbers
available) white Americans had an average life expectancy of 76.4 years,
while Japanese-Americans had an average life expectancy of 79.7 years -
just about the same three-year spread that exists between the
populations of the two countries. Similarly, the California Department
of Health reports that people of Asian or Pacific Island ethnic origin
living in the state and using its health care system have a life
expectancy 5.3 years longer (81.2 versus 75.9 years) than white
Californians.
Critics of the American health care system who compare life expectancies
are comparing apples and oranges. Of the industrialized countries with
better life expectancies than the U.S., nearly all have overwhelmingly
white populations of European descent. None have large black
populations. Unfortunately, black Americans have more health problems
and shorter life expectancy (70 years in 1991) than whites. The American
population is a mixture of several ethnic groups - some with longer and
some with shorter life spans than whites. Pointing to the average
distorts the picture significantly.
Infant Mortality.
Critics claim that the second-best indicator of the quality of health
care is infant mortality. However, the evidence shows that differences
in infant mortality frequently reflect differences in genes, lifestyles
and environments rather than in the quality of medical care. Data from
the California Department of Health Services, for example, show that the
average infant mortality rate was 8.6 deaths per 1,000 live births in
the 1980s. But Americans of Japanese descent living in California had an
infant mortality rate of 4.8 deaths per 1,000 live births through 1989
(the latest data available for these populations), while Chinese had 7.1
deaths, Filipinos 7.8 deaths, Hispanics 7.8 deaths, whites 7.7 deaths
and blacks 18.0 deaths per 1,000 live births. Since individuals in the
different groups often live in the same communities and use the same
hospitals and physicians, the difference clearly is a result of
something more than the health care system. The health care policy
problem is that some ethnic, geographic and economic groups need better
health care. Desegregating the numbers helps illuminate the target
populations to whom better health care must be delivered. Using national
averages to stigmatize systemwide quality is clearly unjustified.
Average Hospital Stay.
Some critics also claim that the amount of health care is greater
(better) as hospital admissions and lengths of stay increase. By this
standard, the United States is stingy. The average hospital stay in all
developed countries is 12.9 days, compared to 6.4 days in the United
States in 1992. In Japan, which spends far less per capita on health
care than the United States, the average length of a hospital stay is 50
days, nearly eight times that of the United States.
However, less inpatient and more outpatient care has been a goal of U.S.
health care policy for the past two decades. And most health economists
regard shorter stays as a sign of hospital efficiency, not of the
failure to provide needed care.
In many other countries, hospital stays are long because large numbers
of patients use hospitals as nursing homes. Chronic patients, who really
don't need to be in a hospital, fill about a fourth of all beds in
England, Canada and New Zealand. In addition, recuperating patients are
encouraged to remain hospitalized. Both groups of patients, who require
little additional therapy, cost less to maintain than acute patients who
need expensive treatment. Such patients, known as "bed blockers,"
help limit the costs of hospitals struggling under restrictive global
budgets - budgets that ration care and cause long waits for hospital
admission.
Primary Care Physicians.
The U.S. is often criticized for having too many specialists and not
enough primary care physicians. At the moment, medical school students
choose to be specialists about 70 percent of the time, primary care
doctors 30 percent. By law, the Clinton health care proposal would have
changed that mix to 50 percent each, forcing another 20 percent of the
young men and women entering medical school to practice primary care.
But is there a shortage of primary care physicians? Not really. When was
the last time you saw a waiting line outside a primary care clinic?
Moreover, a recent survey by the American Medical Association found that
if physicians who practice both specialized and primary medicine are
combined with the 34 percent who practice primary care exclusively,
about 47 percent of all physicians engage in some form of primary care -
nearly reaching Clinton's target with no government interference.
There are shortages of primary care physicians in some rural and inner-
city areas, but almost nowhere else. For example, a 1990 survey found
that only 28 doctors serving a population of 1.7 million low-income
people in New York's Harlem were qualified to provide primary care. The
explanation for such shortages has little to do with the ratio of
primary care physicians graduating from medical school. There simply
isn't enough money in rural and inner-city areas to support such
physicians. Rural areas may not have enough people to warrant having a
physician close by, while Medicaid, the federal health insurance program
for the poor, pays so little that very few physicians can afford to
locate in inner-city areas with a preponderance of Medicaid patients.
