Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/27/07 02:10 PM, RedSkunk wrote: I'm being neither hypocritical or disingenuous, cellar door.

Um actually everything you say is either disingenuous or incredibly ignorant.

You're being disingenuous in blaming minorities for "underachieving" and therefor lowering American "averages."

Um it's a fact that minorities score worse in areas of life expectancy and infant mortality. And this isn't true just in the US, it's true in other countries that score better only because they have less minorities.

It's funny how you ignore the evidence that validates what I say, and then just resort to this politically correct nonsense as your last resort of salvaging an argument you already lost.

They are still a part of the nation and still covered and patients of a given nation's healthcare system.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that lower national scores of infant mortality and life expectancy are reflective of the healthcare system. As I proved, minorities score lower in other western countries that have higher life expectancy, and have universal healthcare. Thus proving it isn't their healthcare in their country that is causing the national average to be higher.

ESPECIALLY when you consider the fact, which you keep ignoring, that when factors outside of healthcare are removed from the equation, Americans have the highest life expectancy in the western world. Thus entirely shattering the claim people make when they attribute higher life expectancy in countries like the UK, to their universal healthcare system.

The fact that you're seemingly relying entirely on a single indicator (cancer survivability rates)

Lol you fool. Cancer is the biggest threat to public health in both the US and the UK.

instead of a multitude (as the WHO does) suggests your ideology is getting in the way of a rational discussion.

Lol, the WHO doesn't have ONE SINGLE measurement of the actual quality of healthcare. You keep latching on to it even though the multitude of factors it gauges are ARBITRARY and INAPPLICABLE in an argument about the quality of the respective healthcare systems of the countries being compared.

Find one single aspect in that entire study that actually measures healthcare quality, the actual ability of the healthcare to provide timely and affective care and save lives in comparison to other countries.

In one sentence you're saying life expectancy has no bearing;

No, I said that life expectancy doesn't reflect the quality of the healthcare only, by showing that certain variables that aren't affect by healthcare are skewing the results in nation to nation comparisons.

in the next you're hailing a single questionable study which removes a variety of factors that play into life expectancy to come to a single (predetermined) result.

You mean I hail a study that shows that when things that don't reflect healthcare are removed, it makes the US life expectancy higher than the several other countries that have higher life expectancy due to unrelated factors? Yup.

You keep saying that the WHO doesn't factor in so-called "direct" measures of a healthcare system, when they do in fact take into account mortality rates of cancer patients (as well as a variety of other killers).

You didn't prove this.

And yet you ignore once again, that the way they rank countries is not comprehensive and exclusive to the actual quality of healthcare. You ignore that it has been proved that even though life expectancy is factored into the final score to supposedly gauge healthcare in that study, they don't factor in the myriad variables that prove that higher life expectancy for some countries is not due to their healthcare. Yet you ignore this and keep perpetuating your faulty argument that has already been systematically discredited.

Thanks, it's been fun.

Cellar door - say something new and worth responding to if you want a response, ok sweetie? If you believe everything I say to be either disingenuous or ignorant, then don't bother. You're wasting my time.

At 11/29/07 01:40 AM, RedSkunk wrote: Cellar door - say something new and worth responding to if you want a response, ok sweetie?

Lol, did you say anything new?

Nope, all you did is perpetuate your false stance by devolving into denial mode once your position was systematically disproved with facts and you were incapable of validating anything you said.

You were asked to prove some things you said, you didn't. You can't.

Denial isn't an argument. Pretending the WHO doesn't study the health and healthcare of a nation isn't an argument. And out typing someone else isn't "winning." I'm bored. You haven't swayed me. I still put more faith in an international health body such as the WHO than an unimpressive user on a flash website.

