|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I mean, if a significant portion of your population is priced out of said healthcare, that generally falls under 'not so good healthcare outcomes', at least in my understanding of the term. And Danglars, it's not just about life expectancy. The US does very poorly across a number of metrics, particularly in regards to preventable stuff such as maternal birth rate, deaths from asthma, diabetes, and other conditions that are managed with much better outcomes in other advanced economies.
|
On December 02 2020 10:56 Wegandi wrote:
People forget that when they compare the average EU state to the US that's apples and oranges. The average EU state is smaller than most US states and are definitely more homogenous.
That's probably because the EU doesn't have states. Just wagering a guess here.
Nah, just kidding, why would i give you of all people the benefit of the doubt.
The most populated state in the US is california with less than 40mil people. 5 countries in the EU are bigger than that, partially by a big margin.
The US has 52 states, the EU has 27 member countries. The US has a population of 330mil roughly, the EU 450mil, roughly.
Bulgaria with a 7mil population is bigger than most US states, ranked #15 in the EU. The smallest country by population in the top 10 EU is the Czech Republic with slightly over 10mil people. Only 7 states in the US are bigger.
I could go into much more detail, but it's boring now.
https://www.infoplease.com/us/states/state-population-by-rank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_population
TL:DR, complete bullshit claim. Thought i point that out, considering you're pretty lacking in your facts every single time you bring up the EU as a comparison to shitfuckery in the US. You in fact did it earlier as well in regards to HFCS but i can't be arsed to compile the list of errors. Few pointers: the US creates around 5 times the amount compared to the EU after the ban, with a smaller population than the EU, while also being one of the biggest sugar importers in the world. While not banned in the EU, manufacturers rarely use HFCS (or GFS, as it's known here), because the stuff doesn't reach the legal requirements of fructose for soft drinks etc. Amongst other things.
That said: i think it's one of the reasons, but by no means the biggest or even remotely biggest factor for obesity in the US. It's the price of stuff. People simply can't afford good food and are incentivised and conditioned to buy shit food, while manufacturers are conditioned and incentivised to come up with even shittier, even more processed foods.
|
On December 02 2020 12:19 Salazarz wrote:I mean, if a significant portion of your population is priced out of said healthcare, that generally falls under 'not so good healthcare outcomes', at least in my understanding of the term. And Danglars, it's not just about life expectancy. The US does very poorly across a number of metrics, particularly in regards to preventable stuff such as maternal birth rate, deaths from asthma, diabetes, and other conditions that are managed with much better outcomes in other advanced economies.
we are generally in agreement I feel, I have gripes however with a general statement of " it's bad across the board pretty much". maybe should have been clearer what I was objecting to.
and yes overall it leads to bad outcomes when people don't have access to care which under different management of the system and its incentives would be available. it's not like the resources or know how were not there in the US.
just think about it, 5 grand every year per person in the US and comparatively worse results.
that's quite a health care tax. someone should run to lower it, but then again they would have to face idiotic "we have the best system in the world" or "death panels" or whatever else right wing think tanks will come up with this time around...
|
just think about it, 5 grand every year per person in the US and comparatively worse results.
What's that number referring to, and how did you get there?
|
apologies, thought about editing and adding my link from the last page.
In 2018, the U.S. spent nearly twice as much on health per person as comparable countries ($10,637 compared to $5,527 per person, on average).
The largest category of health spending in both the U.S. and comparable countries was spending on inpatient and outpatient care, which includes payments to hospitals, clinics, and physicians for services and fees such as primary care or specialist visits, surgical care, and facility and professional fees (see Methods for more details). Americans spent $6,624 per person on inpatient and outpatient care while comparable countries spent an average of $2,718 per person, a difference of $3,906 per person. Patients in the U.S. have shorter average hospitals stays and fewer physician visits per capita, while many hospital procedures have been shown to have higher prices in the U.S.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/what-drives-health-spending-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/
|
On December 02 2020 12:55 Doublemint wrote:apologies, thought about editing and adding my link from the last page. Show nested quote +In 2018, the U.S. spent nearly twice as much on health per person as comparable countries ($10,637 compared to $5,527 per person, on average).
