quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
1. If you actually bothered to read, the source is posted on the last line.
2. Healthcare efficacy is not measured by including people that don't get care. As I said earlier if you wish to say the US doesn't do enough for its poor people - fine. If you wish to say its suffers from a capitalist perspective and doesn't have enough health care for the poor - fine.
3. As for the US spending more. 5.2% of the US spending (gdp basis) is on elective procedures. Once you normalize these figures, we are paying 50% more for care that is 36% better than the UK. Sounds like a great deal to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Abstract

This analysis draws upon data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and other cross-national analyses to compare health care spending, supply, utilization, prices, and health outcomes across 13 high-income countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These data predate the major insurance provisions of the Affordable Care Act. In 2013, the U.S. spent far more on health care than these other countries. Higher spending appeared to be largely driven by greater use of medical technology and higher health care prices, rather than more frequent doctor visits or hospital admissions. In contrast, U.S. spending on social services made up a relatively small share of the economy relative to other countries. Despite spending more on health care, Americans had poor health outcomes, including shorter life expectancy and greater prevalence of chronic conditions.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

Actually I was calling your non sourced post was a wall of drivel, and argued why, one line specifically was utter bullshit.
COnsidering you spend DOUBLE other countries health care costs, you would think you would outperform better than all countries, but you dont. not even close... efficacy only counts if it uses the entire citizenry, not those who can afford it.
Not counting all those millions who dont have ANY coverage or insurance.
Red states are performing far worse than expected and pulled UP by the "rich.
efficacy my arse. when you control for other factors.....LOL yeah like the number of people who cant get a diagnosis beyond a death certificate.

1. If you actually bothered to read, the source is posted on the last line.
2. Healthcare efficacy is not measured by including people that don't get care. As I said earlier if you wish to say the US doesn't do enough for its poor people - fine. If you wish to say its suffers from a capitalist perspective and doesn't have enough health care for the poor - fine.
3. As for the US spending more. 5.2% of the US spending (gdp basis) is on elective procedures. Once you normalize these figures, we are paying 50% more for care that is 36% better than the UK. Sounds like a great deal to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Abstract

This analysis draws upon data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and other cross-national analyses to compare health care spending, supply, utilization, prices, and health outcomes across 13 high-income countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These data predate the major insurance provisions of the Affordable Care Act. In 2013, the U.S. spent far more on health care than these other countries. Higher spending appeared to be largely driven by greater use of medical technology and higher health care prices, rather than more frequent doctor visits or hospital admissions. In contrast, U.S. spending on social services made up a relatively small share of the economy relative to other countries. Despite spending more on health care, Americans had poor health outcomes, including shorter life expectancy and greater prevalence of chronic conditions.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

Actually I was calling your non sourced post was a wall of drivel, and argued why, one line specifically was utter bullshit.
COnsidering you spend DOUBLE other countries health care costs, you would think you would outperform better than all countries, but you dont. not even close... efficacy only counts if it uses the entire citizenry, not those who can afford it.
Not counting all those millions who dont have ANY coverage or insurance.
Red states are performing far worse than expected and pulled UP by the "rich.
efficacy my arse. when you control for other factors.....LOL yeah like the number of people who cant get a diagnosis beyond a death certificate.

1. If you actually bothered to read, the source is posted on the last line.
2. Healthcare efficacy is not measured by including people that don't get care. As I said earlier if you wish to say the US doesn't do enough for its poor people - fine. If you wish to say its suffers from a capitalist perspective and doesn't have enough health care for the poor - fine.
3. As for the US spending more. 5.2% of the US spending (gdp basis) is on elective procedures. Once you normalize these figures, we are paying 50% more for care that is 36% better than the UK. Sounds like a great deal to me.

LMAO the HOOVER Institute? Fuck me sideways with a wallaby, you are so delusional
This is his latest paper

How To Fix The Scandal Of Medicaid And The Poor
by Scott W. Atlas
via Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
At a cost of $500 billion a year and rising, Medicaid enrolls poor Americans into substandard coverage with poor access to doctors and inferior health outcomes. ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion unconscionably furthers their second-class health-care status.

Instead, Medicaid should be redesigned as a bridge toward affordable private insurance. Reformed Medicaid should include a private-insurance option with catastrophic coverage but few coverage mandates for all enrollees. Current federal support should also initiate funding of health savings accounts. And states should be required to meet enrollment thresholds into private insurance to maintain their federal funding.
THis on a page that has various headlines including
WHy liberals hate almonds.
Drugs and the democrats.
If you liike choice in healthcare look to a republican.

Can you be any more lying partisan?

quote:


healthcare efficacy is not measured by including people that don't get care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



seems nationalizing hc doesnt cure corruption

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
Your system can bankrupt people and even cost them their lives when greed & horrendous overbilling depletes their health insurance limits (if they even have insurance).. with yours there is no "fix" to the rampant problems.. the worst thing is that y'all just sit there like lumps on logs accepting the abuse saying that's the way it is..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Friend of mine's mom just died waiting for treatment in one of your socialized medicine paradises.

