I particularly like the data on the amounts spent and the best places to get treated for certain cancers. Apparently, if you’re a man, you want your colo-rectal cancer treated in Japan.
Can we all play or is this a spectator sport?
Folks like you have been playing it for years.
Among Jim’s possible “rebuttals”:
This is a Hoover Institution publication. What does an organization devoted to the study of vacuum cleaners know about health care?
46 million Americans are uninsured. Therefore, when they get sick, they never get well — they just get more sick until they shrivel and die.
Only KKKOnservatives in AmeriKKKa cherrypick statistics. There is just NO WAY that a Canadian or European state-run health care bureaucracy would cherrypick statistics, fabricate them, or skew its sampling methods or criteria to come up with an outcome that makes the bureaucrat look good.
/snark off
In all fairness to Jim, he may well develop substantive critiques of the claims (other than merely counter-assertions).
Also, Daveon, the article supports the hypothesis that health outcomes are better in the US than in the state-run British health bureaucracy.
Substantially so, on some pretty popuularized cancers. The breast cancer one was particularly sobering.
Which leads me to wonder… have you stopped hating women yet?
I’d add that the profit driven health care system in the US, so derided by the deformers, is responsible for developing many of the advances in medical treatment we see. The most rapid advances appear to be in areas not yet under the domination of 3rd party payers. So the US health care system under assault is responsible for improvements in care even where market freedoms are more suppressed.
Those great reasons, but the most important reason we don’t need government run health care goes to why we need massive government at every level. Our country needs to return to a system of thinking and runningb things from the standpoint of, “We the People”, and get away from the current thinking of, “They our Bureaucrats”.
It has to stop, and this is a good time to steal back, vote back and DEMAND back our country, and our rights.
Ok, lets take these one by one:
1. This one is flatly dishonest (and was labelled as such when Rudy Guliani used a similar claim in TV ads last year). Five year survival rates are a very poor tool for evaluating the effectiveness of cancer treatment, because in different cases the clock starts ticking at different times. Imagine two men who develop prostate cancer in 2000. One gets diagnosed in 2001, the other gets diagnosed 2004. Both die in 2007. The first one’s treatment will be considered successful, because the patient lived 6 years after diagnosis; the second one’s a failure, because he only lived 3. But in fact the treatments were equally ineffective.
The U.S. puts a higher priority on early diagnosis of breast, prostate, and colon cancer. That inflates survival rates, whether the early detection actually did any good or not. And it means that millions of people receive an unnecessary cancer diagnosis: one for a cancer that would never have produced symptoms, but which will now be treated (with various side effects), simply because it’s been detected.
For more on this question, see Gil Welch’s “Should I Be Tested For Cancer?”
Finally, this claim (like most of the Hoover claims) cherry-picks countries/disease pairs to compare ourselves too. France has better cancer survival rates that the U.S. — their health care system automatically pays for any cancer treatment, even experimental ones — so they aren’t mentioned.
2. Yes, but overall Canadian health is better.
3. We give lots of people statin drugs, but our death rates from heart disease are worse. Statistics like this miss the forest for the trees.
4. Most of the screening tests mentioned (e.g. PSA tests and colonoscopies) have not been shown to reduce mortality. See #1.
5. This is an argument for government-run single-payer health care: those low-income American seniors are getting their coverage from Medicare. Let’s let everyone get Medicare!
6. This point only mentions England and Canada, and not the dozen socialized health systems that have less waiting than the U.S.
7. U.S. citizens rate the U.S. health care system lower than any peer nation.
8. 51% satisfaction in one’s own health care may be better than what Canadians feel, but is that really very good? How do we compare to the French? Germans? Danes? Swiss?
9. New technology is great, but if you can’t turn it into better overall health, what’s the point?
10. We do develop great medical innovations. We don’t translate them into high-quality, affordable health care for all our citizens. Instead, our rate of medically-preventable mortality is so much higher than France’s, we are losing 75,000-100,000 lives a year that would be saved if our system was as effective as the French one. Google “Measuring the Health of Nations” for details. And the gap between the U.S. and other nations is growing.