The largest category of health spending in both the U.S. and comparable countries was spending on inpatient and outpatient care, which includes payments to hospitals, clinics, and physicians for services and fees such as primary care or specialist visits, surgical care, and facility and professional fees (see Methods for more details). Americans spent $6,624 per person on inpatient and outpatient care while comparable countries spent an average of $2,718 per person, a difference of $3,906 per person. Patients in the U.S. have shorter average hospitals stays and fewer physician visits per capita, while many hospital procedures have been shown to have higher prices in the U.S. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/what-drives-health-spending-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/
No worries, i just saw a graph earlier and that number doesn't seem to compare to the numbers stated there.
https://ourworldindata.org/the-link-between-life-expectancy-and-health-spending-us-focus
Interesting pointer though is that the numbers for the US are vastly skewed by the looks, with the top 5% earners being responsible for almost 50% of the health expenditure.
Wasn't criticising, was just curious where the difference came from. But looking at it closer, they do seem to be adding up.
|
yeah they align rather neatly.
though ourworldindata.org mentions the OECD directly as source while the the healthsystemtracker site cites an analysis of the peterson/kaiser family foundation of the oecd data. maybe they added some minor in-house findings there.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Look at that administrative gap, thats almost as telling as any of the other figures.
|
Regarding the quality of healthcare in the U.S., the evidence pretty conclusively shows that the actual healthcare that is provided is second-to-none in the world, but the problem is that the system is horrifically designed and has massive socioeconomic (i.e. money) barriers to accessing said quality care.
Wegandi, the reason that people say that you over-simplify things is perfectly exemplified in the comments about HFCS and how you failed to understand the regulatory framework that limits its use in the EU. Furthermore, as m4ini pointed out, you were wildly incorrect with your comparison between EU nations and U.S. states, and he didn't even touch on how wrong you are concerning diversity; the average American state is probably far less diverse than the average European country. Just think about pretty much every state that isn't on or near an American border; basically the entire middle block of the country is heavily white, with the only notable diversity in any given state concentrated in the most populous urban areas of that state.
As of the 2010 census, almost half of states have at least 80% of their population as white. 14 of those states are at 85% or more. Almost every state outside of California, Texas, Florida, and New York has an immigrant population that is sub-5% of their total population.
Finally, while you are correct that there are many complex factors that result in our healthcare outcomes being so poor, you try to put a large chunk of the blame on "personal responsibility" and try to frame the obesity epidemic as some unexplainable phenomenon. In reality, people mention "capitalism" because American culture has a deep-seated foundation of monetary greed and consumerism being the most base and influential cultural factors (aside from its historically puritanical influence). Even how government structures regulations is based on these capitalist values. Government didn't just come in out of thin air and decide to arbitrarily create an awful healthcare system; they designed this bizarre patchwork of regulations, employer-based health insurance, and other aspects of our healthcare system because there was basically no meaningful system before it and when public pressure forced the government to come up with some types of regulations, private corporations were allowed so much influence in crafting the legislation that the system ended up being designed completely around that capitalist framework.
This is the thing that you consistently miss about government and regulatory function in the U.S. The government itself has largely become a tool of capitalist greed because of the amount of influence that we allow corporations and private (rich) entities to have on the governmental process.
|
On December 02 2020 12:19 Salazarz wrote:I mean, if a significant portion of your population is priced out of said healthcare, that generally falls under 'not so good healthcare outcomes', at least in my understanding of the term. And Danglars, it's not just about life expectancy. The US does very poorly across a number of metrics, particularly in regards to preventable stuff such as maternal birth rate, deaths from asthma, diabetes, and other conditions that are managed with much better outcomes in other advanced economies.
Then, honestly, make an argument about the metrics better traceable to quality of healthcare, and don't give Wegandi grief for making the most obvious point about different countries and different life expectancies. The left gets no special dispensation from using bad evidence to make arguments they believe to be true from other evidence.
|
On December 02 2020 11:48 Danglars wrote:
He isn't the guy breaking down life expectancy as some function of healthcare spending to be compared across different countries.
