Zensee
Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004 Status: offline
|
Rich, Archer - One poorly run hospital under county control does not count as a case against a national single payer system or refute the overwhelmingly positive experience people in enlightened countries have had with a centrally directed and funded healthcare system. As for David Hogberg's ' I get paid by the word to make things up', analysis of the matter, it is so bloated with faulty logic and outright misrepresentations it barely deserves parsing. For example - Myth #6 - he makes a complete straw dog argument on behalf of single payer advocates and only approaches intellectual honesty in the final paragraph - quote:
In areas where a health care system does have an impact, such as treating disease, the U.S. outperforms single-payer systems. For example, the U.S. has a higher five-year survival rate for victims of heart attacks than Canada, due to the fact that we do more bypass surgeries and angioplasties in the U.S. Hospitals in the U.S. also commit fewer errors than hospitals in countries with single-payer systems like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. And (like the OP) this has precisely WTF to do with single payer versus private for (mega) profit? Absolutely nothing - again. The rest of Hogberg's arguments hover around this appalling level of honesty and applicability. For instance again - in the article he links to above (LINK HERE) the study only concludes that long term survival rates are affected by the treatment protocols of the different countries. It (of course) says NOTHING (once again) about the role of public versus private healthcare in the calculation. The study has no relevance to the argument. Z.
< Message edited by Zensee -- 7/9/2008 9:35:53 PM >
_____________________________
"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)
|