Political: Moderate, Centrist, and Progressive Thread

[ChristopherHall]

Bishop...go back and read my post...the study I was referring to wasn't the study found in post #113 as you propose. As indicated in post #128 the study I'm currently referring to was released today and can be found in post #s 117 and 121.

Bishop, you're slipping because your stuck on the subject of life expectancy. We are examining far more than that, we're looking at all the factors combined.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by bishopnl

I'm assuming this is the study you are referring to, since it's the only one I saw that was centered around life expectancy. If it's another study, show me which one.

When we surveyed select counties across the world for life expectancy, which was defined as the life expectancy at birth for both sexes, the U.S. fared very poorly.

The U.S. came in 17th, tied with Cyprus, with a life expectancy of 78.0. Here are the countries in the top 17: Japan (81.4); Switzerland (80.6); Sweden (80.6); Australia (80.6); Canada (80.3); Italy (79.9); France (79.9); Spain (79.8); Norway (79.7); Israel (79.6); Greece (79.4); Austria (79.2); New Zealand (79.0); Germany (79.0); U.K. (78.7); Finland (78.7); Cyprus (78.0); and the U.S. (78.0).

In our survey of select countries across the world for infant mortality, which was defined as the number of deaths per 1,000 live births, the U.S. again did poorly.

The U.S. came in 16th, below South Korea, with an infant mortality rate of 6.4. Here are the countries in the top 16: Sweden (2.8); Japan (3.2); Finland (3.5); Norway (3.6); Czech Republic (3.9); France (4.2); Spain (4.3); Denmark (4.5); Austria (4.5); Canada (4.6); Australia (4.6); Portugal (4.9); UK (5.0); New Zealand (5.7); South Korea (6.1); U.S. (6.4).

The next question is whether the U.S. truly spends more than any other country in the world on healthcare. This would indeed indicate a mismanagement of funds budgeted for the healthcare system.

While there may be mitigating circumstances, these would have to be deemed controllable by the most powerful nation on earth.

We then surveyed per capita health expenditures, by country, which was defined as the sum of public and private expenditures, in U.S. dollars, divided by the population. Health expenditure includes the provision of health services (preventive and curative); family planning activities, nutrition activities and emergency aid designated for health, but excludes the provision of water and sanitation.

The U.S. spends $5,711 per person. That's a whopping 33% more the next highest spending country, Norway. Norway spends only $3,809 per person.

Here are the top 27 highest per capita spending countries in the world: U.S. ($5,711); Norway ($3,809); Switzerland ($3,776); Luxembourg ($3,776); Iceland ($3,110); Germany ($3,001); Canada ($2,989); Netherlands ($2,987); France ($2,902); Australia ($2,874); Denmark ($2,762); Sweden ($2,704); Ireland ($2,496); U.K. ($2,389); Austria ($2,306); Italy ($2,266); Japan ($2,244); Finland ($2,108); Greece ($1,997); Israel ($1,911); New Zealand ($1,893); Spain ($1,853); Portugal ($1,791); Slovenia ($1,669); Malta ($1,436); Czech Republic ($1,302).

Finally, If the U.S. truly has the "best health care system in the world" you'd expect it to have the highest number of physicians per 100,000 people. Or else it should be very, very close to the top of the list.

However, this time the results are shocking. The U.S. isn't even on the list of the top thirty countries in the world that have the highest number of physicians per 100,000 people.

These top 30 countries are, by number of physicians to 100,000 people: Cuba (591); Saint Lucia (517); Belarus (455); Belgium (449); Estonia (448); Greece (438); Russian Federation (425); Italy (420); Turkmenistan (418); Georgia (409); Lithuania (397); Israel (382); Uruguay (365); Iceland (362); Switzerland (361); Armenia (359); Bulgaria (356); Azerbaijan (355); Kazakhstan (354); Czech Republic (351); Portugal (342); Austria (338); France (337); Germany (337); Hungary (333); Spain (330); Sweden (328); Lebanon (325); Malta (318); Slovakia (318).

