[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[asking]

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.

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.

[tomder55]

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 ?

[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.

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

[ETWolverine]

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:

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.

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.

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

[N0help4u]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[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.

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[asking]

Please cite Lancet or BMJ. That would be fine.

[ETWolverine]

I did.

[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...

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[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.

[ETWolverine]

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