Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And what were the criteria?

---

Hello again, Steve:

From the report:

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

From the report:

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

excon

---

All of these issue are discussed in the article I posted, and it debunks what the WHO report states based on statistics and OTHER reports that show something very different than what WHO reported.

Read the article.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

As I said, excon, they are basing that fact on life expectancies. But as I also pointed out, life expentancies are not simply a function of health care. They are a function of lifestyle, genetics, accident rates, homocide rates, suicide rates, etc. in other words, life expectancy is not a good measure of the effectiveness of health care. The proper measure of health care effectiveness is the outcomes of patients.

---

How do you measure that? I'm not aware of any figures that even address that, let alone put the US first. Even if you could put a number on "outcomes," what about all the people who don't get treated at all, or not until they are near death because they don't have access?

One of the best measures is Infant mortality and by that measure we are number 50.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, as I mentioned, after adjusting for homocide rates, we rank highest in the world for life expectancy as well.

---

Why would you leave out one cause of death? Homicide doesn't count as death? Also, you don't cite a source for this assertion.

Infant mortality is a concern in a nation that intentionally butchers a half million babies every year ? Why ?

Ok here's the deal on infant mortality . We count all babies born . They don't . But even more important from a statistical purpose...
The United States reports an infant mortality rate of 0.626%. The country which reports the lowest infant mortality rate is Singapore which reports a rate of 0.231%. This means that the difference between the infant mortality rate is 0.395% or less than four-tenths of a percent.Is that really a meaningful stat ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

All of these issue are discussed in the article I posted, and it debunks what the WHO report states based on statistics and OTHER reports that show something very different than what WHO reported.

Read the article.

---

Hello again, El:

I did. I'm going to believe the World Health Organization instead of a conservative rag. That is, unless you can convince me that the WORLD HEATH ORGANIZATION is just a mouthpiece for the libs...

You don't think they're the same as the Lewin Group, do you?? That would be the group often times cited by rightwingers, as a non partisan, independent think tank. It has, of course, been revealed that they're WHOLLY OWNED by health insurance giant, United Health. You guys are silly.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

How do you measure that? I'm not aware of any figures that even address that, let alone put the US first. Even if you could put a number on "outcomes," what about all the people who don't get treated at all, or not until they are near death because they don't have access?

---

The article that I posted addresses that:

Quote:

---

The CONCORD study published in 2008 found that the five-year survival rate for cancer (adjusted for other causes of death) is much higher in the United States than in Europe (e.g., 91.9% vs. 57.1% for prostate cancer, 83.9% vs. 73% for breast cancer, 60.1% vs. 46.8% for men with colon cancer, and 60.1 vs. 48.4% for women with colon cancer). The United Kingdom, which has had government-run health care since 1948, has survival rates lower than those for Europe as a whole.

---

Other studies, many of them by Lancet, which is the UK's version of the Journal of the AMA, have done the same analysis for heart care, organ transplants, diabetes, strokes, etc. We come out on top or within the top 3 in just about of all of them.

Quote:

---

One of the best measures is Infant mortality and by that measure we are number 50.

---

Most countries don't count babies born below a certain weight as "born". They don't count babies born before a certain gestational age as "born". They are eliminated from such statistics. Taking these into consideration, we are NOT number 50, but actually MUCH HIGHER than that... certainly within the top 10. This is also addressed in the article.

Quote:

---

Why would you leave out one cause of death? Homicide doesn't count as death? Also, you don't cite a source for this assertion.

---

Again, this is addressed in the article I cited. The article cites "The Business of Health" by L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider. The reason that automobile accident deaths should be eliminated from the statistics in order to measure the effectiveness of health care is because death from an automobile accident is not a function of health care. When a guy dies from an MVA, it isn't because he had poor health care. It's because he had two tons of metal and plastic smashing into him at high speed. Ditto for murders. Murders are not a function of poor health care. Thus, deaths by murder and deaths by MVA should be eliminated from the statistics in order to study the effectiveness of our health care system.

