Ted Kennedy would have died ....

[PLC1]

I agreed that we did - who are you arguing with - yourself?

Yes, you agree that we spend more than any other nation, yet you post that you've refuted that fact.

There's no such thing - there are systems that use that PR term, but they cut people off when it isn't in the budget.

If there is no such thing, in your opinion, that hardly refutes the fact that the US does not have a universal health care system.

I didn't claim that WHO doesn't have their "ratings" - I said their ratings are bogus. Do you even READ my posts before you start talking to yourself??

Saying that they are bogus does not refute the fact that they rate us #37. It just means that you say that we're better than that. Such a declaration merely leaves us to decide whether Libsmasher or the WHO is in a better position to objectively rate health care systems.
.

While that is true, it is hardly the only thing against state systems. Such systems decide who lives or dies based on bureaucrats decisions. In the US system, people live or die based on is there a treatment available. State run systems take every choice away from you - where you get treated, who your doctor is, what drug to use. State systems ration care and put you on long waiting lists - people have died while waiting.

People have died here, too. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as unlimited health care.

You aren't debating the facts at all, but merely giving your conclusion to those facts.

The US has no universal health care system, yet it pays more than any other nation for health care.

Now try again, but without the ideological spin. Try attacking the above from the position of causation vs correlation, and you might have better luck.

 

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
I agreed that we did - who are you arguing with - yourself?

Yes, you agree that we spend more than any other nation, yet you post that you've refuted that fact.

No I didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
There's no such thing - there are systems that use that PR term, but they cut people off when it isn't in the budget.

If there is no such thing, in your opinion, that hardly refutes the fact that the US does not have a universal health care system.

Technically, yes, but it reveals it as a meaningless point - like saying "the US doesn't have martians".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
I didn't claim that WHO doesn't have their "ratings" - I said their ratings are bogus. Do you even READ my posts before you start talking to yourself??

Saying that they are bogus does not refute the fact that they rate us #37. It just means that you say that we're better than that. Such a declaration merely leaves us to decide whether Libsmasher or the WHO is in a better position to objectively rate health care systems.

They rate Morocco better than the US. Now c'monnnnn - if you needed surgery, would you prefer to have it done in Morocco, hmmm?
Here's a list of the death rates in various countries for the current period:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate

If the US is so bad, why does the death rate exceed that of the US in Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, France, Japan, Norway, Macedonia, Austria, Finland, United Kingdom, Greece,Denmark, Italy, Portugal, and Germany?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
While that is true, it is hardly the only thing against state systems. Such systems decide who lives or dies based on bureaucrats decisions. In the US system, people live or die based on is there a treatment available. State run systems take every choice away from you - where you get treated, who your doctor is, what drug to use. State systems ration care and put you on long waiting lists - people have died while waiting.

People have died here, too. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as unlimited health care.

You're ducking the issue. If you have a suspected tumor, you can wait to get to the MRI machine for months and months. In the US, you'll get it today or tommorow. You can try to duck the rationing issue all you want, but it stands there staring in you in the eye, unmoved:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RATIONING<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You aren't debating the facts at all, but merely giving your conclusion to those facts.

Yes, I am debating, and you are refusing to respond, switching the issue, etc.

The US has no universal health care system, yet it pays more than any other nation for health care.

There is no universal system ANYWHERE, and US costs more because you get more and don't have to wait eight months. If you want to keep repeating, so will I. (Hint: the fallacies in your point of view don't get any better with repetition.)

Now try again, but without the ideological spin.

I'm hearing this "spin" nonsense more and more here - apparently it's the last refuge of people who back down in debate - when all else fails just blubber "Duh! Spin! Duh!"

 

[GenSeneca]

WHO's fooling WHO

The first thing to realize about the WHO
health care ranking system is that there is
more than one. One ranking claims to measure
“overall attainment” (OA) while another
claims tomeasure “overall performance” (OP).
These two indices are constructed from the
same underlying data, but the OP index is
adjusted to reflect a country’s performance
relative to how well it theoretically could have
performed (more about that adjustment
later). When using the WHO rankings, one
should specify which ranking is being used:
OA or OP.
Many popular reports, however, do not
specify the ranking used and some appear to
have drawn from both. CNN.com, for example,
reported that both Canada and France
rank in the top 10, while the United States
ranks 37th. There is no ranking for which
both claims are true. Using OP, the United
States does rank 37th. But while France is
number 1 onOP, Canada is 30.UsingOA, the
United States ranks 15th, while France and
Canada rank 6th and 7th, respectively. In neither
ranking is the United States at 37 while
both France and Canada are in the top 10.
Which ranking is preferable? WHO presents
the OP ranking as its bottom line on
health system performance, on the grounds
thatOP represents the efficiency of each country’s
health system. But for reasons to be discussed
below, the OP ranking is even more
misleading than the OA ranking. CATO

 

[Libsmasher]

Just I thought. The WHO ratings are rigged by such non-medical related criteria as "financial" fairness" and "health distribution", contain HUGE statistical uncertainties (80%!), and operate on a methodology that is fundamentally flawed, in that it neglects social driving factors other than the health system, such as diet, smoking prevalence, amount of violent crime, etc etc etc. As CATO points out, all these flaws are never mentioned by the lib media, even though the ratings are frequently mentioned.