You may recall articles from earlier this year (Andrew Yang brought it up) talking about how recent changes in life expectancy were related to suicides and drug overdoses. I also doubt other nations are totally homogenous with respect to the US in both of those. And diet and exercise. It's a classic correlation ≠ causation and not including enough explanatory variables (which hitherto I thought our forum was well versed in).
https://ourworldindata.org/us-life-expectancy-low
They did go into all the popular explanations. None of their graphs stretch far enough back though, which is why I asked here about what happened in the 80s to start the trend.
That they plot it against healthcare cost isn't the main point to me. It is what broke the life length trend. The only thing that tells is that spending on health wasn't the reason it didn't continue apace.
|
On December 02 2020 14:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2020 12:19 Salazarz wrote:I mean, if a significant portion of your population is priced out of said healthcare, that generally falls under 'not so good healthcare outcomes', at least in my understanding of the term. And Danglars, it's not just about life expectancy. The US does very poorly across a number of metrics, particularly in regards to preventable stuff such as maternal birth rate, deaths from asthma, diabetes, and other conditions that are managed with much better outcomes in other advanced economies. Then, honestly, make an argument about the metrics better traceable to quality of healthcare, and don't give Wegandi grief for making the most obvious point about different countries and different life expectancies. The left gets no special dispensation from using bad evidence to make arguments they believe to be true from other evidence.
What is this even supposed to mean? Life expectancy is the most common metric used to measure healthcare quality, it's not me and not 'the left' who came up with this idea. And what 'bad evidence' exactly am I using to make arguments? Pretty much all the data available shows one thing -- the US has less favorable healthcare outcomes when compared to similarly advanced economies. Not just on life expectancy, but just about every metric. If you have some 'other evidence' to dispute this, do go ahead and present it, instead of continuously talking about how bad the evidence 'the left' presents is without giving anything of substance of your own.
https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=96018
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/mortality-rates-u-s-compare-countries/
|
On December 02 2020 15:45 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2020 14:46 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2020 12:19 Salazarz wrote:I mean, if a significant portion of your population is priced out of said healthcare, that generally falls under 'not so good healthcare outcomes', at least in my understanding of the term. And Danglars, it's not just about life expectancy. The US does very poorly across a number of metrics, particularly in regards to preventable stuff such as maternal birth rate, deaths from asthma, diabetes, and other conditions that are managed with much better outcomes in other advanced economies. Then, honestly, make an argument about the metrics better traceable to quality of healthcare, and don't give Wegandi grief for making the most obvious point about different countries and different life expectancies. The left gets no special dispensation from using bad evidence to make arguments they believe to be true from other evidence. What is this even supposed to mean? Life expectancy is the most common metric used to measure healthcare quality, it's not me and not 'the left' who came up with this idea. And what 'bad evidence' exactly am I using to make arguments? Pretty much all the data available points shows one thing -- the US has less favorable healthcare outcomes when compared to similarly advanced economies. Not just on life expectancy, but just about every metric. If you have some 'other evidence' to dispute this, do go ahead and present it, instead of continuously talking about how bad the evidence 'the left' presents is without giving anything of substance of your own. https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=96018https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/mortality-rates-u-s-compare-countries/
It’s comparing money spent and life expectancy, not some measure of quality. You’re again drawing on evidence you refer to that weren’t part of the post or the argument about the post, so I must ask what you’re trying to defend and why? Maybe you’d like to drag this into more familiar ground for yourself, but you’d have to admit that the start to this whole path was fucked up in ways Wegandi showed and you still can’t admit.
