Originally posted by Eladaraccording to the "world factbook" published by the CIA the USA ranks 51st...
I guess the US had the best medical care in the world before Obamacare.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html?countryname=United%20States&countrycode=us®ionCode=noa&rank=51#us
1 edit
Originally posted by PonderableThank you for that link !
according to the "world factbook" published by the CIA the USA ranks 51st...
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html?countryname=United%20States&countrycode=us®ionCode=noa&rank=51#us
I think it's a kick that a lot of the countries on that list where people live 80+ on average are countries where everybody smokes and starts drinking wine & beer when they're 12.
That is awesome news.
Originally posted by PonderableYes, I know, the seeds of fascism had been sown.
Krankenversicherung was instated in 1883...even before Hitlers birth.
This was more or less madatory but with some notable exceptions. All self-employed for example. The peoplenot in the insurance by 2007 where mostly self-employed people who didn't make enough to buy private insurance and where not eligible for "official" insurance. That menas for example artists, philosophers,...
"If you really want to measure health outcomes, the best way to do it is at the point of medical intervention."
Yeah, especially if you specifically want to exclude the people who never get treated because they don't have insurance... 🙄
The article makes a valid but trivial point in saying that life expectancy by itself is not a valid indicator of the quality of health care, but offers no credible alternative. How about infant mortality rate instead? Here's a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
Originally posted by EladarI think it's arrogant and inaccurate to claim that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. The high end US hospitals may be the best in the world, but that does not spread to all people. Other countries have similar or better results at a much lower cost. I'm not a fan of the ACA, but pretending there's not a problem is not the way to get a better solution.
I guess the US had the best medical care in the world before Obamacare.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/
Originally posted by sh76From another site:
I think it's arrogant and inaccurate to claim that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. The high end US hospitals may be the best in the world, but that does not spread to all people. Other countries have similar or better results at a much lower cost. I'm not a fan of the ACA, but pretending there's not a problem is not the way to get a better solution.
when we control for traffic fatalities and homicides, “The US jumps from 15th on the list with a life expectancy of 75.3 to 1st with a life expectancy of 76.9.”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/us_life_expectancy_were_number_1/
Originally posted by EladarYou read it in the NY Times over and over. They complain that the US health care is bad because our life expectancy is not as high as some countries with socialized medicine.
From another site:
[b]when we control for traffic fatalities and homicides, “The US jumps from 15th on the list with a life expectancy of 75.3 to 1st with a life expectancy of 76.9.”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/us_life_expectancy_were_number_1/[/b]
Even without extensive statistical training or other background information, an average intelligence person can see the fallacy of this. But we don't get to write for the NY Times, and their authors keep repeating this fallacy over and over.
The premise of the article in the OP was to do some simple analysis to dispel the myth and show how deceptive a crude study on life expectancy is. The goal was not really to prove the US is number one.
As mentioned, if a country has more young people dying in traffic accidents then probably that should not count against their medical system. If someone dies on impact in a car crash, that is not a bad mark against any medical system. But if someone gets a gash in a car wreck, goes to the hospital and dies of an infection, that is a mark against the medical system.
My gut instinct is that almost any first world country is going to do a great job treating victims of car crashes once they get to the emergency room (or even in the ambulance).
But the original article must have struck a nerve with folks that have an emotional stake in believing the US health care is so bad judging from the responses.
1 edit
Originally posted by techsouthThe study cited and linked in the OP article concludes:
You read it in the NY Times over and over. They complain that the US health care is bad because our life expectancy is not as high as some countries with socialized medicine.
Even without extensive statistical training or other background information, an average intelligence person can see the fallacy of this. But we don't get to write for the NY Time ...[text shortened]... at have an emotional stake in believing the US health care is so bad judging from the responses.
Given lack of precision in available outcome
measures as system performance metrics:
–
Cannot reliably conclude U.S. system performance “on
average” is markedly worse than other large, high-income
nations with diverse populations (a small league)
–
But cannot conclude U.S. system performance is markedly
better either, despite higher levels of spending.
•
Greater variance in access to treatment related to
large uninsured population in U.S. creates a “drag”
on U.S. outcome performance metrics “at the mean.”
http://www.aei.org/files/2006/10/17/20061017_OhsfeldtSchneiderPresentation.pdf
p. 21
Originally posted by EladarThe "other site" cites the same study. I cannot verify their methodology (I briefly browsed through the pdf that was linked in the article), although it is true that homicide rates and traffic accident frequencies are relatively high in the US, which depresses life expectancy rates. Still, it doesn't explain the relatively high infant mortality, which appears to be largely independent from homicide rates and traffic accidents.
From another site:
[b]when we control for traffic fatalities and homicides, “The US jumps from 15th on the list with a life expectancy of 75.3 to 1st with a life expectancy of 76.9.”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/us_life_expectancy_were_number_1/[/b]
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhen controlled for other factors, infant mortality varies by ethnicity and this can account for small differences.
The "other site" cites the same study. I cannot verify their methodology (I briefly browsed through the pdf that was linked in the article), although it is true that homicide rates and traffic accident frequencies are relatively high in the US, which depresses life expectancy rates. Still, it doesn't explain the relatively high infant mortality, which appears to be largely independent from homicide rates and traffic accidents.
Also, I wonder if a mother smoking crack could have an impact on infant mortality.
Nevertheless, if an infant dies in the first year, it lowers overall life expectancy a lot more than if that same infant had died in a car wreck at age 35.
Originally posted by EladarEladar, is this one of your baby pictures?
From another site:
[b]when we control for traffic fatalities and homicides, “The US jumps from 15th on the list with a life expectancy of 75.3 to 1st with a life expectancy of 76.9.”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/us_life_expectancy_were_number_1/[/b]
http://tinyurl.com/nxeuham
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedWould they want to copy our system?
Not if the government is more interested in controlling their society as opposed to helping it. Politicians like power and people like the idea of having someone taking care of them. Combine these two basic desires and you get entire countries of people giving up their freedom for empty promises.
Originally posted by no1marauderAll of the "data" showing the superiority of government health care is cherry picked.
The cancer survival rates mentioned are from data in the 1990s (go to the "Concord" link in the article). And it's cherry picking to simply exclude fatal accidents and other causes of deaths (which is the only way the title of the thread is even arguably true).
At best, the data shows that American get equivalent results at much higher costs.