|
On January 09 2011 11:03 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 10:48 Krikkitone wrote:
Actually, the US has higher rates of other things that are contributing to most of those low life expectancies
obesity
teenage pregnancy* significant reason for the high infant mortality
violence
Which indicates that people in the US aren't using their health care to live longer, they are using it to live fatter or have their babies early or live in a violent area (although that last is much less of a choice). This doesn't mean the healthcare is worse, it just isn't producing the same type results. (Like saying an SUV isn't a good buy since it has poor gas milage, or a bike is a poor transportation option because it has poor towing capacity) Tanks for the info. I had not taken that into account. However, with regards to obesity we are quickly catching up to you guys. ^^ Show nested quote +
However, While I Agree that "privatizing" by itself is not a good idea... the key is to break up monopolies, regardless of control by the state or otherwise.
This! Its all about creating frameworks in which markets can actually work the way they are supposed to.
Yes, a big part of the problem is that the healthcare market was not designed for individuals, it was designed with the assumption that you would get healthcare insurance through your job.
However, that causes complications when
changing jobs
or part-time employed
or retired
or self-employed
essentially times that you have money (so a private system should work) but not a Job.
Because there was no good system set up for an individual healthcare insurance market.
Many of those that don't have private care is not because they can't afford it, its because insurance companies won't accept them at all or won't cover some significant condition of theirs.
|
On January 09 2011 11:17 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 11:03 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 09 2011 10:48 Krikkitone wrote:
Actually, the US has higher rates of other things that are contributing to most of those low life expectancies
obesity
teenage pregnancy* significant reason for the high infant mortality
violence
Which indicates that people in the US aren't using their health care to live longer, they are using it to live fatter or have their babies early or live in a violent area (although that last is much less of a choice). This doesn't mean the healthcare is worse, it just isn't producing the same type results. (Like saying an SUV isn't a good buy since it has poor gas milage, or a bike is a poor transportation option because it has poor towing capacity) Tanks for the info. I had not taken that into account. However, with regards to obesity we are quickly catching up to you guys. ^^
However, While I Agree that "privatizing" by itself is not a good idea... the key is to break up monopolies, regardless of control by the state or otherwise.
This! Its all about creating frameworks in which markets can actually work the way they are supposed to. Yes, a big part of the problem is that the healthcare market was not designed for individuals, it was designed with the assumption that you would get healthcare insurance through your job. However, that causes complications when changing jobs or part-time employed or retired or self-employed essentially times that you have money (so a private system should work) but not a Job. Because there was no good system set up for an individual healthcare insurance market. Many of those that don't have private care is not because they can't afford it, its because insurance companies won't accept them at all or won't cover some significant condition of theirs.
I see. That is one of the dilemmas I guess. If you make healthcare mandatory, you force some people into it that to not wish to get insurance, on the other hand you make it avilable to those who would not be accepted by any insurance company.
Do you happen to know how effective and efficient the state-sponsored heathcare progams in the US are, like medicare or heathcare for veterans? Would be intersting to know whsther they are comparable to private healthcare with regards to quality.
|
On January 09 2011 10:41 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 09:18 Mayfly wrote:
1. Praising the medical practise for the increase in life expectancy? Hah hoh heh hih. Try sanitation, lower crime rates, penicillin, and that we can deliver babies without killing them as much now. The differences between life expentancies between countries nowadays has nothing to do with healthcare. Which brings me to my next point:
2. Medical spending has no correlation with health. There's been numerous studies and experiments about this, most notably the RAND experiment by the US government. Results show that extra spending on medicine gives *no* benefits.