I would prefer you own up to the topic at hand before asking others to follow you to topics you like much better. Charts should stand and fall on their own usefulness, not what passionate posters feel about the larger topic and all the other (hell, maybe even GOOD) reasons they believe as they do.
|
On December 02 2020 15:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2020 15:45 Salazarz wrote:On December 02 2020 14:46 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2020 12:19 Salazarz wrote:I mean, if a significant portion of your population is priced out of said healthcare, that generally falls under 'not so good healthcare outcomes', at least in my understanding of the term. And Danglars, it's not just about life expectancy. The US does very poorly across a number of metrics, particularly in regards to preventable stuff such as maternal birth rate, deaths from asthma, diabetes, and other conditions that are managed with much better outcomes in other advanced economies. Then, honestly, make an argument about the metrics better traceable to quality of healthcare, and don't give Wegandi grief for making the most obvious point about different countries and different life expectancies. The left gets no special dispensation from using bad evidence to make arguments they believe to be true from other evidence. What is this even supposed to mean? Life expectancy is the most common metric used to measure healthcare quality, it's not me and not 'the left' who came up with this idea. And what 'bad evidence' exactly am I using to make arguments? Pretty much all the data available points shows one thing -- the US has less favorable healthcare outcomes when compared to similarly advanced economies. Not just on life expectancy, but just about every metric. If you have some 'other evidence' to dispute this, do go ahead and present it, instead of continuously talking about how bad the evidence 'the left' presents is without giving anything of substance of your own. https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=96018https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/mortality-rates-u-s-compare-countries/ It’s comparing money spent and life expectancy, not some measure of quality. You’re again drawing on evidence you refer to that weren’t part of the post or the argument about the post, so I must ask what you’re trying to defend and why? Maybe you’d like to drag this into more familiar ground for yourself, but you’d have to admit that the start to this whole path was fucked up in ways Wegandi showed and you still can’t admit. I would prefer you own up to the topic at hand before asking others to follow you to topics you like much better. Charts should stand and fall on their own usefulness, not what passionate posters feel about the larger topic and all the other (hell, maybe even GOOD) reasons they believe as they do.
I think you are focusing on the wrong part. Ignore money spent. Look at outcomes. If the US has a good outcome, then it is good. If it has a bad outcome then it is below average for the developed world.
An easy example. Child mortality is high in the US compared to most developed countries. This is a fact regardless of spending.
My personal comments: If in hospitals you likely have good outcomes. Problem is likely that not everybody ends up there even if needed for births.
Secondly, healthcare spending is probably not the most important part of outcomes. You can spend minimal money outside healthcare and improve the outcomes. Obesity is not combated in the hospitals, if that is your preferred topic. Or Opoids for that matter.
|
On December 02 2020 15:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2020 15:45 Salazarz wrote:On December 02 2020 14:46 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2020 12:19 Salazarz wrote:I mean, if a significant portion of your population is priced out of said healthcare, that generally falls under 'not so good healthcare outcomes', at least in my understanding of the term. And Danglars, it's not just about life expectancy. The US does very poorly across a number of metrics, particularly in regards to preventable stuff such as maternal birth rate, deaths from asthma, diabetes, and other conditions that are managed with much better outcomes in other advanced economies. Then, honestly, make an argument about the metrics better traceable to quality of healthcare, and don't give Wegandi grief for making the most obvious point about different countries and different life expectancies. The left gets no special dispensation from using bad evidence to make arguments they believe to be true from other evidence. What is this even supposed to mean? Life expectancy is the most common metric used to measure healthcare quality, it's not me and not 'the left' who came up with this idea. And what 'bad evidence' exactly am I using to make arguments? Pretty much all the data available points shows one thing -- the US has less favorable healthcare outcomes when compared to similarly advanced economies. Not just on life expectancy, but just about every metric. If you have some 'other evidence' to dispute this, do go ahead and present it, instead of continuously talking about how bad the evidence 'the left' presents is without giving anything of substance of your own. https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=96018https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/mortality-rates-u-s-compare-countries/ It’s comparing money spent and life expectancy, not some measure of quality. You’re again drawing on evidence you refer to that weren’t part of the post or the argument about the post, so I must ask what you’re trying to defend and why? Maybe you’d like to drag this into more familiar ground for yourself, but you’d have to admit that the start to this whole path was fucked up in ways Wegandi showed and you still can’t admit. I would prefer you own up to the topic at hand before asking others to follow you to topics you like much better. Charts should stand and fall on their own usefulness, not what passionate posters feel about the larger topic and all the other (hell, maybe even GOOD) reasons they believe as they do.
