Why can’t it be both?
Stranger
I think your questions are excellent ones. Let’s answer them in turn.
What % of GDP do other counties spend on healthcare?
Less, almost assuredly. They also spend less on energy, airline travel, consumer goods and a host of other things. So what? We have a higher standard of living here in the USA than most of those other countries. So we spend a larger % of GDP on health care and other secondary, higher-order things than they do. I think that’s a good thing. Why do you think it’s bad?
How do they compare with regard to longevity and infant mortality?
Less, once you adjust for special factors. One of the most oft-quoted, but poorly analyzed “facts” that you cite, is that the US has a higher % of spending on healthcare but lower overall lifespans than other countries.
That is indeed true. It is a fact. But the two variables are not correlated. The US has a far higher % of homicides and auto accidents than most of those other countries…two things that have almost nothing to do with healthcare. Once you strip those out the numbers for the US look much, much better.
Here is only one example of analysis that debunks it. There are many others if you do a little searching.
If you want to compare efficacy of healthcare spending you must measure the output of what happens, when you exercise an input. In other words, I just spent X on Y to acheive Z. Did Z happen or not?
There is some data on cancer survival rates in the link above that do such justice.
What are the wait times for medical attention in the various systems, how does that compare to the US?
The wait times in the UK, where I lived and raised children for several years, was awful. I have no data at my hand to prove that, however.
How much support is there for UHC in counties that have implemented it?
I’m not sure what this is suppose to prove. People have been given an entitlement. If you suggest taking it away, they will be upset. That has been the case since time immemorial.
Look at Greece. Look at suggestions of Social Security reform in the USA. It proves nothing.
What do people who have lived in the US and abroad think about the differences?
The US has a lot of problems, primarily price transparency, fee-for-service 3rd payer models and barriers to entry for new competitors. Those are all caused by government intervention. But it still better than any other foreign country that I’ve lived in. And I’ve lived in several.
What is the overhead of the various systems and how do they compare with the US?
No idea what point this is supposed to prove. The free market will always punish those companies with high overhead levels. It is whent he government gets involved that things start to go awry.
How do Medicare and private health insurance compare in the US?
No idea.
You asked very good questions. Those are the correct ones to be asking. The answers to them, however, prove the opposite of what I think you’re trying to prove. Sorry about that.
See, this is a prime example of why these arguments can’t be taken seriously. Death panels a lie in Britain? What is the purpose of NICE? To limit and ration care. Oh, sorry, I failed to quote the government’s propaganda about it’s purpose. Everyone knows that a good media organization always toes the government line. To do otherwise is to lie.
Then there’s the Liverpool Death Pathway:
Now I don’t know if there’s a panel that decides this. I would actually hope so. Be nice if they’d inform the patients and families too when they’ve decided someone’s terminal and aren’t going to try to help them anymore. Nice way to save money though.
**The Liverpool Care Pathway was intended for use in hospices but was given approval by the Department of Health in 2006 leading to widespread use in hospitals. Concerns about the pathway were raised first in The Daily Telegraph in 2009 when experts warned that in some cases patients have been put on the pathway only to recover when their families intervened, leading to questions over how people are judged to be in their “last hours and days”. **
I hope it’s a panel and not just one doctor.
Well, the first sentence is certainly accurate enough.
The point was to show that matters of dispute cannot be settled by just calling one side a liar. Given that accusations of lying are usually done without confirmation that lying is actually occurring, it only serves to expose the accuser as dishonest by their own standard.
What do you call it when one side lies and it can be shown that it lies over and over again?
Bacause that is what this is about no matter how hard you try to handwave it away.
And what happens when you point out the lies and many of them simply aren’t?
The SDMB waves its hands.
Regards,
Shodan
“WOO-HOO! Over here… see the Fox News lies? Warmer… warmer… nope, cold again… warmer… hot! red hot! Burning! Look, if they were a snake, they’d have bit you ten times by now. They are literally right in front of your… no, now you’re looking at the sky. Just point your head forward… okay, good. Now for the love of God, just open your eyes, okay?”
Regards,
The Reality-Based Community
I wasn’t posting a hypothetical-if you can show that they aren’t lies, do it. Enough handwaving, Princess-this isn’t a parade.
Has anyone suggested targeted assassinations and renditions to black sites yet? Because neither have I
How many times did this happen in the ~16 years Fox has been in business? Maybe it was a lie and maybe it was a mistake. If you can prove it was a lie, please proceed. Just flashing it up there proves nothing. News organizations make mistakes all the time.
Not when they have a policy from up high to distort scientific news, and had it for years.
That then leads to just a preponderance of misleading news:
This makes absolutely no sense at all, the opposite is true. As % of GDP, most industrialized countries spend more on those things you listed and considerably less on healthcare. Are you confusing absolute spending vs % of GDP?
Debunking of debunking: How flawed is life expectancy? | The Incidental Economist
More generally, I’m uneasy with AEI citations, as the quality of their work is highly variable: they routinely hand out sinecures for former Republican congressmen for example.
Methinks you misrepresented the evidence on the life expectancy issue, which I would describe as mixed. Here’s a link to a paper that agrees with your POV, done in a more academic setting and reflecting the sorts of qualifications that serious researchers put in their work. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/08/a-new-paper-on-life-expectancy.html
Not offering this as a solution, just an example of how it’s dealt with elsewhere:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-impartiality-news-current-affairs-factual/
etc.
I the US, perhaps enforcement might better be policed by industry self-regulation… legislation being the final - or no kind of - option.
Those are the BBC’s own guidelines. Is the BBC mandated to behave this way by the government? Maybe it is, but the BBC is in a special position of receiving its funding from citizens who are forced to pay for it in order to have a TV at all (no nit-picking about TVs that do not receive broadcast/cable/satellite please). Are there similar rules imposed on other channels, such as ITV? And channels on Sky such as, for example, Fox News?
Regulation of news is about the dumbest idea I can imagine.
Not even strict delineation between news and commentary?