There are more important things than medicine for health, like diet and exercise. Food is even necessary to live. But we don't go to a government funded building to eat, but yet we need just that for our healthcare? I would like to see evidence that differences in life expetancy have nothing to do with healthcare. I think that is utter bullshit but I am happy to be convined otherwise by reliable data. Could you link to the source your statement is based on so I can check it? The data I linked above seems to suggests otherwise: unless there is some severe confound, it suggests that there is in fact a strong colletation between healthcare spending and life expectancy. Maybe whjat you say is accurate within the US system. If so, then the study you talk about is pretty meaningless in this context since you talk about a within-system-analysis while I am referring to a between-systems-comparison. Also, the US has an unusually high infant mortality (6.7 out of 1000) compared with other industrialized countries (ranging from 2.6 to 5.0). So even if you use one of the alternative indicators of health-care quality you proposed, the US still scores badly which, again, makes me think you pay too much for too little in return.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/145166 The relationship of mortality of whites to both medical care and environmental variables is examined in a regression analysis across states in 1960. Conclusion: Environmental variables are far more important than medical care.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3350295 The impact of medical care on the quality and length of life Conclusion: An aggregate effect of medical care on life expectancy is found to be roughly five years during this century (Note: of the increase from 45 to 75 years)
http://www.ppge.ufrgs.br/giacomo/arquivos/eco02072/mckinlay-mckinlay-1977.pdf The Questionable Effect of Medical Measureson the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century Conclusion: Analysis of United States data shows that introduction of specific medical measures and expansion of services account for only a fraction of the decline in mortality since 1900.
http://www.amazon.com/Role-Medicine-Dream-Mirage-Nemesis/dp/0691082359 Role of Medicine Conclusion: The growth in population in the industrialized world from the late 1700s to the present was due not to life-saving advancements in the field of medicine or public health, but instead to improvements in overall standards of living, especially diet and nutritional status, resulting from better economic conditions.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/144876 Resources devoted to health Conclusion: None of the treatment variables were significantly related to life expectancy. Data from the United States also suggest a low marginal productivity of medical treatment in terms of life expectancy
----
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10509822?dopt=Citation The impact of public spending on health (on child and infant mortality) Independent variation in public spending explains less than one-seventh of 1% of the observed differences in mortality across countries
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a758521831~tab=linking Health care funding levels and patient outcomes Conclusion: Previous studies find little or no relationship between the availability of health care and health status. Consistent with previous studies, no clear relationship is found in metropolitan areas
http://www.annals.org/content/138/4/288.abstract The Implications of Regional Variations in Medicare Spending Conclusion: Medicare enrollees in higher-spending regions receive more care than those in lower-spending regions but do not have better health outcomes or satisfaction with care.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10654835&dopt=AbstractPlus Associations among hospital capacity, utilization, and mortality of US Medicare beneficiaries Conclusion: Residence in areas of greater hospital capacity is associated with substantially increased use of the hospital, even after controlling for socioeconomic characteristics and illness burden. This increased use provides no detectable mortality benefit.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w6513 Efficiency and Medicare Spending in the Last Six Months of Life Conclusions: (i) Regions providing more intensive care are not gaining net health benefits over regions providing less care, and (ii) allocative inefficiency may be present, in that patients are not necessarily matched with the treatment they prefer.
|
On January 09 2011 16:34 Mayfly wrote: http://www.jstor.org/pss/145166 The relationship of mortality of whites to both medical care and environmental variables is examined in a regression analysis across states in 1960. Conclusion: Environmental variables are far more important than medical care.http://www.jstor.org/pss/3350295 The impact of medical care on the quality and length of life Conclusion: An aggregate effect of medical care on life expectancy is found to be roughly five years during this century (Note: of the increase from 45 to 75 years) http://www.ppge.ufrgs.br/giacomo/arquivos/eco02072/mckinlay-mckinlay-1977.pdf The Questionable Effect of Medical Measureson the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century Conclusion: Analysis of United States data shows that introduction of specific medical measures and expansion of services account for only a fraction of the decline in mortality since 1900.http://www.amazon.com/Role-Medicine-Dream-Mirage-Nemesis/dp/0691082359 Role of Medicine Conclusion: The growth in population in the industrialized world from the late 1700s to the present was due not to life-saving advancements in the field of medicine or public health, but instead to improvements in overall standards of living, especially diet and nutritional status, resulting from better economic conditions.http://www.jstor.org/pss/144876 Resources devoted to health Conclusion: None of the treatment variables were significantly related to life expectancy. Data from the United States also suggest a low marginal productivity of medical treatment in terms of life expectancy---- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10509822?dopt=Citation The impact of public spending on health (on child and infant mortality) Independent variation in public spending explains less than one-seventh of 1% of the observed differences in mortality across countries http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a758521831~tab=linking Health care funding levels and patient outcomes Conclusion: Previous studies find little or no relationship between the availability of health care and health status. Consistent with previous studies, no clear relationship is found in metropolitan areashttp://www.annals.org/content/138/4/288.abstract The Implications of Regional Variations in Medicare Spending Conclusion: Medicare enrollees in higher-spending regions receive more care than those in lower-spending regions but do not have better health outcomes or satisfaction with care.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10654835&dopt=AbstractPlus Associations among hospital capacity, utilization, and mortality of US Medicare beneficiaries Conclusion: Residence in areas of greater hospital capacity is associated with substantially increased use of the hospital, even after controlling for socioeconomic characteristics and illness burden. This increased use provides no detectable mortality benefit.http://www.nber.org/papers/w6513 Efficiency and Medicare Spending in the Last Six Months of Life Conclusions: (i) Regions providing more intensive care are not gaining net health benefits over regions providing less care, and (ii) allocative inefficiency may be present, in that patients are not necessarily matched with the treatment they prefer.