Once again, Chris, you have proven that you don't have a clue in the world what you are talking about. This particular study again points to an average life expectancy at birth in the US of about 78 years. This doesn't contain a lot of details about the methods used, but again, since it falls in line with the WHO study, we have to assume that life expectancy at birth considers all deaths in a population, not just those those from old age or disease. There is NOTHING in this study that supports your assertion. Zip, nada, nothing.

Chris, you asserted earlier that life expectancy rates at birth, per the WHO and any other study that has been cited on here, did not include accidents, homicides, etc. I think I've shown pretty convincingly that it does include those things. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, I'd like an apology for your smug comments earlier.

This is just one reason why I don't want nationalized health care. You're representative of a government employee, but you can't seem to grasp the simplicity of a concept like life expectancy at birth.

The WHO's study (not the rock group) wasn't based on life expectancy. It was based on an examination of health care systems in 190 countries in relation to accessibility, cost, and reported morbidity from preventable conditions. Again the report is over 200 pages long. You may be able to find it on their website. Not sure why you think it's merely about life expectancy. LOL

[bishopnl]

Bishop...go back and read my post...the study I was referring to wasn't the study found in post #113 as you propose. As indicated in post #128 the study I'm currently referring to was released today and can be found in post #s 117 and 121.

Chris,

Neither post #117 nor post #121 deal with life expectancy at birth rates. They deal with amenable mortality or preventable death rates. These are vastly different than life expectancy at birth rates, and the fact that you don't seem to know the difference is a bit scary.

Bishop, you're slipping because your stuck on the subject of life expectancy. We are examining far more than that, we're looking at all the factors combined.

The reason why I'm "stuck" on the subject of life expectancy is because you said, back in post #179: "This has nothing to do with homicide rates bro. The study is perfectly scientific, verifiable, and has been duplicated in other studies conducted by other sources. It is your argument that is fallacious or ignorant at best dear brother. You should know better than this. I suspect you do know better seeing that you have an ideological agenda."

But life expectancy at birth rates (which is what we were discussing at the time) has to do with every kind of death. It has to do with homicide rates, deaths by car accident, etc. So as far back as page 7, you either were not understanding the concept of life expectancy rates, or else you were being dishonest. Either way, if you can't grasp the simplicity of a concept like life expectancy at birth rates, why should I bother to hear you out on anything else?

The WHO's study (not the rock group) wasn't based on life expectancy. It was based on an examination of health care systems in 190 countries in relation to accessibility, cost, and reported morbidity from preventable conditions. Again the report is over 200 pages long. You may be able to find it on their website. Not sure why you think it's merely about life expectancy. LOL

I have said, again and again and again, I KNOW THE STUDY ISN'T BASED SOLELY ON LIFE EXPECTANCY. I know there is more to it than that. But the argument about life expectancy began with the article posted by John Stossel. Stossel points out that life expectancy played a part in how the WHO arrived at their conclusions...and yet, life expectancy has a lot more factors than just health care. Stossel pointed out that the homicide rate is 10x higher here than in Britain. Yet you deny that this has any bearing, because homicide is not factored into life expectancy rates.

Your words were: "I'm discovering that the lock steady conservatives get more goofy with each page of this debate. It's obvious they don't understand how a scientific study comparing samplings of matching demographics work. Homicide and auto-accidents are being considered as factors in a comparable study of matching samplings of between 1,000 and 10,000 adults from other countries compared with that of 1,000 and 10,000 Americans? This is outrageous."

And yet, homicide rates and auto-accidents are factors in studies done by the WHO in life expectancy at birth rates. All deaths are. No, it doesn't settle the issue and mark the overall WHO rankings as worthless...but it does play a part in a better understanding of the WHO study. Instead of acknowledging this, you deny that homicides and auto-accidents are even factors in the study, which is blatantly false, and either represents your lack of knowledge or willingness to be dishonest when putting forth facts and figures to support your argument.

So fess up, Chris. You owe us conservatives an apology.

[MissBrattified]

According to the WHO mortality tables for all registered deaths in Canada and U.S. in 2000, deaths of all causes were around 0.065%(of the population) for Canada, and approx. 0.80% for the U.S. That is actually a fairly large per capita difference, with Canada being the clear winner.

Instead of viewing the tables linked earlier on this thread, look at the "mortality tables", and compare country to country by year. The information is much more detailed and informative.