Well, we can always depend on “Jim” do defend the indefensible.
Imagine two men who develop prostate cancer in 2000. One gets diagnosed in 2001, the other gets diagnosed 2004. Both die in 2007. The first one’s treatment will be considered successful, because the patient lived 6 years after diagnosis; the second one’s a failure, because he only lived 3. But in fact the treatments were equally ineffective.
This strawman is ineffective.
Is it just me or is Jim’s answers gettin’ lazier every since we took him to the vet and had him fixed?
Are you really so stupid you can’t fingure that out?
Please stop pissing down our backs and telling us it is raining. That straw argument was stunningly retarded.
“And it means that millions of people receive an unnecessary cancer diagnosis”
Only a far left nanny state I’ll tell you what you need and what you need to know Socialist could write that with a straight face.
“And it means that millions of people receive an unnecessary cancer diagnosis”
I agree. It is almost as if Jim’s true purpose is to discredit the left with retarded defications like that. That sentence is simply mind-blowingly astounding stupid, devoid of any and all higher though processes and possessing not a scintillia of logic.
I have a hard time believing Jim is really that stupid, it is almost as if he is an agent provocacteur.
“New technology is great, but if you can’t turn it into better overall health, what’s the point?”
“We do develop great medical innovations. We don’t translate them into high-quality, affordable health care for all our citizens.”
Are you freakin’ kidding me? THAT is your beef? Not all medical innovations become inexpensive and “high-quality” (however Jim defines it).
So… medicine is supposed to be unique, in that all its innovations MUST be inexpensive to everyone, and (presumably) hugely effective in the vast majority of cases, or else it isn’t worth it.
If we apply this rationale to, say automotive electronics, then things like cruise control (which started out available only to the wealthy early adopters) would never had gotten less expensive.
NEWS FLASH: Innovations typically start as being effective for narrow circumstances, expensive, and experimental. Over time, they become more broadly applicable, or more effective, or less expensive, or some combination of the above. This is a gradual development. They are not Promethean, in that they don’t spring fully formed from the head of Zeus. Incremental changes, etc.
Personal point: Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) started out being expensive, effective for a small subset of depression cases, and had broad and unwelcome side effects. In the 30 years or so since they entered the market, they have proliferated in number and focus, so they have become more broadly applicable and effective, and their patents have expired, so they have become less expensive.
If your criteria had been in place, they would never have come to market, and I would have remained a much more limited person than I am now.
Jim, I can’t decide if you are an agent provocateur, or sincere and blindered undergrad regurgitating something from your “Theoretics of Leftist Twittery” class.
This one is flatly dishonest Yes Jim, yes you are.
“Yes, but overall Canadian health is better.”
Canadians have access to both socialized Canadian and non-socialized American health service providers. What happens to overall Canadian health if the latter disappears?
Is there a health care system, public or private, that can help Jim after his daily evisceration?
Gauging successful health care doesn’t have to always be about the life threatening illness. Consider people that want something so innocent like a face cream to treat acne. In a socialized system it is not uncommon to have to wait 4 months for a doctors visit that lasts all of about 5 minutes. Then, you have to hope that what the doctor prescribed actually works. Otherwise, you start all over again.
For us in America this is silly to wait so long for something so simple. In a socialized system they turn this on its head and make simple things as time consuming and complicated as possible.
You don’t know what you’ll miss till it’s missing.
You know, if you do just a little bit of digging on the cancer survival rates, you start finding out it ain’t as simple as the Hoover article makes it out. From WebMD:
1) The US, Japan and France (2 “socialized”, 1 not) all have the highest rates for cancer survival.
2) Those same survival rates vary significantly by type of cancer.
3) Their are significant variations in survival rates in the US by state. For example, Hawaii does very well, New York does not.
4) Race is a critical factor. Blacks have lower survival rates then whites regardless of what state they live in.
In short, there is a lot of variability in cancer survival statistics. Relying on that one data point is not helpful.