Thanks a lot. The effort is appreciated. I will check them out asap. 
|
On January 09 2011 18:22 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 16:34 Mayfly wrote: http://www.jstor.org/pss/145166 The relationship of mortality of whites to both medical care and environmental variables is examined in a regression analysis across states in 1960. Conclusion: Environmental variables are far more important than medical care.http://www.jstor.org/pss/3350295 The impact of medical care on the quality and length of life Conclusion: An aggregate effect of medical care on life expectancy is found to be roughly five years during this century (Note: of the increase from 45 to 75 years) http://www.ppge.ufrgs.br/giacomo/arquivos/eco02072/mckinlay-mckinlay-1977.pdf The Questionable Effect of Medical Measureson the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century Conclusion: Analysis of United States data shows that introduction of specific medical measures and expansion of services account for only a fraction of the decline in mortality since 1900.http://www.amazon.com/Role-Medicine-Dream-Mirage-Nemesis/dp/0691082359 Role of Medicine Conclusion: The growth in population in the industrialized world from the late 1700s to the present was due not to life-saving advancements in the field of medicine or public health, but instead to improvements in overall standards of living, especially diet and nutritional status, resulting from better economic conditions.http://www.jstor.org/pss/144876 Resources devoted to health Conclusion: None of the treatment variables were significantly related to life expectancy. Data from the United States also suggest a low marginal productivity of medical treatment in terms of life expectancy---- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10509822?dopt=Citation The impact of public spending on health (on child and infant mortality) Independent variation in public spending explains less than one-seventh of 1% of the observed differences in mortality across countries http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a758521831~tab=linking Health care funding levels and patient outcomes Conclusion: Previous studies find little or no relationship between the availability of health care and health status. Consistent with previous studies, no clear relationship is found in metropolitan areashttp://www.annals.org/content/138/4/288.abstract The Implications of Regional Variations in Medicare Spending Conclusion: Medicare enrollees in higher-spending regions receive more care than those in lower-spending regions but do not have better health outcomes or satisfaction with care.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10654835&dopt=AbstractPlus Associations among hospital capacity, utilization, and mortality of US Medicare beneficiaries Conclusion: Residence in areas of greater hospital capacity is associated with substantially increased use of the hospital, even after controlling for socioeconomic characteristics and illness burden. This increased use provides no detectable mortality benefit.http://www.nber.org/papers/w6513 Efficiency and Medicare Spending in the Last Six Months of Life Conclusions: (i) Regions providing more intensive care are not gaining net health benefits over regions providing less care, and (ii) allocative inefficiency may be present, in that patients are not necessarily matched with the treatment they prefer. Thanks a lot. The effort is appreciated. I will check them out asap.
You're welcome. Among more check-it-out-worthy stuff I recommend http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.longman.html
|
On January 08 2011 10:03 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
In fact, capitalism ensures that if a company is being abusive, corrupt, or malicious people will just leave.
That is absolutely wrong. Monsanto is a perfect contradiction to that notion and there are thousands of other examples.
|
Republicans pledge to lower the deficit! They become voted into office!
Republicans increase deficit by extending Bush tax cuts for the wealthy!
Oh ok
|
On January 09 2011 08:24 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Being from what you may know as West Germany I don't get the point - if there is any - in your remark.
Meaning that socializing stuff, by in-large doesn't work. Look at North Korea vs. South Korea, Mainland China vs. Hong Kong, East Germany vs. West Germany, capitalism works better than socialism. You should be glad you're from West Germany.
On January 09 2011 08:24 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Now you are just being a prick. Have I done anything to deserve this insult? We can continue in German if you wish. I promise not to insult you if your german is not perfect.