As for your claim that I haven't provided proof of direct indicators of the quality of care... Here are some links to some statistics the WHO commonly uses, which you may or may not agree are such indicators. Click them or not. I'm done.

http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/200 7MortNeoBoth/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/200 7Immunized/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/200 7BirthsAttended/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/200 7ANC/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/200 7ARV/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/200 7TBCasesDetectedDOTS/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/200 7TBCasesCuredDOTS/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/200 7TBPrevRate/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/200 7TBIncidenceRate/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/200 7PolioCases/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/200 7MortChildCauses/en/index.html

You can't avoid the fact that the majority of the factors that are in the WHO list have already been shown not to gauge healthcare quality, thus tainting the results. You ignore the vast amount of "indicators" that sway the results, but in fact do not gauge healthcare quality, but gauge things that are affected by outside factors.

Population (in thousands) total
Population annual growth rate (%)
Population using solid fuels (%) urban
Population using solid fuels (%) rural
Population in urban areas (%)
Net primary school enrolment ratio males (%)
Net primary school enrolment ratio females (%)
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $)
Information and communication technology diffusion
Information and communication technology connectivity
Information and communication technology access
Information and communication technology policy
Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants
Cost of a 3-minute fixed-line phone call (US$)
Mobile phone subscribers per 100 inhabitants
Cost of a 3-minute mobile phone call (US$)
Personal computers per 1000 inhabitants
Internet users per 1000 inhabitants
Internet hosts per 100 000 inhabitants

Yeah, these things are totally reflections of healthcare quality now aren't they?

Cellardoor, considering you are apparently the expert on the subject, what is the WHO ranking systems about if it's not the quality of healthcare?

At 11/24/07 11:52 PM, SevenSeize wrote: Where is Amirca?

and who is Heath?

now thats funny

At 11/27/07 02:41 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/27/07 09:42 AM, TheMason wrote:

Myths as Barriers to Health Care Reform (don't know if the link will work, found via dis).

Skunk,

A few thoughts on that article:

1) He talks about how MDs favor single-payer and other UHC reforms. While they are at the top of the healthcare professional pyramid, do they really understand the bigger picture? I was married to a MD, I got to know Med students. While they may favor such a system, they have no idea of what it would take to pay for it and what it could do to the government. In short, they do not understand political economy. Yeah they're MDs, but they're out of their element.

2) Yes, healthcare needs reforming and made more efficient. But anyone who has served in the military or had to deal with a bureaucracy on a daily basis know that the government is not known for its efficiency.

So I have two burning questions; one of which no one in favor of UHC has addressed and which MUST be addressed before we move forward is:

1) How are we going to pay for it without bankrupting the treasury and taking the economy with it? Remember, Social Security and Medicare/aid are trainwrecks waiting to happen as is the ballooning debt/deficit (sorry Cellar, I belong to the other econ camp!)...we cannot afford UHC even if we cut back on the military.

My other, slightly less burning question is:

2) Are their other types of reforms that would make things better? For example, what if we reformed our finance laws so that fewer firms are encouraged? I know this sounds monopolistic (and it is) but higher insurance costs are associated with the pool of the people insured by Company X. Having many different companies means each company has a smaller number of insured, requiring each to charge more for insurance. Less firms means less choice but it also means less cost. Furthermore, less firms means forms become more standardizied which makes billing more efficient. So maybe we should encourage less consumer choice in order to reduce cost and make the system more efficient.
2a) Tort reform will also help. This will reduce healthcare costs by reducing the cost of malpractice insurance and other resource drains (such as time consumed by lawsuits). We could compensate for less damages by increasing the stakes for doctors by making mistakes more costly in terms of MD's medical lisences.

At 11/29/07 08:17 AM, bcdemon wrote: Cellardoor, considering you are apparently the expert on the subject, what is the WHO ranking systems about if it's not the quality of healthcare?

It is intended to gauge public health as a whole, not the quality of healthcare directly.

It doesn't gauge the quality of healthcare, it gauges all sorts of things, most of which are not affected by, and do not affect healthcare, especially not the same way for each country. Thus making the ranking system inapplicable in a comparison of countries' healthcare.