From Gerrib’s strawmen:
1) So apparently we don’t need to be socialized.
2) As noted in the Hoover article.
3) Same can be said about life expectancy numbers within the US, which is just one reason it is idiotic to compare the US to Andorra.
4) Same can be said about life expectancy numbers within the US, which is just one reason it is idiotic to compare the US to Andorra.
In short, you have debunked many of the arguments you, Gerrib, provided last week.
No, Leland, you haven’t debunked squat. Using specific cancer survival statistics to argue “socialized medicine” is bad doesn’t work. Which is what (in part) the Hoover article was trying to do.
What does work is looking at:
1) Overall life expectancy (we’re #30, behind every major industrialized country) – not even mentioned in the Hoover article.
2) Cost per unit measure (percent of GDP or per capita) to achieve those life expectancy numbers. There we’re #1. That’s not even mentioned in the Hoover article
3) Whether people who are sick can get health care. In most industrialized countries, that’s not even an issue. Obviously not so in America. A fact not mentioned in the Hoover article.
I find the Hoover article lacking in relevant facts. It’s almost as bad as discussing Hoover’s presidency without mentioning the Great Depression.
Would all of you who want government controlled medical care PLEASE find a country, with climate like where you live now, and MOVE THERE.
This is a country where the government isn’t SUPPOSED to run anything. I know they already do, but adding to it, doesn’t solve ANYTHING.
Move, please.
“1) Overall life expectancy (we’re #30, behind every major industrialized country) – not even mentioned in the Hoover article.”
And what you fail to mention is thye don’t treat infant mortality the same way we do so your comparison is bogus.
If we attempt to save an extreme preemie and fail it is considered infant mortality. In Europe, they lack the ability to do so partially and on the other hand they do not count those deaths as mortalitys.
The US is penalized for trying to save lives that would not count as deaths if they had simply allowed the mother to miscarry.
Apples Vs. Oranges.
Mike Puckett – I haven’t heard that argument.
There are about 300 million people in the US, and yes infant mortality can really skew a life expectancy number. Still, are we really loosing that many babies to account for a two-year spread? Maybe we are, but I’d like to see some hard numbers.
Those kind of numbers are not in the Hoover article.
Still, are we really loosing that many babies to account for a two-year spread?
Are you really so stupid you can’t fingure that out?
Some very smart people aren’t as sure as you are about this, so like real scientists they actually ran studies. They looked at people who had PSA tests and people who didn’t, and people who had colonoscopies and people who didn’t. And so far they have not found any evidence that testing, which leads to early detection, is actually saving lives.
For much, much more about this, read “Should I Be Tested For Cancer?” by Gilbert Welch.
So… medicine is supposed to be unique, in that all its innovations MUST be inexpensive to everyone, and (presumably) hugely effective in the vast majority of cases, or else it isn’t worth it.
I never said anything like that. But if forced to choose between an innovative system that delivers mediocre results, and a less innovative system that delivers good results, I’ll take the latter. Innovation is a means to an end; it isn’t the end itself.
if forced to choose between an innovative system that delivers mediocre results, and a less innovative system that delivers good results, I’ll take the latter.
Ah, a false choice. Not a new fallacy for Jim, but rather, a common one.
“And it means that millions of people receive an unnecessary cancer diagnosis”
Only a far left nanny state I’ll tell you what you need and what you need to know Socialist could write that with a straight face.
If you autopsy people who died of other causes, you will frequently find evidence of cancer — cancer that never caused any symptoms, and had nothing to do with the patient’s death. Do you think it really would have helped those people to know that they had cancer? Would their lives have been improved by worrying that it was going to kill them, spending time in chemo, losing their hair, vomiting, having radiation treatment, recovering from surgery, perhaps dying sooner from treatment complications?
In a socialized system it is not uncommon to have to wait 4 months for a doctors visit that lasts all of about 5 minutes.
Ah, argument by anecdote. Do you know that in most socialized systems patients have shorter waiting times than in the U.S.? There’s more to the world than Canada and the U.K.