Again, read the article. All of this is discussed there. All your questions are answered.

Here is the link again.

American Thinker: The Cost of Free Government Health Care

Elliot

Yeah I know in China they do not count baby girls that are born and then literally disposed of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

I did. I'm gonna believe the World Health Organization instead of a conservative rag. That is, unless you can convince me that the WORLD HEATH ORGANIZATION is just a mouthpiece for the libs....

You don't think they're the same as the Lewin Group, do you??? That would be the group often times cited by rightwingers, as a non partisan, independent think tank. It has, of course, been revealed that they're WHOLLY OWNED by health insurance giant, United Health. You guys are silly.

excon

---

And I guess that Concord is a right wing rag too. I guess "The Business of Health" by L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider was bought and paid for by the GOP. The Lancet and Lancet Oncology are both bought and paid for by the right wing. The Congressional Budget Office is controlled by the Republican party. All of these articles and studies are from a bunch of crazy right wingers out to screw Obama.

Have you put on your tin-foil hat yet?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:
You don't think they're the same as the Lewin Group, do you??? That would be the group often times cited by rightwingers, as a non partisan, independent think tank. It has, of course, been revealed that they're WHOLLY OWNED by health insurance giant, United Health. You guys are silly.

---

No... silly is trying to equate an article in the American Thinker with the ownership of the Lewin Group. Trying to use the fact that ONE study MAY have been biased to prove that all of them MUST be biased is silly. Trying to fit everything and everyone who disagrees with you into one single category is silly.

Not once have you been able to counter facts with facts. THAT is silly.

You continue to argue through misdirection, misrepresentation of the other side's position, and by trying to ignore facts when they are presented. THAT is silly.

YOU are being silly, excon.

Elliot

I meant a source that does not have an axe to grind. I do not cite Mother Jones, Counterpunch, or the Nation to you, since I doubt you would accept them as objective sources of information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

YOU are being silly, excon.

---

Hello again, El:

Silly is when you say our health care is the BEST, when we're really 37th.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I meant a source that does not have an axe to grind. I do not cite Mother Jones, Counterpunch, or the Nation to you, since I doubt you would accept them as objective sources of information.

---

Concord isn't a legitimate source?

Lancet isn't a legitimate source?

The Business of Health isn't a legitimate source?

Hate to tell you this, but I have never questioned a source or a citation because of which publication it comes from. I question the points it makes. I question the conclusions it may jump to. But I never question the validity of the source.

For instance, excon cited the WHO study. I could have stated that WHO is a UN-created organization with a political axe to grind against the USA, and which has a history of bad studies produced for political purposes which have led to actions that have killed millions of people (their erroneous conclusions about DDT, for instance).

But I didn't. I countered excon's citation with another source that deconstructs the WHO study and states why the study is incorrect and a poor measure of the quality of health care.

So instead of trying to marginalize the source, why don't you look at the issues and see if you can logically find a response to my arguments. And if you can't, perhaps you should wonder WHY.

Elliot

Please cite Lancet or BMJ. That would be fine.

I did.

Sorry. I didn't see any specific references to Lancet in your messages.
Did I miss the date, authors, urls, etc?

Maybe I missed them.
I am having to do other stuff today...

Hello asking:

You didn't miss anything. In fact, you caught on quite nicely. The Wolverine DID cite Lancet above, among other respected journals. He just didn't cite any particular issue, article, editorial, study or investigative report. I guess he wants you to TRUST that Lancet says what HE says it says.

But, that ain't going to work.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Sorry. I didn't see any specific references to Lancet in your messages.
Did I miss the date, authors, urls, etc?

Maybe I missed them.
I am having to do other stuff today...

---

I posted here before. I'll try to find the citation again.

Elliot

Got it! The European data is from:

Arduino Verdecchia et al. "Recent cancer survival in Europe : a 2000–02 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data," Lancet Oncology, 2007, No. 8, pages 784–796.