I'm sorry, but what? I replied specifically to the part of Wegandi's argument where he claimed that the US has 'generally good healthcare outcomes.' I'm not particularly interested in debating as to why the US has higher obesity rates than the rest of the world and how that influences life expectancy there because I don't think there exist any sufficiently rigorous studies to make a solid and well-supported positions on that question, or at least I am not familiar with any. It's the claim that healthcare in the US is comparable to that of other developed countries that I take issue with, as it simply isn't -- yet you two continue to skirt around the fact that cancer mortality rates aside, the US is way down at the bottom of just about every metric and risk-factor; and is, as far as I can tell, the only country where things are stagnating and even getting worse in the last couple of years rather than continuing to get better if you look at avoidable mortality.
|
On December 02 2020 15:55 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2020 15:53 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2020 15:45 Salazarz wrote:On December 02 2020 14:46 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2020 12:19 Salazarz wrote:I mean, if a significant portion of your population is priced out of said healthcare, that generally falls under 'not so good healthcare outcomes', at least in my understanding of the term. And Danglars, it's not just about life expectancy. The US does very poorly across a number of metrics, particularly in regards to preventable stuff such as maternal birth rate, deaths from asthma, diabetes, and other conditions that are managed with much better outcomes in other advanced economies. Then, honestly, make an argument about the metrics better traceable to quality of healthcare, and don't give Wegandi grief for making the most obvious point about different countries and different life expectancies. The left gets no special dispensation from using bad evidence to make arguments they believe to be true from other evidence. What is this even supposed to mean? Life expectancy is the most common metric used to measure healthcare quality, it's not me and not 'the left' who came up with this idea. And what 'bad evidence' exactly am I using to make arguments? Pretty much all the data available points shows one thing -- the US has less favorable healthcare outcomes when compared to similarly advanced economies. Not just on life expectancy, but just about every metric. If you have some 'other evidence' to dispute this, do go ahead and present it, instead of continuously talking about how bad the evidence 'the left' presents is without giving anything of substance of your own. https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=96018https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/mortality-rates-u-s-compare-countries/ It’s comparing money spent and life expectancy, not some measure of quality. You’re again drawing on evidence you refer to that weren’t part of the post or the argument about the post, so I must ask what you’re trying to defend and why? Maybe you’d like to drag this into more familiar ground for yourself, but you’d have to admit that the start to this whole path was fucked up in ways Wegandi showed and you still can’t admit. I would prefer you own up to the topic at hand before asking others to follow you to topics you like much better. Charts should stand and fall on their own usefulness, not what passionate posters feel about the larger topic and all the other (hell, maybe even GOOD) reasons they believe as they do. I think you are focusing on the wrong part. Ignore money spent. Look at outcomes. If the US has a good outcome, then it is good. If it has a bad outcome then it is below average for the developed world. An easy example. Child mortality is high in the US compared to most developed countries. This is a fact regardless of spending. My personal comments: If in hospitals you likely have good outcomes. Problem is likely that not everybody ends up there even if needed for births. Secondly, healthcare spending is probably not the most important part of outcomes. You can spend minimal money outside healthcare and improve the outcomes. Obesity is not combated in the hospitals, if that is your preferred topic. Or Opoids for that matter.
I didn't actually see a post about child mortality and the links and comments propagating that argument. I was responding to a post about a graph comparing healthcare spending to life expectancy across various countries and certain problems arising from that comparison. If you want to interest me in something else, please advance whatever point and evidence you wish to make from your own choice of foundations. I am uninterested in touching upon fifty different aspects of healthcare outcomes if the first mode of comparison is abandoned and changed immediately upon posting.