For us in America this is silly to wait so long for something so simple.
It is silly, but we do it anyway. I’ve been quoted 6 month waiting times to see a doctor in my insurance’s “network.” In the last ten years I have never seen an attending internal medicine doctor, only residents and physician’s assistants. If I wanted to see an attending, I’d have to wait.
All the horror stories that people trot out about socialized medicine — waiting lists, rationing, lack of access to desired doctors and treatments — are here already. We just pay more and get worse results.
If you autopsy people who died of other causes, you will frequently find evidence of cancer — cancer that never caused any symptoms, and had nothing to do with the patient’s death. Do you think it really would have helped those people to know that they had cancer? Would their lives have been improved by worrying that it was going to kill them, spending time in chemo, losing their hair, vomiting, having radiation treatment, recovering from surgery, perhaps dying sooner from treatment complications?
No.
Do you have any more straw men?
No, Leland, you haven’t debunked squat.
I didn’t. You did. All I did was substitute mortality rates with life expectancy, as life expectancy is just a prediction based on mortality rates.
There is a difference though. Life expectancy takes into account all causes of death. That includes suicide, murder, accidental death. Mortality rates look at specific causes of death. So when socialist use life expectancy to argue that US health care is worse than UK’s health care; they should be using age adjusted mortality rates which can compare apples to apples on specific illnesses or causes of death. In other words, who is better at preserving life from illnesses like cancer or heart disease or the flu. When you compare life expectancy, you are comparing all sorts of factors that don’t necessarily have to do with health. It certainly doesn’t make sense to compare the US life expectancy to the life expectancy of a small landlocked resort community and claim the latter has better healthcare.
Ah, argument by anecdote.
Geez Jim, can you be any more obvious in your hypocrisy? At least Josh didn’t say “Imagine that people wait longer in socialized countries than the US” and then proceed to flog his own imagination; AS YOU DID, Jim.
And don’t ask him to cite evidence for his claim; you haven’t provided any citations.
I have to admit, of all the trolls in the history of this board, Jim’s line of reasoning, if you can call it that, it the most consistantly weak and self-contradicting.
I once said that internal consistancy is the hallmark of competence.
I still use that yardstick to measure myself and others.
Mike,
There have been trolls with worse. Rand eventually banned them.
Squidward wasn’t that lame. More trollsome, yes, more psychotic, yes. Lame, no.
Ooohhhhh!!! The cherry pick data points to support my world view game! Weeee!!!!! Can we all play or is this a spectator sport?
Here’s a link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm
I particularly like the data on the amounts spent and the best places to get treated for certain cancers. Apparently, if you’re a man, you want your colo-rectal cancer treated in Japan.
Can we all play or is this a spectator sport?
Folks like you have been playing it for years.
Among Jim’s possible “rebuttals”:
This is a Hoover Institution publication. What does an organization devoted to the study of vacuum cleaners know about health care?
46 million Americans are uninsured. Therefore, when they get sick, they never get well — they just get more sick until they shrivel and die.
Only KKKOnservatives in AmeriKKKa cherrypick statistics. There is just NO WAY that a Canadian or European state-run health care bureaucracy would cherrypick statistics, fabricate them, or skew its sampling methods or criteria to come up with an outcome that makes the bureaucrat look good.
/snark off
In all fairness to Jim, he may well develop substantive critiques of the claims (other than merely counter-assertions).
Also, Daveon, the article supports the hypothesis that health outcomes are better in the US than in the state-run British health bureaucracy.
Substantially so, on some pretty popuularized cancers. The breast cancer one was particularly sobering.
Which leads me to wonder… have you stopped hating women yet?
I’d add that the profit driven health care system in the US, so derided by the deformers, is responsible for developing many of the advances in medical treatment we see. The most rapid advances appear to be in areas not yet under the domination of 3rd party payers. So the US health care system under assault is responsible for improvements in care even where market freedoms are more suppressed.