I didn't actually call you a name, I just made a statement of fact that your English is poor. You just called me a prick. Who's insulting who?
But were there not enough sepcialists who did some math and showed that "Obamacare" would save the US about half a billion dollars a year? Basically offering a state-run alternative forces free-market competitors to lower their prices while maintaining the level of service which leaves cutting profits as the only alternative.
There's actually research on both sides of the argument. I can list you some for the other-side if interested. But, common sense dictates more services from government increases deficits which is a no brainer.
You know, this is the weirdest thing. The numbers I researched show that the US has, by far, the highest healthcare cost as measured in percent of the GDP. I have linked an interesting graph from the respective wikipedia-entry HERE.
What does that have to do with deficit spending? It's been brought up by other forum contributors that the real problem with health-care in the US is the much needed tort-reform. Unfortunately socialized health-care isn't the solution that the US needs. Actually, there's many problems with Obamacare. Many liberals believe that what the government provides is free. It isn't, we pay for it one way or another, and unfortunately the government is grossly inefficient. During a recession we can't afford it.
You probably don't feel the heavy recession that is going in on US right now b/c you live in Germany where they run low deficits and have trade-surpluses. But, right now the biggest problem is not paying for health-care at the moment in the US, it's paying for rent. It's unemployment and underemployment. That's the real reason the Tea-party exists. People are sick of the government spending money we don't have.
|
On January 09 2011 19:13 Barca wrote:
Republicans pledge to lower the deficit! They become voted into office!
Republicans increase deficit by extending Bush tax cuts for the wealthy!
Oh ok
I'll grant you that most Republicans suck like most politicians suck. But, tax cuts don't necessarily mean higher deficits in the long run. In fact, the more money the private sector gets to keep, the more money it can give to the government later on through reinvestment. Why start strangling the goose that lays the golden egg?
Milton Friedman gave a great example of why the people should be able to keep the money and choose where to spend it instead of the government. There are four types of spenders in the world.
1. People who spend money they didn't earn for other people
2. People who spend money they didn't earn for themselves.
3. People who earn money and spend it on themselves.
4. People who earn money and spend it on other people.
The most responsible is obviously 3 & 4 ie the private sector. 1 & 2 leads to irresponsible spending patterns ie Governments.
|
On January 09 2011 19:58 Balthasar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 08:24 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Being from what you may know as West Germany I don't get the point - if there is any - in your remark.
Meaning that socializing stuff, by in-large doesn't work. Look at North Korea vs. South Korea
If you think that North Korea is actually socialist then you're insane. This is probably the favorite fallacious argument that people employ against socialism; pointing to a horrible nation that purports to be socialist but doesn't even come close to the actual definition.
|
Then name me a socialist nation where socialism worked.
I'll give you more examples of failed socialism, China, but it's turning more capitalist everyday because they know socialized markets don't work. I already stated East Germany, but how about the Soviet Union. Shall I go on? Socialism has never worked. The only place where semi-socialism works is where they have a strong private-sector that supports it based on meritocracy and capitalism.
|
On January 09 2011 20:14 Balthasar wrote:
Then name me a socialist nation where socialism worked.
So you admit North Korea is not socialist? That would make what you said earlier false.
I never claimed that there has been such a case. I was merely pointing out that the example you gave was quite dishonest and is a very common tactic.
|
On January 09 2011 20:14 Balthasar wrote:
Then name me a socialist nation where socialism worked.
I'll give you more examples of failed socialism, China, but it's turning more capitalist everyday because they know socialized markets don't work. I already stated East Germany, but how about the Soviet Union. Shall I go on? Socialism has never worked. The only place where semi-socialism works is where they have a strong private-sector that supports it based on meritocracy and capitalism.
You see, the problem is that people have different definitions of socialism. What you refer to as socialist states, most people would call a fascistoid surveillance state. It is charatceristic for the countries you name to have a political elite that has access to luxury and personal liberties while the majority of the people do not. Most poeple here on tl that argue in favor of socialism are in favour of its core principles "equality, justice, solidarity". I, for my part do not know any state that implemented actual socialism, hence it is quite difficult to name one where socialism succeeded.
Edit: no more feeding the troll in this thread.
|
On January 09 2011 20:14 Balthasar wrote:
Then name me a socialist nation where socialism worked.