Lefties publish a lot of misleading studies, saying things like health care in canada is better because life expectancy is higher; canada is better because fewer people died of treatable heart disease etc. Canada is better because of higher % of vaccination.

These things do not measure efficacy of treatment. The US has higher incidence of low birthrate babies due to substance abuse, which affect infant mortality rates as well as life expectancy. High rates of accidental deaths (and suicides) lower the median age - but these do not measure the efficacy of care. US declines in vaccination rates are predominantly due to lefties optin gout of vaccination programs. The lowest rate of vaccinations are not poverty stricken areas in the US - they are afluent areas like silicon valley.

86% of women 50 to 69 have had a mammogram in the us - 73% of women.
For every major catalogue of cancer except ovarian, the detection and treatment of cancer is better in the US than Canada. Ie., life expectancy after treatment.

Canada has an "unmet needs" figure of 11%. The US is higher - at 14%. In canada over half that figure is caused by wait times for diagnostics or specialists.

If you go to hospitals here during the winter, or along the border most of the time- there are droves of canadians escaping your medical system.



http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html
http://www.nber.org/bah/fall07/w13429.html
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/tech-companies-and-vaccines/
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27448970/colorado-kindergartners-have-lowest-measles-vaccination-rate
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/wealthy-la-schools-vaccination-rates-are-as-low-as-south-sudans/380252/

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
...
2. Healthcare efficacy is not measured by including people that don't get care. As I said earlier if you wish to say the US doesn't do enough for its poor people - fine. If you wish to say its suffers from a capitalist perspective and doesn't have enough health care for the poor - fine.
...

...
2) Healthcare is measured for ALL of the population, not just those that get sick.

quote:

quote:

3. As for the US spending more. 5.2% of the US spending (gdp basis) is on elective procedures. Once you normalize these figures, we are paying 50% more for care that is 36% better than the UK. Sounds like a great deal to me.

3) According to this worldbank site, US spending on GDP basis (2011-2015) is 17.1%, not the 5.2% you quote. Canada is at 10.9% and the UK is 9.1%; about half that of the US. Add the cost to patient in the US (it's free in socialised healthcare), that doesn't sound like a good deal to me at all.
...

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:


How do you determine the success rate of heart surgeries, if not by restricting your sample size to those who underwent heart surgery?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXYzgTLoQjY
rick scott in florida gets an earful about cutting medicaid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
1. If you actually bothered to read, the source is posted on the last line.
2. Healthcare efficacy is not measured by including people that don't get care. As I said earlier if you wish to say the US doesn't do enough for its poor people - fine. If you wish to say its suffers from a capitalist perspective and doesn't have enough health care for the poor - fine.
3. As for the US spending more. 5.2% of the US spending (gdp basis) is on elective procedures. Once you normalize these figures, we are paying 50% more for care that is 36% better than the UK. Sounds like a great deal to me.

1) A crap and selective source.
2) Healthcare is measured for ALL of the population, not just those that get sick.
3) According to this worldbank site, US spending on GDP basis (2011-2015) is 17.1%, not the 5.2% you quote. Canada is at 10.9% and the UK is 9.1%; about half that of the US. Add the cost to patient in the US (it's free in socialised healthcare), that doesn't sound like a good deal to me at all.
And I dispute that the US is 36% better than the UK - that wasn't the result from a US study that I quoted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Abstract

This analysis draws upon data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and other cross-national analyses to compare health care spending, supply, utilization, prices, and health outcomes across 13 high-income countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These data predate the major insurance provisions of the Affordable Care Act. In 2013, the U.S. spent far more on health care than these other countries. Higher spending appeared to be largely driven by greater use of medical technology and higher health care prices, rather than more frequent doctor visits or hospital admissions. In contrast, U.S. spending on social services made up a relatively small share of the economy relative to other countries. Despite spending more on health care, Americans had poor health outcomes, including shorter life expectancy and greater prevalence of chronic conditions.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

Actually I was calling your non sourced post was a wall of drivel, and argued why, one line specifically was utter bullshit.
COnsidering you spend DOUBLE other countries health care costs, you would think you would outperform better than all countries, but you dont. not even close... efficacy only counts if it uses the entire citizenry, not those who can afford it.
Not counting all those millions who dont have ANY coverage or insurance.
Red states are performing far worse than expected and pulled UP by the "rich.
efficacy my arse. when you control for other factors.....LOL yeah like the number of people who cant get a diagnosis beyond a death certificate.

1. If you actually bothered to read, the source is posted on the last line.
2. Healthcare efficacy is not measured by including people that don't get care. As I said earlier if you wish to say the US doesn't do enough for its poor people - fine. If you wish to say its suffers from a capitalist perspective and doesn't have enough health care for the poor - fine.
3. As for the US spending more. 5.2% of the US spending (gdp basis) is on elective procedures. Once you normalize these figures, we are paying 50% more for care that is 36% better than the UK. Sounds like a great deal to me.

