US dead last in health care

[Bonam]

This isn't a scientific board. It's a board where people express their opinions. You're free to hang on to your doubts, but it's not as if you've scored some major point of argument. The experts are expressing what they took from the data. That's a lot more meaningful than you saying you have no data. If you want to go by hard data, you're limited to saying you have no opinion, since you haven't seen the data yourself. Kind of limits your participation here, doesn't it? I've got guys in the field we're discussing saying they've looked at the data and here's what they think. You've got nothing. I win.

What do you win? You haven't convinced the person you are debating against. I don't see that there's much else to win besides that in a debate like this. And I agree, based on the hard data (or rather the complete lack thereof), there is no real statement to be made.

In the absence of hard data, one can only speculate. My speculation being that with the US having excess capacity that allows those with money to be treated quickly, and many of the world's most advanced medical technologies being developed and deployed in the US most quickly, that health outcomes for the rich are likely to be pretty good. This seems to me like a fairly logical train of thought, though if shown hard data contradicting it I could easily be swayed. But such data does not seem forthcoming.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Bonam

[Canuckistani]

Ah. The articles talk about white middle class people with health insurance having poorer health than their cohorts in other developed countries. It's not just the poor and minorities. That would indicate that the US health system is not performing well, even for those who have access to it. The rich can always buy the very best health care. In any country. So the rich in the US may not do worse than the rich in other countries, likely don't do better either. But if that's what your argument is about, so what?

[waldo]

In the absence of hard data, one can only speculate. My speculation being that with the US having excess capacity that allows those with money to be treated quickly, and many of the world's most advanced medical technologies being developed and deployed in the US most quickly, that health outcomes for the rich are likely to be pretty good. This seems to me like a fairly logical train of thought, though if shown hard data contradicting it I could easily be swayed. But such data does not seem forthcoming.

the OP linked reference offered specific examples of where data was sourced (e.g., the World Health Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). What you're really saying is that not only do you not accept the data, in whole/in part, because you can't "see" the data yourself, you're questioning the sources of the data, the originators of the study, and the sponsors of the study:

... the report/study from the U.S. National Research Council and the U.S. Institute of Medicine... the report/study sponsored by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

most pointedly, it's not the data (you personally can't "see"), that you're particularly questioning, it's the actual processing and analysis of the data you're questioning/challenging... even if you could "see" the data yourself. Most pointedly, you're questioning the work of the doctors, epidemiologists, demographers and other researches charged by the U.S. National Research Council and the U.S. Institute of Medicine to examine and comprehensively compare and analyze the data. Ultimately, given your most recent several like posts, you're suggesting your "scientific chops", relative to your unrelated scientific discipline, better position you to independently review the work of specialists in the related fields.

given your latest specific delineation of the "U.S. rich" and their, as you say, "health outcomes", perhaps... you might give pause to your personal interpretation on "health":

... Apparently, the deflecting deflectors within this thread don't recognize evaluating/measuring/comparing health compromises many avenues... health care, disease, injury, behaviour, underlying social values and economic conditions, public policies, physical environments, etc. Go figure!

[Accountability Now]

diseases don't count? Risk factors don't count?

[/size]

Yes they count. The point of my argument was that you have to be sure you separate our healthiness from the health system. Maybe there is a better way to word it. All I know is that Japan is going to rank lowest in road accidents because no one drives there (they all take subways and trains). Also they have a ban on weapons so they are less likely to die that way.

I agree that the US won't top a list for disease or risk factors but the article you supplied was very broad and I felt was misleading. It's great that you went and supplied all sorts of other evidence from other places but it doesn't change my stance on this article.

Overall I have a problem with all these studies because statistics can prove anything you want. Most studies will be adjusted to get the answers they want because certain lobby groups are paying to see it this way. Remember....if there are as many men as women in our world then we all have one testicle and one boob!