Note: Nothing written here should be construed as necessarily reflecting
the views of the National Center for Policy Analysis or as an attempt to
aid or hinder the passage of any legislation.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look at another stat Re: Not exactly off topic... |
05 Nov 2005 04:25:24 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
If you needed heart surgery, would you prefer to have the
surgery done in Cuba? Barbados? Costa Rica? Or the
United States?
You're playing on perceptions. Not a single fact, only
perceptions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look at another stat Re: Not exactly off topic... |
05 Nov 2005 04:43:38 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
If you needed heart surgery, would you prefer to have the
surgery done in Cuba? Barbados? Costa Rica? Or the
United States?
You're playing on perceptions. Not a single fact, only
perceptions.
Good lord! That article cited a shitload of facts and statistics! The
fact that it wasn't citing facts and statistics in every word or
sentence it used doesn't mean it "didn't have a single fact".
It cited all kinds of mortality rates for the various countries, as
well as, mortality and infant mortality rates for various segments of
the population.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look at another stat Re: Not exactly off topic... |
05 Nov 2005 05:15:56 PM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote
Good lord! That article cited a shitload of facts and statistics!
No.
At best, it cited (misrepresented) isolated numbers.
A clear example is here:
| According to the National Asian Pacific Center on Aging,
| in 1980 (the latest numbers available) white Americans
| had an average life expectancy of 76.4 years, while
| Japanese-Americans had an average life expectancy of
| 79.7 years -
"Japanese" is an ethnic distinction, while "White" is a
racial grouping (synonymous to "Caucasion").
The rough equivalent to "White" in the modern venecular
would be "Asian," while "Japanese" would be equivalent
to, say, "English" or "French."
So they cherry picked an ethnic group and then compared
this SINGLE cherry-picked ethnic group to a mixing of
all caucasion enthinc groups combined.
A more common way of putting it: They're comparing
apples & oranges.
Later they pull the same trick in reverse. They compare
"Asians" living in California and using it's healthcare
system (are there any not using their healthcare system?)
live longer than Asians in Asia. But unless California's
Asian population exactly mirrors (in cultural/ethnic
representation) Asia itself, it's a totally bogus comparison.
Their own numbers prove this.
They give a life expectancy for Japanese Americans and
then a separate one for Californian Asians WHICH IS
HIGHER.
Are the Japanese suddenly not Asians? No? Then the
story itself demonstrates it's own bogus use of cherry-picked
numbers.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look at another stat Re: Not exactly off topic... |
05 Nov 2005 05:43:21 PM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <liberatorveritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in
news:1131230618.249892.79970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
JTEM wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
If you needed heart surgery, would you prefer to have the
surgery done in Cuba? Barbados? Costa Rica? Or the
United States?
You're playing on perceptions. Not a single fact, only
perceptions.
Good lord! That article cited a shitload of facts and statistics!
The fact that it wasn't citing facts and statistics in every word or
sentence it used doesn't mean it "didn't have a single fact".
JTEM probably didn't even bother to read past that first paragraph.
It cited all kinds of mortality rates for the various countries, as
well as, mortality and infant mortality rates for various segments of
the population.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan S" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look at another stat Re: Not exactly off topic... |
06 Nov 2005 08:22:39 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba141.html
Tuesday, November 15, 1994
If you needed heart surgery, would you prefer to have the surgery done
in Cuba? Barbados? Costa Rica? Or the United States?
*If* heart surgeries fail more frequently in Cuba, it follows that
you'd be less likely to need one living in Cuba anyway since life
expectancies are on par. Would that then be an indication of quality
of preventive health care, non surgical solutions or a healthier way
of living in general?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's look at another stat Re: Not exactly off topic... |
06 Nov 2005 09:29:11 AM |
|
|
Alan S <AlanS222@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:f84sm11ld01u53kbhjuua09jrc9opuv6eh@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba141.html
Tuesday, November 15, 1994
If you needed heart surgery, would you prefer to have the surgery done
in Cuba? Barbados? Costa Rica? Or the United States?
*If* heart surgeries fail more frequently in Cuba, it follows that
you'd be less likely to need one living in Cuba anyway since life
expectancies are on par. Would that then be an indication of quality
of preventive health care, non surgical solutions or a healthier way
of living in general?
Those factors are addressed in the rest of that article.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