The problem is, there is not really any way to attribute that success to Canada's health care system. It could be as simple as better eating habits, more exercise, better genetics, lifestyles that include more activity and less tv watching/car riding, etc etc.

Mortality tables and life expectancy tables (at birth or otherwise) do not offer definitive proof of the success of any country's health care system. What would support a health care system would be data that is shown within a single country showing a reduction in that country's mortality rates after a new system has been implemented. That way many of the regional and cultural influences remain the same. Comparing country to country is erroneous in many ways.

The WHO mortality tables DO include death by homicide, suicide and other deaths by unnatural causes/other-than-illness (in the all-causes column), however, it does break it down further to allow examination of each individual statistic, but they are tiresome to look over.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

According to the WHO mortality tables for all registered deaths in Canada and U.S. in 2000, deaths of all causes were around 0.065%(of the population) for Canada, and approx. 0.80% for the U.S. That is actually a fairly large per capita difference, with Canada being the clear winner.

Instead of viewing the tables linked earlier on this thread, look at the "mortality tables", and compare country to country by year. The information is much more detailed and informative.

The problem is, there is not really any way to attribute that success to Canada's health care system. It could be as simple as better eating habits, more exercise, better genetics, lifestyles that include more activity and less tv watching/car riding, etc etc.

Mortality tables and life expectancy tables (at birth or otherwise) do not offer definitive proof of the success of any country's health care system. What would support a health care system would be data that is shown within a single country showing a reduction in that country's mortality rates after a new system has been implemented. That way many of the regional and cultural influences remain the same. Comparing country to country is erroneous in many ways.

The WHO mortality tables DO include death by homicide, suicide and other deaths by unnatural causes/other-than-illness (in the all-causes column), however, it does break it down further to allow examination of each individual statistic, but they are tiresome to look over.

Please share your thoughts on posts #117 and #121. I think the recent study from Britain addresses what you're talking about. Marked differences were found in adjustments, or lack thereof, in each health care systems. Their conclusions would indicate that this is related to health insurance and the health care system.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

The problem is, there is not really any way to attribute that success to Canada's health care system. It could be as simple as better eating habits, more exercise, better genetics, lifestyles that include more activity and less tv watching/car riding, etc etc.

Studies have shown that Americans typically adjust their diets after being diagnosed with a serious health condition by a medical professional. Canadians do eat better and exercise more than Americans. However, they also visit their doctors far more regularly and therefore one has to consider that such regular medical counsel contributes to their health lifestyle choices. Think about it...they visit a doctor maybe twice more than we do. They most likely have a far better picture of their overall health than most Americans. Therefore when their numbers don't look as good as they did last quarter their doctor informs them and they diet and exercise. There is strong evidence that the two are significantly related.

So yes, Canadians may make better lifestyle choices than Americans...but these choices may be influenced by the fact that they see their doctor far more often than most Americans see theirs. Why? Because they can afford it and Americans typically cannot unless they can afford health insurance.

The article about the British study stated:

"It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen. "By focusing on deaths amenable to health care, Nolte and McKee strip out factors such as population and lifestyle differences that are often cited in response to international comparisons showing the U.S. lagging in health outcomes. The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals, and efforts to improve health systems make a difference."

Still no body willing to visit the Canadian thread to actually talk with some Canadians who are willing to comment about this?

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...085#post351085

[ChristopherHall]

Here's a thought I had, and it may sound strange, but I wanted to know your thoughts. Let's assume that in ten years we have a national single-payer health insurance system in the United States. If a Pro-Life President were to get into office...could he cut funding for abortion nation wide and deny funding/payment to doctors and/or medical facilities that provide abortions? If they are largely dependent upon receiving payment from the NHIP (National Health Insurance Program), as they are in other countries, that could be devastating. I know that the President can currently push to cut or restrict federal funding for abortion in regards to military hospitals, international organizations, and Medicare. But the individual state funding and private insurance often prevails in spite of this as it does right now. If we had a national single-payer system, could a Pro-Life President push to completely cut funding for all abortions and financially cripple all abortion clinics in the United States?

[Aquila]

Interesting.