[Canuckistani]

Yes they count. The point of my argument was that you have to be sure you separate our healthiness from the health system. Maybe there is a better way to word it. All I know is that Japan is going to rank lowest in road accidents because no one drives there (they all take subways and trains). Also they have a ban on weapons so they are less likely to die that way.

I agree that the US won't top a list for disease or risk factors but the article you supplied was very broad and I felt was misleading. It's great that you went and supplied all sorts of other evidence from other places but it doesn't change my stance on this article.

Overall I have a problem with all these studies because statistics can prove anything you want. Most studies will be adjusted to get the answers they want because certain lobby groups are paying to see it this way. Remember....if there are as many men as women in our world then we all have one testicle and one boob!

I made the mistake of calling it healthcare in the title. when the article is about health of various nations. Of course healthcare factors into that. But to say that these researchers twisted statistics is just silly on your part.

[Argus]

If one has money, and is in need of substantial health care, I'd much rather be faced with a system with a lot of excess capacity. Someone should do a study comparing health outcomes only for the top 50% of households by income between different countries. Bet the US wouldn't be last anymore.

More like the top 2% maybe. Yes, the rich will get top notch health care. But do we want a system which is designed strictly to benefit the rich while sucking the life blood out of everyone else?

[Accountability Now]

I made the mistake of calling it healthcare in the title. when the article is about health of various nations. Of course healthcare factors into that. But to say that these researchers twisted statistics is just silly on your part.

Hey...go ahead and believe every report out there if you want. Most reports are flawed statistically because they are trying to prove a point. Why is it that everything causes cancer? Are eggs good or bad for you? Are we getting healthier or more sick? You will find stats to prove any of these

[Guest American Woman]

Ah. The articles talk about white middle class people with health insurance having poorer health than their cohorts in other developed countries. It's not just the poor and minorities. That would indicate that the US health system is not performing well, even for those who have access to it.

If that were true, it would completely dispel the argument for national health coverage. After all, if those with health insurance aren't doing any better than those without, .... well, you figure it out.

Again. The researchers include "accidents" and "violence" in their life expectancy figures - and accidents and violence are not indicators of "health." In other words, the the research does not "indicate that the US health system is not performing well, even for those who have access to it," as you claim.

As has been pointed out, it makes sense, for example, that a nation with more cars and more drivers on the road per capita would have more fatal accidents. That has nothing to do with "health," yet it's included in the research determining "health" - making it faulty. Same with "violence," since factors such as income and drug activity, for example, play into it - having nothing to do with "health."

So keeping that in mind, who has the better "health?"

A few years back, Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa

asked the obvious question

: what happens if you remove deaths from fatal injuries from the life expectancy tables? Among the 29 members of the OECD, the U.S. vaults from 19th place to…you guessed it…first. Japan, on the same adjustment, drops from first to ninth.

http://www.forbes.co...ife-expectancy/

As has also been pointed out, there are conflicting statistics, studies, and research out there - and one can basically 'prove' what they are setting out to prove. It's been shown on this board - people will post studies and statistics that refute what's been previously posted, and the response is that it's "biased" - yet bias is in the eye of the beholder. Some will say research on one side is biased while those on the other side say the other research is biased.

The article/research you cited just doesn't say what it/you claim it does.

Edited January 20, 2013 by American Woman

[Canuckistani]

Hey...go ahead and believe every report out there if you want. Most reports are flawed statistically because they are trying to prove a point. Why is it that everything causes cancer? Are eggs good or bad for you? Are we getting healthier or more sick? You will find stats to prove any of these

No, you will find news articles sensationalizing very specific research findings. The research is often done in isolation - ie looks at a specific aspect, ignoring the bigger picture. The media then gets a hold of this and runs with it. In this case, this was a big picture study, and JAMA isn't given to sensationalizing. The researchers themselves, and other expert commentators were surprised that white middle class Americans with insurance were also unhealthier than the same cohort in other countries.

[Accountability Now]

You could be right but I'm tainted by the fact that someone pays for these studies to be done thus an agenda is always in place.