On December 02 2020 16:55 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2020 15:53 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2020 15:45 Salazarz wrote:On December 02 2020 14:46 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2020 12:19 Salazarz wrote:I mean, if a significant portion of your population is priced out of said healthcare, that generally falls under 'not so good healthcare outcomes', at least in my understanding of the term. And Danglars, it's not just about life expectancy. The US does very poorly across a number of metrics, particularly in regards to preventable stuff such as maternal birth rate, deaths from asthma, diabetes, and other conditions that are managed with much better outcomes in other advanced economies. Then, honestly, make an argument about the metrics better traceable to quality of healthcare, and don't give Wegandi grief for making the most obvious point about different countries and different life expectancies. The left gets no special dispensation from using bad evidence to make arguments they believe to be true from other evidence. What is this even supposed to mean? Life expectancy is the most common metric used to measure healthcare quality, it's not me and not 'the left' who came up with this idea. And what 'bad evidence' exactly am I using to make arguments? Pretty much all the data available points shows one thing -- the US has less favorable healthcare outcomes when compared to similarly advanced economies. Not just on life expectancy, but just about every metric. If you have some 'other evidence' to dispute this, do go ahead and present it, instead of continuously talking about how bad the evidence 'the left' presents is without giving anything of substance of your own. https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=96018https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/mortality-rates-u-s-compare-countries/ It’s comparing money spent and life expectancy, not some measure of quality. You’re again drawing on evidence you refer to that weren’t part of the post or the argument about the post, so I must ask what you’re trying to defend and why? Maybe you’d like to drag this into more familiar ground for yourself, but you’d have to admit that the start to this whole path was fucked up in ways Wegandi showed and you still can’t admit. I would prefer you own up to the topic at hand before asking others to follow you to topics you like much better. Charts should stand and fall on their own usefulness, not what passionate posters feel about the larger topic and all the other (hell, maybe even GOOD) reasons they believe as they do. I'm sorry, but what? I replied specifically to the part of Wegandi's argument where he claimed that the US has 'generally good healthcare outcomes.' I'm not particularly interested in debating as to why the US has higher obesity rates than the rest of the world and how that influences life expectancy there because I don't think there exist any sufficiently rigorous studies to make a solid and well-supported positions on that question, or at least I am not familiar with any. It's the claim that healthcare in the US is comparable to that of other developed countries that I take issue with, as it simply isn't -- yet you two continue to skirt around the fact that cancer mortality rates aside, the US is way down at the bottom of just about every metric and risk-factor; and is, as far as I can tell, the only country where things are stagnating and even getting worse in the last couple of years rather than continuing to get better.
With all due respect, I don't care what you think about attendant questions on what influences life expectancy among groups of people with widely varied diets, and activities, and rates of obesity, and rates of suicide, and rates of drug abuse. I care about what you wish to prove with data and argument from data. It should be absolutely obvious that different peoples and cultures and values represent large obstacles to predicting between-group outcomes solely based on what they spend on healthcare. I haven't seen any admission of this epistemic gap, aside from your doubt that Wegandi has a valid point. So, why should anyone consider that you wish to debate any metric and risk-factor, if you have no desire to defend any previous metric advanced? You claim my country is the "only country where things are stagnating," but all I can see is that your arguments are stagnant and reliant on ignoring every past argument and relying on hypothetical future validity. I see great evidence that these aren't seriously held or advanced by you.