If they are using things like cellphone usage and other irrelevant and arbitrary variables, and they factor them into the ranking system... it's fucking hilarious that someone would suggest a higher ranking for a country is due to their healthcare system. Given the myriad variables that make healthcare not even an issue... the WHO is irrelevant.

1) How are we going to pay for it without bankrupting the treasury and taking the economy with it? Remember, Social Security and Medicare/aid are trainwrecks waiting to happen as is the ballooning debt/deficit (sorry Cellar, I belong to the other econ camp!)...we cannot afford UHC even if we cut back on the military.

Unfortunately in my long long tenure here at Umich I've never taken an econ course....just about everything else but never econ. So I have no clue.

But I know that something definitely needs to be done, at some level, somehow to reduce these costs. They're back-breaking.

My grandma's cancer pills ALONE were $6000 a month.

And only reason my grandpa could afford the bills is because he had the TOP of the line health coverage. Something about him being a Prof entitled him to that, I dunno what though. As a result the pills only cost him somethin like $14 a month.

I really don't know how anyone in the middle or low ends of health coverage could ever hope to get decent health care......

At 11/29/07 07:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: It is intended to gauge public health as a whole, not the quality of healthcare directly.

Ok, how about this report that ranks US healthcare at the bottom of 6 different industrialized countries?

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine did their own study and ranking of 19 countries because they thought the WHO ranking wasn't done properly. US healthcare still fare too well.

I await your criticism of these reports.

At 11/30/07 05:06 AM, Imperator wrote: But I know that something definitely needs to be done, at some level, somehow to reduce these costs. They're back-breaking.

I understand that and I'm not unsympathetic. However, if we do it wrong in about 20 years our government and economy will fall apart. What would be worse?

My grandma's cancer pills ALONE were $6000 a month.

And only reason my grandpa could afford the bills is because he had the TOP of the line health coverage. Something about him being a Prof entitled him to that, I dunno what though. As a result the pills only cost him somethin like $14 a month.

I really don't know how anyone in the middle or low ends of health coverage could ever hope to get decent health care......

My grandfather had a liver transplant in 1993 and passed away last year. His anti-rejection meds were exceptionally expensive on par with your grandmothers. He and my grandmother were able to survive and had good coverage under the UAW/Ford plan (he was an assembly worker in a Ford plant).

I agree something has to be done, but UHC is most definately something I'm against. I'm not convinced about "single-payer", but I'm not against it either.

Great, now we've got Universal Healthcareist suicide bombers...CNN is reporting that Leeland Eisenberg (who is at present thought to be the alleged hostage taker) is upset about Healthcare and that (along with underlying mental problems) is why he's taking over the Clinton Campaign HQ.

At 11/30/07 03:18 PM, TheMason wrote: I understand that and I'm not unsympathetic. However, if we do it wrong in about 20 years our government and economy will fall apart. What would be worse?

Nothing. Coming from a state where that shit ACTUALLY happened this year, nothing. That's why I'm not one of these guys out there demanding immediate change without thinking crap through. Aaren't me soooo smrt?

My grandfather had a liver transplant in 1993 and passed away last year. His anti-rejection meds were exceptionally expensive on par with your grandmothers. He and my grandmother were able to survive and had good coverage under the UAW/Ford plan (he was an assembly worker in a Ford plant).

Yeah, I think being a Prof (teacher) meant under MI law my grandpa classified as a government worker, so he got the big boy package upon retirement and stuff. Blue Cross Blue Shield or whatever one has all the bells and whistles.

I think it's plans like that that helped collapse our economy here too......that and the fact that GM moved all their damn plants to Mexico......

I agree something has to be done, but UHC is most definately something I'm against. I'm not convinced about "single-payer", but I'm not against it either.