 

[PLC1]

No I didn't.



Technically, yes, but it reveals it as a meaningless point - like saying "the US doesn't have martians".



They rate Morocco better than the US. Now c'monnnnn - if you needed surgery, would you prefer to have it done in Morocco, hmmm?
Here's a list of the death rates in various countries for the current period:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate

If the US is so bad, why does the death rate exceed that of the US in Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, France, Japan, Norway, Macedonia, Austria, Finland, United Kingdom, Greece,Denmark, Italy, Portugal, and Germany?




You're ducking the issue. If you have a suspected tumor, you can wait to get to the MRI machine for months and months. In the US, you'll get it today or tommorow. You can try to duck the rationing issue all you want, but it stands there staring in you in the eye, unmoved:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RATIONING<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



Yes, I am debating, and you are refusing to respond, switching the issue, etc.



There is no universal system ANYWHERE, and US costs more because you get more and don't have to wait eight months. If you want to keep repeating, so will I. (Hint: the fallacies in your point of view don't get any better with repetition.)



I'm hearing this "spin" nonsense more and more here - apparently it's the last refuge of people who back down in debate - when all else fails just blubber "Duh! Spin! Duh!"

I tried to give you the weakness in my own argument, and yet you won't even address it. You insist on posting that you have "refuted" my facts, then post again that you didn't claim to have refuted my facts. You don't seem to have a very good grasp on the difference between a fact and an opinion.

You would d a much better job of debating if you weren't looking at everything from an ideological point of view.

I think we now agree that the US spends more than any other nation, and is the only nation that doesn't cover everyone. Those are facts. You did come up with a new definition of "universal coverage", meaning that there is no limit to health care coverage. Of course, no nation has that, and never will.

The only weakness in the syllogism:

We spend more than anyone else,
We're the only ones that don't have universal care (my definition, please),
Therefore, we should explore universal care.

is that there is no proven cause and effect. I have not proven, nor can anyone prove, that we pay more because we don't have a universal care system.

That leaves the question: How much longer can we afford a health care system that eats up 16% of our GDP and keeps getting even more expensive? Just how much are we willing to spend on this "best system in the world", even if we really do have the best system? Is 25% too much? 35%? Just where are we going to draw the line and say, "We can't afford this any more?"

And, when we can't afford health care any more, what do we do about it?

 

[Libsmasher]

I tried to give you the weakness in my own argument, and yet you won't even address it. You insist on posting that you have "refuted" my facts, then post again that you didn't claim to have refuted my facts. You don't seem to have a very good grasp on the difference between a fact and an opinion.

Uh, you seem to be flailing in a sort of whirpool of misunderstanding of what I have said and not said - I suggest you pull yourself out.

You would d a much better job of debating if you weren't looking at everything from an ideological point of view.

Putting aside that that's false, what's wrong with looking at everything from an ideological point of view?

I think we now agree that the US spends more than any other nation, and is the only nation that doesn't cover everyone. Those are facts. You did come up with a new definition of "universal coverage", meaning that there is no limit to health care coverage. Of course, no nation has that, and never will.

No - you still don't understand what I said. Listen carefully now:

That the US doesn't have "universal coverage" is of no import in a discussion comparing different types of health systems, since NO system offers universal coverage, how they advertise themselves to the contrary notwithstanding.

The only weakness in the syllogism:

We spend more than anyone else,
We're the only ones that don't have universal care (my definition, please),
Therefore, we should explore universal care.

is that there is no proven cause and effect. I have not proven, nor can anyone prove, that we pay more because we don't have a universal care system.

That leaves the question: How much longer can we afford a health care system that eats up 16% of our GDP and keeps getting even more expensive? Just how much are we willing to spend on this "best system in the world", even if we really do have the best system? Is 25% too much? 35%? Just where are we going to draw the line and say, "We can't afford this any more?"

While this is an important question, it is not germane to a discussion comparing types of systems. This gamut is often used by state rationed health system supporters using false dichotomy illogic: because the present system is untenable (they claim) we have to go to socialized health care.