I'll give you more examples of failed socialism, China, but it's turning more capitalist everyday because they know socialized markets don't work. I already stated East Germany, but how about the Soviet Union. Shall I go on? Socialism has never worked. The only place where semi-socialism works is where they have a strong private-sector that supports it based on meritocracy and capitalism.
There is a slight problem with that request. When looking to a Socialist State, well, there is none. There are examples of attempts to create one, but never has there been a true Socialist State. So asking to give an example of one is simply misleading. And because there has be no true Socialist regime, using China as an example is flawed.
Finally, using that example on face value simply is irresponsible and does not help the topic. The reason for this is simple, You take something that is mimicking a Socialist regime, and you have it mixed with non Socialistic regimes. Now, is it honestly fair to say that the reason for it 'failing' is merely due to it being Socialistic in nature? Or is it possible that because it is in a sense, a lone. And its ventures and means of income (trade, production, etc.) are all reliant on non Socialistic regimes. It would stand to reason that it would inevitably fail at one point.
So your argument would only work if it was accepted that Socialism fails due it the nature of it, and not the outer influences and worldly political regimes.
In the end, I do no think your argument is able to stand on its own. It is far too weak and cannot address the many variables at hand. Also, as there has not been a true, full fledged Socialistic State in history, asking for an example is misleading. I am not arguing for either side of the aisle, just pointing out the weak reasoning I see.
@Electric.Jesus: Curse you, you beat me to it. This is what I get for typing out a long winded post.
|
west germany tried to combine free market and socialism it was called soziale marktwirtschaft.
|
On January 09 2011 21:55 Nilrem wrote:
@Electric.Jesus: Curse you, you beat me to it. This is what I get for typing out a long winded post.
No big deal since your post is much more elaborate. Quality takes time.
|
free market utopianists (aka all of you libertarians): please read this book
![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NETC9QoUL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
http://www.amazon.com/Private-Abuse-Public-Interest-American/dp/0226076431
its only 160 pages and it will explain, with evidence, why a pure free market is retarded. it has a lot to do with allocation of resources and corporate practices getting more corrupt more quickly than you'd expect.
also, life expectancy as a statistic means absolutely nothing. cultural diets and habits (like killing each other) often factor in more to that number than a country's healthcare system, so life expectancy does not reflect quality of healthcare in the slightest. not. in. the. slightest.
|
On January 09 2011 22:29 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:free market utopianists (aka all of you libertarians): please read this book http://www.amazon.com/Private-Abuse-Public-Interest-American/dp/0226076431its only 160 pages and it will explain, with evidence, why a pure free market is retarded. it has a lot to do with allocation of resources and corporate practices getting more corrupt more quickly than you'd expect. also, life expectancy as a statistic means absolutely nothing. cultural diets and habits (like killing each other) often factor in more to that number than a country's healthcare system, so life expectancy does not reflect quality of healthcare in the slightest. not. in. the. slightest.
Seems an interesting book. Do you have any idea what a better idicator of healthcare-quality is? I thought if the WHO uses it, it cannot be that bad, but I am, admittetly, no expert on this topic.
Also, I think there is a clever alternative to a pure free-market approach that I find rather promising, namely libertarian paternalism. You can read about it here:
![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Ti5fSVSJL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1294580456&sr=1-1
basically it is about shaping decision in a way that uninformed people will per default chose what is best for the average joe while still maintaining free choice.
|
On January 06 2011 12:40 jorge_the_awesome wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 12:35 Supamang wrote:On January 06 2011 11:24 t3hwUn wrote:
Wow I love how TL hates on right wingers... I get flamed for being a troll for posting unpopular political opinions elsewhere and then I read this... Fail.
And to get back on topic +1 for no more obama socialist policies. If I wanted to live in Europe I'd move there... the word "socialist" gets thrown around waaaaaay too much. problem with people like you is that all you do is throw around talking points and cover your ears whenever people say anything rational. what has obama done that can be classified as "socialist"? I like how some republicans have even called him a Nazi and a socialist in the same sentence. (not in this article).
The nazi party was a national socialist party ( NSDAP ) what you're thinking about is neo nazi's which is something different again.
Although calling someone a nazi is still something preposterous to do.
|
I liked this one very much. It was infromative without being too technical or boring. The sad thing is that our health system in germany tried to implement preventive programs to support healthy behavior. 1% of the health budget was spent on preventive measure. but since most people abused it to get free massages by physiotherapists, they abandonded the program again. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