I'm always looking down the middle road. I might look at those two and try to converge them somehow.....but I'm just a historian, what do I know about econ?

u forgot 1 canada has free heathcair as well and its gr8t hee hee thats y i never whant too ever live in the us cuse they will never get good heathcair and everone that lives there and here nos it thats y canada is sooo much better and +2 no one h8ts canada like they do the us o ya i not tring too rub that part in

At 11/30/07 11:45 PM, hoodman wrote: u forgot 1 canada has free heathcair as well and its gr8t hee hee thats y i never whant too ever live in the us cuse they will never get good heathcair and everone that lives there and here nos it thats y canada is sooo much better and +2 no one h8ts canada like they do the us o ya i not tring too rub that part in

1) The Canadian system is broken and is often touted as an example of how NOT to socialize healthcare (even Michael Moore says so). Remember, free does not make it good which is why many Canadians come to the US and pay for certain treatments because if they did not, they would DIE while they wait for treatment.

2) If Canada had near the power and economy that the US had, everyone would hate Canada.

3) Are you French-Canadian? Because if you're not, the Canadian education system is obviously something that we shouldn't be copying either... :)

ok u no what ppl come too the us cuse we dont have the money for some things it dose not mean that its bad thats all it is and its just for some things not all things like i wud say out of all the times that happins its abute 15% of the times it happins thats it

o ya one more thing i no this has nothing too do with this but realy its not abute the power man its abute how u guys use it thats y everone h8t the us soo much like if u used it too do good than ppl wud like u but no u use your power too get more power and i dont mean too be like this but realy come on now open your eyes man it had nothing too do with power it was all abute how u used it thats all lol

Vote Dennis Kucinich!
He has a universal health care plan to make sure everyone is America, and all the companies trading with America around the world have better work conditions, safety regulations, health regulations, and health care!

Dennis Kucinich for president! The only candidate who voted against the war 100% of the time, make the right choice for our people!

At 11/30/07 07:58 AM, bcdemon wrote:

I await your criticism of these reports.

Both of those are inapplicable as well, one of them was just talking about the WHO anyway.

The first one is biased towards systems that have universal healthcare for things like "equity" and "access". It also is factoring things like "efficiency' which are based on cost savings which are irrelevant when gauging the ability of healthcare to treat people on a case by case basis. There are no details about how they came to their conclusions, because it might just give more points simply due to more people being covered. It doesn't have details about the relative ACTUAL access and performance.

I have yet to see an example of a country with universal healthcare having higher survivability from treatable diseases after diagnosis and so forth. I see a lot of arbitrary factors that don't gauge healthcare quality, and a lot of vague nonsense.

At 12/1/07 01:45 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/30/07 07:58 AM, bcdemon wrote:

I await your criticism of these reports.

Both of those are inapplicable as well

Well, there ya have it, God has spoken. This debate is over.....

pssst, thats sarcasm

this is one of the reasons i love canada :D

2) If Canada had near the power and economy that the US had, everyone would hate Canada.

If Canada had the power we do, chances are they would have used it to fuck up a lot of places as a result, probably the USA included.

That one I actually question. Canada has been pretty damn non-interventionalist throughout it's history. If they suddenly got power, they may receive universal love, as they'd be the only Empire in the world to not actually USE any of their power.

Yeah, there are people who bitch about the US not doing certain things. But when you think about it, they're actually bitching about our meddling, which is a common trait of hatred towards empires.

The reason people were mad about us not stopping Rwanda is because based on our track record, that sort of help should have been EXPECTED at that point. We had gone in to do so many different things in so many different countries that it seemed illogical and uncaring for us to not help Rwanda.

Same is gonna happen in Darfur.

Point is I think it's more our sort of "pick and choose" foreign policies that cause the hate.

Of course, it's arguable whether or not there can ever be an empire that can exist without them using such great power. But I think that overall if the US had not intervened in places that clearly were bad ideas (from our "Imperial Age" to Iraq) we'd be a lot more loved.

Conflict always arises because one person is being hurt or threatened by another. That's the basic mechanics of it. If there's a policy of live and let live throughout the world, we'd be happy little campers. If the US had that policy it'd be true Pax Americana.