And... the data on American cancer outcomes is from:

"Cancer Facts & Figures 2007," American Cancer Society. Available at http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/...7PWSecured.pdf.

Are these satisfactory citations for you?

Will you please stop questioning the source and instead start dealing with the facts themselves?

Elliot

Well I cite most everything, like this...

At Obama's townhall meeting sponsored by AARP he told the crowd, "Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits."

No? In June Obama proposed $313 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

How can he cut $313 billion out of Medicare and Medicaid and not cut benefits? Is he the miracle worker or just a liar? I think he'll say whatever he thinks will get his agenda through because it is all about Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Well I cite most everything, like this...

At Obama's townhall meeting sponsored by AARP he told the crowd, "Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits."

No? In June Obama proposed $313 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

How can he cut $313 billion out of Medicare and Medicaid and not cut benefits? Is he the miracle worker or just a liar? I think he'll say whatever he thinks will get his agenda through because it is all about Obama.

---

Showoff!! :p

So you're better at HTML than I am.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Showoff!!! :p

So you're better at HTML than I am.

Elliot

---

Nah, it's simple here. Just highlight the text you want to use with the left mouse button before you paste your link with the "insert link" button. I usually click "underline" after that but it's not necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Here's an interesting thought.

We have seen in the past how politicians have used their influence to attack their opponents. They have used their influence to get the IRS to audit their opponents' taxes and financial records, just because they could. We have seen politicians initiate Justice Department investigations of opponents, just because they could. Politicians have been known to abuse their influence in order to attack their opponents.

What happens when the government gets control of our health care?

Will we suddenly be faces with a situation where politicians will be able to slow down how fast an opponent (or his family) receives medical care? Will we see politicians cutting off opponents' medical care completely? Will we see politicians influencing the bureaucratic decision cycle of what services a political opponent can receive?

Scary thought.

Does anyone really want to hand that much power over to the government? We've seen how some politicians wield the power they already have. Do we really want to hand them even more power?

For all you libertarians out there, do you think that the government is trustworthy enough for that kind of power? Given the history of abuses of the system, do you trust them with that kind of power?

Elliot

---

I suppose anything is possible in a country where the government still kills people! So yeah, I'm starting to lean in your favour.

But I find it interesting that you're happy for your government to kill people in your name (death penalty), but not treat people medically...

Surely the taking of ones life is about as much power as one can have? So you see you won't be giving them anymore power than you already give them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Here's an interesting thought.

We have seen in the past how politicians have used their influence to attack their opponents. They have used their influence to get the IRS to audit their opponents' taxes and financial records, just because they could. We have seen politicians initiate Justice Department investigations of opponents, just because they could. Politicians have been known to abuse their influence in order to attack their opponents.

What happens when the government gets control of our health care?

---

Hello again, El:

What happens?? I don't know.. What happens NOW? Don't you think that EVERY American family has some member on Medicare?? I do. How come the mean bad old politicians haven't taken it away from them? They certainly CAN, according to you...

Maybe they're waiting till the health care plan passes and THEN they're going to do it... Riiiiight.

I understand... Really, I do.

excon

There is a huge difference in allowing the state to sentence the ultimate punishment on those predators who have served notice on civil society on the one hand ,and the taking of innocent lives by the state on the other . Do you not see the distinction between someone who's crimes are so henious and an affront to human decency that they forfeit their right to life;and someone who is innocent and is being served in essence the death sentence because of cost of care evaluations ?

Organized society like the individual has a right to self defense and that includes making the evaluation that a human life can be taken for henious crimes once due process is satisfied. Due process is that a jury of peers and not the state determine the sentence. The Supreme Court has ruled many times and so long as the method employed does not violate the 8th amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment and it must also satisfy equal protection criteria of the 14th amendment that the administering of executions is constitutional .Therefore every case where a convict has been sentenced must go through an appeals process to guarantee those terms are met.