LMAO the HOOVER Institute? Fuck me sideways with a wallaby, you are so delusional
This is his latest paper

How To Fix The Scandal Of Medicaid And The Poor
by Scott W. Atlas
via Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
At a cost of $500 billion a year and rising, Medicaid enrolls poor Americans into substandard coverage with poor access to doctors and inferior health outcomes. ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion unconscionably furthers their second-class health-care status.

Instead, Medicaid should be redesigned as a bridge toward affordable private insurance. Reformed Medicaid should include a private-insurance option with catastrophic coverage but few coverage mandates for all enrollees. Current federal support should also initiate funding of health savings accounts. And states should be required to meet enrollment thresholds into private insurance to maintain their federal funding.
THis on a page that has various headlines including
WHy liberals hate almonds.
Drugs and the democrats.
If you liike choice in healthcare look to a republican.

Can you be any more lying partisan?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
You didn't read what I wrote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I said 5.2% of US expenditures on healthcare are elective procedures. Boob jobs, botox, tummy tucks, etc. Since those expenditures aren't (for the most part) covered by socialized medicine, you need to adjust spending to have an apples to apples comparison.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
A crap source? Says who, and on what basis? Just because it disagrees with you? Defeat the argument man, don't malign the messenger. If its crap it should be easy to point to a falacy in his argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Again, I have no problem you measuring whatever you want to measure. But saying that life expectancy is a measure of a how good american medicine is is like saying cuba has the best auto mechanics because all its cars are really old. Quite repeating crap. Defeat the argument instead of pounding the table.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



seems nationalizing hc doesnt cure corruption

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
Your system can bankrupt people and even cost them their lives when greed & horrendous overbilling depletes their health insurance limits (if they even have insurance).. with yours there is no "fix" to the rampant problems.. the worst thing is that y'all just sit there like lumps on logs accepting the abuse saying that's the way it is..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Friend of mine's mom just died waiting for treatment in one of your socialized medicine paradises.

Lefties publish a lot of misleading studies, saying things like health care in canada is better because life expectancy is higher; canada is better because fewer people died of treatable heart disease etc. Canada is better because of higher % of vaccination.

These things do not measure efficacy of treatment. The US has higher incidence of low birthrate babies due to substance abuse, which affect infant mortality rates as well as life expectancy. High rates of accidental deaths (and suicides) lower the median age - but these do not measure the efficacy of care. US declines in vaccination rates are predominantly due to lefties optin gout of vaccination programs. The lowest rate of vaccinations are not poverty stricken areas in the US - they are afluent areas like silicon valley.

86% of women 50 to 69 have had a mammogram in the us - 73% of women.
For every major catalogue of cancer except ovarian, the detection and treatment of cancer is better in the US than Canada. Ie., life expectancy after treatment.

Canada has an "unmet needs" figure of 11%. The US is higher - at 14%. In canada over half that figure is caused by wait times for diagnostics or specialists.

If you go to hospitals here during the winter, or along the border most of the time- there are droves of canadians escaping your medical system.



http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html
http://www.nber.org/bah/fall07/w13429.html
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/tech-companies-and-vaccines/
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27448970/colorado-kindergartners-have-lowest-measles-vaccination-rate
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/wealthy-la-schools-vaccination-rates-are-as-low-as-south-sudans/380252/

Your friends mother was not forced to use Canada's health care system, she could have gone to the US or any other country that could handle those procedures (at her cost, of course).. if she would have fared better in the US (as you seem to allude to) then she should have gone there instead.. She had a choice, it was hers alone to make.. Btw, there are wait times in the US as well, and some are not much shorter than Canada's wait times.. There also may have been mitigating reasons why she died before treatment, maybe she didnt seek diagnosis soon enough or perhaps she could have had a shorter wait going to a different doctor, etc.. but regardless, as I have said several times now, no one said it was a perfect system.. But imo its the best system on this continent.. and by best i mean that it works best for almost everyone (unlike the US that only works for the richest or those with superior/expensive insurance)..

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

And.... I debunked your assertion that elective proceedures are not covered by socialized healthcare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
You didn't read what I wrote.

I did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I said 5.2% of US expenditures on healthcare are elective procedures. Boob jobs, botox, tummy tucks, etc. Since those expenditures aren't (for the most part) covered by socialized medicine, you need to adjust spending to have an apples to apples comparison.

Ummm.... most of those proceedures are covered here under socialized healthcare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
A crap source? Says who, and on what basis? Just because it disagrees with you? Defeat the argument man, don't malign the messenger. If its crap it should be easy to point to a falacy in his argument.

Because, you made your argument based on the contents of your link which was the complete and utter opposite of Lucy's link from the OECD which clearly states: Despite spending more on health care, Americans had poor health outcomes, including shorter life expectancy and greater prevalence of chronic conditions.
I put more standing on the OECD report than yours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Again, I have no problem you measuring whatever you want to measure. But saying that life expectancy is a measure of a how good american medicine is is like saying cuba has the best auto mechanics because all its cars are really old. Quite repeating crap. Defeat the argument instead of pounding the table.

I just have.
I don't support your views and I trust other sources more than yours.
And.... I debunked your assertion that elective proceedures are not covered by socialized healthcare.