Here's an article from Forbes that explains how statistics lie. It also contains a link from the National Center of Policy Analysis that has Still, even after reading this, the liberal sheep like Avalon will bleet that America's health care is a mess and has to be changed. No matter how much they bleet, they can't change the facts. But, if they read this, perhaps they will have facts at their disposal that would support a more reasonable discussion.

By Steve Forbes:

"...The U.S. medical system is hugely expensive and is not providing as good care to its citizens as socialized systems are in Canada and Europe--that will be a chief argument the Obama Administration employs to justify its new government health insurance plan for the 46 million Americans who are uninsured. The White House will further argue that competition from a public (i.e., government) company will force private insurers to cease underwriting the currently wasteful system. The Administration will also emphasize the alleged horrors of the status quo, claiming, for instance, that most personal bankruptcies in this country are caused by health care debts and that every year nearly 20,000 people die in the U.S. because they are uninsured.

"...Before swallowing these arguments, you should read a paper recently issued by the National Center for Policy Analysis: "Health Care Reform: Do Other Countries Have the Answers?''. (Go there, then click on the PDF.) This paper gives a quick rebuttal to the notion that the U.S. health care system fails because of rising costs, inadequate quality of care and incomplete access. For those who want more information, the paper's footnotes will provide plenty of sources with which to find it.

"...Does the U.S. spend too much on health care? When comparing apples with apples and stethoscopes with stethoscopes, the reality is that in most areas--other than diagnostic equipment and research on new medicines--the U.S. actually does not devote more resources per capita than do socialized nations. But "the U.S. compares favorably when real resources are measured rather than monetary accounts. ... Countries account for long-term care and out-of-pocket spending differently. The accounting treatment of overhead and capital costs also varies." Moreover, "the U.S. has been neither worse nor better than the rest of the developed world at controlling expenditure growth." Our outlays grow at the same pace as everyone else's.

"...In certain areas, such as medical diagnostic equipment, we do have greater spending. Britain has only a fraction of the number of CT and MRI scanners per patient population that the U.S. has.

"...Moreover, the way in which other countries save money is by cheating their patients of care: "International spending comparisons typically ignore costs generated by limits on supply." Dialysis patients in 2002--04, for instance, had to wait 62 days for access in Canada versus 16 days in the U.S. Waiting lists for elective surgery, such as hip replacement, are notoriously long in other countries. These delays don't show up in spending for health care, but "waiting for care has economic costs in terms of sick pay and lost productivity, as well as negative health consequences."

"...One big rap against the U.S. is its infant mortality rates. At first glance we look like a laggard: Our rates are notoriously higher than those of other major industrial countries. Amazingly, however, it turns out that the gap exists partly because of the way in which live births are defined. In some countries an infant who dies soon after birth is, incredibly, not considered a live birth for statistical purposes! Social scientist Nicholas Eberstadt "finds that U.S. infants, stratified by birth weight, have a high[er] likelihood of survival."

"...Life expectancy? The differences are not related to medical care but "to such lifestyle choices as diet, exercise and smoking." Longevity in a state such as Minnesota or Utah is more than a match for those in, say, Norway or Britain. When you figure in all of Europe--the prosperous and the poorer areas--and compare groups by income and ethnicity, life expectancy in the U.S. suddenly looks good.

*****
We'll be friends until we're old and senile. Then we'll be new friends.
-Anon.

The US still spends alot more for healthcare than other developed countries and we are one of the few without universal care.

But, if they read this, perhaps they will have facts at their disposal that would support a more reasonable discussion.

  Moniker... This isn't about *facts*!  It's about image, ideology, and political power!  Gheezuz, I can't help but admire your tenacity, but at some point it becomes Pollyanna-ish wishful thinking.

gus.

 

 

 

Well, I downloaded and started reading the paper. I'll try to fact-check some of the weedy details this weekend, maybe, but a couple of things jump out at me right from the start:

The first couple of paragraphs of the section "Does the United States Spend Too Much on Health Care?" seem to basically argue that this stuff is real hard to measure so we shouldn't have any confidence in cost figures. I'm not sure that this is particularly persuasive since just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's been done wrong.

After that they say something exceedingly weird:

The US compares more favorably when real resources are measured rather than monetary accounts. Per capita, the US uses fewer physicians, nurses, hospital beds, physician visits, and hospitals days than the median OECD country.

That's a bizarre measure of quality. By that resoning, a country that provides absolutely no health care at all would rank as the best, since per capita, such a country would use no physicians, nurses, hospital beds, physician visits, and hospitals. But of course calling such a country excellent on health care would be silly.

I'm truly at a loss as to what they were trying to argue here and this really calls their reasoning (and possibly agenda) into sharp question for me.


Next they claim that US costs aren't rising any faster than other developed countries. Two things about that - a rate of rise may be similar, but if one is starting from a much lower number one would still do better than someone starting at a higher number. In fact, the numerical gap would grow. Second it's a little odd that they state this with such confidence given their first argument about how very difficult it is to measure this.


I'll read on into the outcomes section, but that isn't a particularly impressive beginning to this paper.

 Moniker... This isn't about *facts*!  It's about image, ideology, and political power!  Gheezuz, I can't help but admire your tenacity, but at some point it becomes Pollyanna-ish wishful thinking.

gus.

Jesus, an all seeing wizard.  OK, whatever you say, gussie. *chortle*

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are all equal, but we definitely are not the same"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

they can't change the facts

*******************************

there are almost no "facts" at all in that piece.  And, I'm not going to print out the entire 20 pages of that pdf file to give you a point-by-point refutation.  You want to really research the Health Care issue?  Give yourself about 10 or 12 hours, and use Google, as I have done.  Read both sides, not just your own. 

However, I do believe that there will be a bill on President Obama's desk by the end of September or mid October.

Jim...

"...However, I do believe that there will be a bill on President Obama's desk by the end of September or mid October..."

Glad to know they've propped you up in front of Fox/CNN/MSNBC for the evening. Libation in hand, no doubt.

We love your reports on the reports.

*****
We'll be friends until we're old and senile. Then we'll be new friends.
-Anon.

Glad to know they've propped you up in front of Fox/CNN/MSNBC for the evening. Libation in hand, no doubt.

We love your reports on the reports.

*********************************************

huh?  I haven't watched any TV this week at all.  You know Moniker, you need to stop making false assumptions based on what you think you know.

Jim...

"... you need to stop making false assumptions based on what you think you know."

That is freaking hilarious, coming from you, Jim!

"... you need to stop making false assumptions based on what you think you know."

That is freaking hilarious, coming from you, Jim!

  Can I get an *Amen*!?

gus.

 

Can I get an *Amen*!?

***************

Of course you can.  It isn't hard, just post something that will inflame your fellow travelers.  That's all you need to do.

popularity equals correctness.  That's all you need.

Jim...

Does no one care to take a shot at explaining to me how providing fewer services per capita is supposed to be evidence of better performance, as the linked report says?

popularity equals correctness.  That's all you need.

Jim...

  Oh look... there's one now.  A false assumption based on what you think you know.  In your case, it's like birdwatching for sparrows.

gus.