I would say without a doubt that the state denying someone life saving care where no crime was committed satisfies the prohibitions of the 8th to a tee.

The founders were clear on this . They wrote in the 5th amendment that no one can be deprived of life liberty or property without due process. This clearly implies they saw that there were circumstances where depriving someone of life was permissible under the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I would say without a doubt that the state denying someone life saving care where no crime was committed satisfies the prohibitions of the 8th to a tee.

---

Hello tom:

I couldn't agree more, except I'm not sure what your point is, once again... You're not saying, are you, that INSURANCE adjusters DON'T deny people life saving care, where no crime was committed, but simply because the company needs to meet its profit projections??

Nahhh, you wouldn't be saying that.

excon

Ex you know you live in a system where profit is god.. err king.. errr good.. errrr necessary for the good health of the investor. Are you saying that a private health insurer isn't allowed to make a profit? This is why the system needs reform, to remove the motivation to profit from the illness of some poor unfortunate, oh hush my mouth, I've just included the entire medical profession

Where I live we have a simple solution the government allows the insurers to increase the premiums

Ex I was responding to Skells point about the death penalty . But you knew that. Again I would like to point out that the insurance company is not the final arbiter of your care . There are alternatives ;albeit difficult and often expensive alternatives ,but they are available.

When the gvt's computers kick out the raw numbers ,and determine that your life is not worth saving ,there will be no appeal and no alternative in the proposed plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

What happens???? I dunno.. What happens NOW?? Don't you think that EVERY American family has some member on Medicare???? I do. How come the mean bad old politicians haven't taken it away from them? They certainly CAN, according to you...

Maybe they're waiting till the health care plan passes and THEN they're gonna do it.... Riiiiight.

I understand... Really, I do.

---

Hmmm, interesting that Elliot's quote showed up as "Originally Posted by speechlesstx." How'd you manage that?

By the way, as I reported earlier, after Obama himself proposed $313 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid then telling the AARP crowd on Monday that "Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits," the lead story in my paper was the Congress has decided on $500 billion in cuts.

Nah, those the mean bad old politicians aren't planning on taking anything away from seniors.

The story changes daily . Remember when it was going to cuts costs ? Then later the story was it would be revenue neutral .Now it is going to take tax hikes to finance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The story changes daily

---

That's what he meant by change you can believe in...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

What happens?? I don't know.. What happens NOW? Don't you think that EVERY American family has some member on Medicare?? I do. How come the mean bad old politicians haven't taken it away from them? They certainly CAN, according to you...

---

Yes they can... and that's a scary thought.

Why hand them MORE power with which to do it?

Quote:

---

Maybe they're waiting till the health care plan passes and THEN they're going to do it... Riiiiight.

I understand... Really, I do.

Excon

---

Do you think they won't?

Like I said above, these are the same politicians who have no problem using the IRS and the SEC as their personal muscle to push around their opponents. They have no problem appointing special prosecutors to investigate opponents on trumped-up accusations. They have no problem filing frivolous ethics complaints with government agencies to hurt their political opponents. What makes you think that they wouldn't use THIS power to do the same thing if we let them? It's not like these are the most ethical people on Earth.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

I suppose anything is possible in a country where the government still kills people!! So yeah, im starting to lean in your favour.

But i find it interesting that you're happy for your government to kill people in your name (death penalty), but not treat people medically...

Surely the taking of ones life is about as much power as one can have?? So you see you wont be giving them anymore power than you already give them...

---

You think not?

You are equating the death penalty for criminal who is found guilty by a court of law with a JURY OF HIS PEERS with an intentional abuse by a single politician who's sole goal is to eliminate a political opponent who committed no crime?

And you don't see a difference between the levels of power involved? One requires application of the legal system. No one man has the power to pervert that system. The other is extra-legal, as in OUTSIDE the legal system, wherein one influential person can undermine the system for political or personal gain.