[Canuckistani]

You could be right but I'm tainted by the fact that someone pays for these studies to be done thus an agenda is always in place.

So every study is tainted, we know nothing, since there isn't one study out there that's not paid for by somebody. OK

[Canuckistani]

So every study is tainted, we know nothing, since there isn't one study out there that's not paid for by somebody. Basic physics, all tainted, somebody paid for it? Chemistry, same deal, right? etc.

[Canuckistani]

If that were true, it would completely dispel the argument for national health coverage. After all, if those with health insurance aren't doing any better than those without, .... well, you figure it out.

Again. The researchers include "accidents" and "violence" in their life expectancy figures - and accidents and violence are not indicators of "health." In other words, the the research does not "indicate that the US health system is not performing well, even for those who have access to it," as you claim.

As has been pointed out, it makes sense, for example, that a nation with more cars and more drivers on the road per capita would have more fatal accidents. That has nothing to do with "health," yet it's included in the research determining "health" - making it faulty. Same with "violence," since factors such as income and drug activity, for example, play into it - having nothing to do with "health."

So keeping that in mind, who has the better "health?"

A few years back, Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa

asked the obvious question

: what happens if you remove deaths from fatal injuries from the life expectancy tables? Among the 29 members of the OECD, the U.S. vaults from 19th place to…you guessed it…first. Japan, on the same adjustment, drops from first to ninth.

http://www.forbes.co...ife-expectancy/

As has also been pointed out, there are conflicting statistics, studies, and research out there - and one can basically 'prove' what they are setting out to prove. It's been shown on this board - people will post studies and statistics that refute what's been previously posted, and the response is that it's "biased" - yet bias is in the eye of the beholder. Some will say research on one side is biased while those on the other side say the other research is biased.

The article/research you cited just doesn't say what it/you claim it does.

Given the racial and ethnic diversity of the country, might the US health disadvantage reflect the profound health disparities and socioeconomic disadvantages that affect low-income and minority racial/ethnic populations? The data reviewed by the NRC/IOM panel indicate that the US health disadvantage is more pronounced among vulnerable populations, but it also can be found among more privileged groups. Even non-Hispanic white adults or those with health insurance, a college education, high incomes, or healthy behaviors appear to be in worse health (eg, higher infant mortality, higher rates of chronic diseases, lower life expectancy) in the United States than in other high-income countries.^{1,7- 8}

http://jama.jamanetw...6967#qundefined

Edited January 20, 2013 by Canuckistani

[Accountability Now]

So every study is tainted, we know nothing, since there isn't one study out there that's not paid for by somebody. OK

Holy crap! Whine much? All I'm saying is you have to been suspicious of the agenda behind the study. I do believe there are people that have good intentions but there are a lot of studies founded on poor agendas. If you don't believe that then please tell me what world you live in because it must be heavenly there.

[Canuckistani]

The report was prepared by a panel of doctors, epidemiologists, demographers, and other researchers charged by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine to better understand Americans' comparative health.

What was their agenda? Seems to me you're the one with an agenda who doesn't want to accept the findings of this study.

[waldo]

All I'm saying is you have to been suspicious of the agenda behind the study.

and the agenda, you claim, of those creating and sponsoring the study would be... what?

[Canuckistani]

and the agenda, you claim, of those creating and sponsoring the study would be... what?

It's obvious:

What do we do about all this? Yes, lots more research, to ferret out the effects of our current policies and what alternatives might work better, the panelists said. Meanwhile, they concluded that we already have enough evidence to act.

They're just featherbedding.

Also, they're a bunch of commie pinkos:

Here's the rub. Reading through the panel's suggested solutions, it's impossible not to notice that a number of these involve public money and policy, and so would have to get through Congress. Many of the core recommendations read like the House Republicans' hit list: affordable health insurance for everyone, programs to encourage healthier behavior (read: nanny state), a stronger public safety net for people in poverty. There's even a hint of gun control.