|
On December 02 2020 16:55 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2020 15:53 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2020 15:45 Salazarz wrote:On December 02 2020 14:46 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2020 12:19 Salazarz wrote:I mean, if a significant portion of your population is priced out of said healthcare, that generally falls under 'not so good healthcare outcomes', at least in my understanding of the term. And Danglars, it's not just about life expectancy. The US does very poorly across a number of metrics, particularly in regards to preventable stuff such as maternal birth rate, deaths from asthma, diabetes, and other conditions that are managed with much better outcomes in other advanced economies. Then, honestly, make an argument about the metrics better traceable to quality of healthcare, and don't give Wegandi grief for making the most obvious point about different countries and different life expectancies. The left gets no special dispensation from using bad evidence to make arguments they believe to be true from other evidence. What is this even supposed to mean? Life expectancy is the most common metric used to measure healthcare quality, it's not me and not 'the left' who came up with this idea. And what 'bad evidence' exactly am I using to make arguments? Pretty much all the data available points shows one thing -- the US has less favorable healthcare outcomes when compared to similarly advanced economies. Not just on life expectancy, but just about every metric. If you have some 'other evidence' to dispute this, do go ahead and present it, instead of continuously talking about how bad the evidence 'the left' presents is without giving anything of substance of your own. https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=96018https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/mortality-rates-u-s-compare-countries/ It’s comparing money spent and life expectancy, not some measure of quality. You’re again drawing on evidence you refer to that weren’t part of the post or the argument about the post, so I must ask what you’re trying to defend and why? Maybe you’d like to drag this into more familiar ground for yourself, but you’d have to admit that the start to this whole path was fucked up in ways Wegandi showed and you still can’t admit. I would prefer you own up to the topic at hand before asking others to follow you to topics you like much better. Charts should stand and fall on their own usefulness, not what passionate posters feel about the larger topic and all the other (hell, maybe even GOOD) reasons they believe as they do. I'm sorry, but what? I replied specifically to the part of Wegandi's argument where he claimed that the US has 'generally good healthcare outcomes.' I'm not particularly interested in debating as to why the US has higher obesity rates than the rest of the world and how that influences life expectancy there because I don't think there exist any sufficiently rigorous studies to make a solid and well-supported positions on that question, or at least I am not familiar with any. It's the claim that healthcare in the US is comparable to that of other developed countries that I take issue with, as it simply isn't -- yet you two continue to skirt around the fact that cancer mortality rates aside, the US is way down at the bottom of just about every metric and risk-factor; and is, as far as I can tell, the only country where things are stagnating and even getting worse in the last couple of years rather than continuing to get better if you look at avoidable mortality.
40% of the country is obese and you think it some indictment of the healthcare system that we have more cardio-vascular and CVA mortality compared to places like Japan who has 4% obesity rates and who have lower caloric intake (which has been shown to improve life expectancy)? None of the data you presented gives incidence / prevalence and expected quality at time of service. It merely gives raw # per capita of mortality for specific categories which is basically...useless information as many comorbid issues are lifestyle and diet choices. How often do people that have a CVA survive when treated within 30 minutes in Germany, compared to the US, compared to Sweden, etc. As far as I am aware the data on this stuff is either too dispersed or is not available and it is this data which will tell you the quality of the health care systems, not the information in your links.
To be honest, I'm surprised the US performs as well as it does in the categories most affected by obesity. (Cardiovascular, Endocrine, and Respiratory)
This was my point to begin with (along with $ =/= life expectancy =/= quality of healthcare services).
|
So basically, no available data is good enough because it runs contrary to your beliefs, and the data that would support your beliefs would definitely be there if someone collected it but nobody did.
|
On December 02 2020 17:36 Salazarz wrote:
So basically, no available data is good enough because it runs contrary to your beliefs, and the data that would support your beliefs would definitely be there if someone collected it but nobody did.
Nothing to do with my beliefs. It has to do with methodology and epistemology. You can't determine the quality of a healthcare system on raw per capita #'s that are heavily influenced by factors outside of the healthcare domain. If anything, you're the one who is manipulating the data to serve your beliefs.
My other point is it is very hard to find and collate this data whereas raw per capita # is easy and thus it is everywhere and basically useless as a method of understanding what I said - how is your data going to inform a person on the quality of care they'll receive status post 30 min CVA in the US compared to Canada compared to Switzerland compared to Japan. You think that is irrelevant?
|
What I think is irrelevant are the mental gymnastics you're going through to justify your worldview when the US is a huge outlier in terms of both healthcare spending and the fact that it's the only developed country in the world without a universal healthcare system. Like, obviously 'quality of healthcare' is more complicated than just life expectancy at birth or any other simple metric. But the US ranks consistently below average on 90%+ of all these simple metrics, while spending significantly more money than average to achieve these sub-par results. It's like, if Harvard graduates had consistently similar or worse earnings than graduates of any other college while paying twice the average tuition fees, you probably wouldn't be saying 'well it's a matter of culture and other outside factors, Harvard's a fine college', you'd be saying Harvard needs to get their shit together.
But again, if you want to believe the US is just a very special place that plays by very special rules and what goes literally everywhere else in the world doesn't apply to the US, that's up to you I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://img.datawrapper.de/D12o7/full.png)