We are talking about the difference between applying the law to punish criminals and prevent crime and abuses of power by politicians in order to stifle political opposition. You see no difference between the two?

This is a pretty poor argument, Skell. I think you can recognize that.

Elliot

Hello again, righty's:

Ok, let's get this straight... The government ain't going to KILL anybody, any more than your INSURANCE ADJUSTER already is, TODAY.

I know you want to scare people... But, can't you at least scare them with something that actually MIGHT happen, instead of making up stuff? Nahhh.. I think you'd rather make it up.

excon

Y'know the government can rip up the roads anytime they want... or stop firefighting services any time they want. WAKE UP PEOPLE! Make the government stop this socialism! Take back control of your life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, righty's:

Ok, let's get this straight.... The government ain't gonna KILL anybody, any more than your INSURANCE ADJUSTER already is, TODAY.

I know you wanna scare people... But, can't you at least scare them with something that actually MIGHT happen, instead of making up stuff? Nahhh.. I think you'd rather make it up.

excon

---

I'm not saying it WILL happen. I'm saying that giving the government that kind of power is a bad idea. I'm saying that if we let it, it CAN happen. And it has happened elsewhere in history. Give a government too much control, and it will USE that control to its own benefit.

I've given you examples of how politicians have done stuff against their political opponents before. Based on that history, it CAN happen, whether you wish to admit it or not.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Y'know the government can rip up the roads anytime they want...or stop firefighting services any time they want. WAKE UP PEOPLE! Make the government stop this socialism! Take back control of your life.

---

Are you saying that it's never happened before?

Back in the old days, there where certain neighborhoods in Southern states where cops were ordered not to go, firefighters were ordered not to go, and where the roads were never paved. Money was never allocated to those neighborhoods. These neighborhoods were populated by blacks. Effectively the state and local governments cut off services to those neighborhoods. These people were racially and politically inconvenient, and so the government cut them off.

Just because it hasn't happened RECENTLY doesn't mean that it can't.

I'm not saying that anyone within the government is actually planning to use this against a political opponent... at least not yet. All I'm saying is be careful what powers and controls you hand over to your government.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

What makes you think that they wouldn't use THIS power to do the same thing if we let them? It's not like these are the most ethical people on Earth.

---

Hello again, El:

Because they HAVE the power now, and they're NOT doing it.

Let me see... We should take away the guns from the cops because they MIGHT use their power to do wrong?? It's not like these are the most ethical people on Earth...

Can you see how stupid that sounds?? Can you relate??

excon

PS> Oh yeah. Like NK says, they COULD tear up the roads too. They have the power. I wonder why they haven't done it yet.

Water! They could turn the water off ANYTIME they want! This socialist government owns the means of delivery of water! Studies have shown that you cannot live without water. Don't let the government control whether you live or die! Wake up sheeple!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

All I'm saying is be careful what powers and controls you hand over to your government.

---

Hello again, El:

Dude! You are a piece of work... It's OK to let the government run rampant through your emails and your telephone calls in the name of fighting terrorism... It's OK for the government to take away YOUR right of habeas corpus... It's OK for our government to torture. It's OK for the government to detain people FOREVER... It's OK for the troops to be used as law enforcement officers because Cheney wanted them too...

But, we better not give them too much power...

DUDE!!

excon

If you are so trusting of the politicians and the government, then why were you so worried over Bush's "wire tapping" and the warrantless search & seizures, and the arrests and detainment of Gitmo prisoners. Why were you so against the Patriot Act's provisions allowing the government to search internet records of public libraries?

After all, the government is all sweetness and light. They're TRUSTWORTHY. They would never allow bad stuff to happen. They would never abuse their powers.

You guys are a bunch of hyporites. You complain about the government having too much power when given permission to actually protect us from terrorists, but you are willing to actually hand the government the power to determine your own life and death.

You don't want some bureaucrat listening in on your phone calls, but you have no problem with the same bureaucrat determining whether you live or die.

Elliot