[Accountability Now]

Have you guys heard about the Obamacare thing at all? Have you seen the division it has caused in the US? You don't think someone with a Pro-Obamacare stance COULD have an agenda to get their point across? I put could in bold because I'm not saying they are...I'm saying they could. I'm also not saying the US system is not suffering. Just saying to look deeper. But go ahead and believe what you want but I'm a little more skeptical because there is always an agenda!

[Canuckistani]

Hey...go ahead and believe every report out there if you want. Most reports are flawed statistically because they are trying to prove a point.

Do you have some non-flawed statistics to back that up?

[Canuckistani]

Have you guys heard about the Obamacare thing at all? Have you seen the division it has caused in the US? You don't think someone with a Pro-Obamacare stance COULD have an agenda to get their point across? I put could in bold because I'm not saying they are...I'm saying they could. I'm also not saying the US system is not suffering. Just saying to look deeper. But go ahead and believe what you want but I'm a little more skeptical because there is always an agenda!

So the National Research Council has a pro Obamacare agenda.

You seem to be the one with an agenda here.

[Accountability Now]

What's my agenda? Telling people to think deeper? Not accept things on face value. Yup...that's one hell of an agenda.

Your agenda is to ensure everyone completely agrees with you or else!

[waldo]

What's my agenda? Telling people to think deeper? Not accept things on face value. Yup...that's one hell of an agenda.

Your agenda is to ensure everyone completely agrees with you or else!

perhaps you simply don't know of the U.S. National Academies... its makeup... its mandate... its claimed/accepted independence and objectivity. Other than your agenda ramblings, you've offered nothing of your own described interpretive "deep thinking".

[Accountability Now]

perhaps you simply don't know of the U.S. National Academies... its makeup... its mandate... its claimed/accepted independence and objectivity. Other than your agenda ramblings, you've offered nothing of your own described interpretive "deep thinking".

My own thoughts were that I don't agree with having the road deaths and violence reflect on how we evaluate health.

What have you contributed besides throwing comments from the peanut gallery?

[waldo]

My own thoughts were that I don't agree with having the road deaths and violence reflect on how we evaluate health.

no - your "own thoughts" devolved into outright and unfounded challenge of the study... based on nothing more than the most speculative and bias inferring agenda labeling of the authors, its creating organizations and its sponsoring organizations.

What have you contributed besides throwing comments from the peanut gallery?

huh! Peanut gallery??? Compared to you I've been considerably more engaged, most particularly (and repeatedly) challenging the usual suspect deflectors with a (also repeated) reminder as to what health comprises. Here, have another:

It is unfortunate you were met by such prolific deflecting deflector responses. Apparently... the deflecting deflectors are loath to actually read the report. You know... the report/study from the U.S. National Research Council and the U.S. Institute of Medicine... the report/study sponsored by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The report/study that compared the U.S. to 16 peer nations -- affluent democracies that include Australia, Canada, Japan, and many western European countries.

The report/study that concludes there is a comparable U.S. health disadvantage relative to these other world's rich nations. The report/study that shows that the unfavourable U.S. health comparison exists across all ages of the U.S. citizenry - from birth to age 75. The report/study that finds the conclusion also applies to advantaged Americans; those with health insurance, college educations, higher incomes, and healthy behaviors -- that these advantaged Americans appear to be sicker than their peers in other rich nations. The report/study that concludes that the U.S. is at or near the bottom in nine key areas of health: infant mortality and low birth weight; obesity and diabetes; heart disease; chronic lung disease; disability; injuries and homicides; teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections; prevalence of HIV and AIDS and drug-related deaths.

Apparently, the deflecting deflectors within this thread don't recognize evaluating/measuring/comparing health compromises many avenues... health care, disease, injury, behaviour, underlying social values and economic conditions, public policies, physical environments, etc. Go figure!

[bush_cheney2004]

....You seem to be the one with an agenda here.

No, it appears that you have a very pointed agenda with regards to U.S. "healthcare" and other issues. By your own admission, you purposely conflated "health" with "healthcare".