Those great reasons, but the most important reason we don’t need government run health care goes to why we need massive government at every level. Our country needs to return to a system of thinking and runningb things from the standpoint of, “We the People”, and get away from the current thinking of, “They our Bureaucrats”.
It has to stop, and this is a good time to steal back, vote back and DEMAND back our country, and our rights.
Ok, lets take these one by one:
1. This one is flatly dishonest (and was labelled as such when Rudy Guliani used a similar claim in TV ads last year). Five year survival rates are a very poor tool for evaluating the effectiveness of cancer treatment, because in different cases the clock starts ticking at different times. Imagine two men who develop prostate cancer in 2000. One gets diagnosed in 2001, the other gets diagnosed 2004. Both die in 2007. The first one’s treatment will be considered successful, because the patient lived 6 years after diagnosis; the second one’s a failure, because he only lived 3. But in fact the treatments were equally ineffective.
The U.S. puts a higher priority on early diagnosis of breast, prostate, and colon cancer. That inflates survival rates, whether the early detection actually did any good or not. And it means that millions of people receive an unnecessary cancer diagnosis: one for a cancer that would never have produced symptoms, but which will now be treated (with various side effects), simply because it’s been detected.
For more on this question, see Gil Welch’s “Should I Be Tested For Cancer?”
Finally, this claim (like most of the Hoover claims) cherry-picks countries/disease pairs to compare ourselves too. France has better cancer survival rates that the U.S. — their health care system automatically pays for any cancer treatment, even experimental ones — so they aren’t mentioned.
2. Yes, but overall Canadian health is better.
3. We give lots of people statin drugs, but our death rates from heart disease are worse. Statistics like this miss the forest for the trees.
4. Most of the screening tests mentioned (e.g. PSA tests and colonoscopies) have not been shown to reduce mortality. See #1.
5. This is an argument for government-run single-payer health care: those low-income American seniors are getting their coverage from Medicare. Let’s let everyone get Medicare!
6. This point only mentions England and Canada, and not the dozen socialized health systems that have less waiting than the U.S.
7. U.S. citizens rate the U.S. health care system lower than any peer nation.
8. 51% satisfaction in one’s own health care may be better than what Canadians feel, but is that really very good? How do we compare to the French? Germans? Danes? Swiss?
9. New technology is great, but if you can’t turn it into better overall health, what’s the point?
10. We do develop great medical innovations. We don’t translate them into high-quality, affordable health care for all our citizens. Instead, our rate of medically-preventable mortality is so much higher than France’s, we are losing 75,000-100,000 lives a year that would be saved if our system was as effective as the French one. Google “Measuring the Health of Nations” for details. And the gap between the U.S. and other nations is growing.
Well, we can always depend on “Jim” do defend the indefensible.
Imagine two men who develop prostate cancer in 2000. One gets diagnosed in 2001, the other gets diagnosed 2004. Both die in 2007. The first one’s treatment will be considered successful, because the patient lived 6 years after diagnosis; the second one’s a failure, because he only lived 3. But in fact the treatments were equally ineffective.
This strawman is ineffective.
Is it just me or is Jim’s answers gettin’ lazier every since we took him to the vet and had him fixed?
Hey Jim, earlier detection=earlier treatment=higher cure rate.
Are you really so stupid you can’t fingure that out?
Please stop pissing down our backs and telling us it is raining. That straw argument was stunningly retarded.
“And it means that millions of people receive an unnecessary cancer diagnosis”
Only a far left nanny state I’ll tell you what you need and what you need to know Socialist could write that with a straight face.
“And it means that millions of people receive an unnecessary cancer diagnosis”
I agree. It is almost as if Jim’s true purpose is to discredit the left with retarded defications like that. That sentence is simply mind-blowingly astounding stupid, devoid of any and all higher though processes and possessing not a scintillia of logic.
I have a hard time believing Jim is really that stupid, it is almost as if he is an agent provocacteur.
“New technology is great, but if you can’t turn it into better overall health, what’s the point?”
“We do develop great medical innovations. We don’t translate them into high-quality, affordable health care for all our citizens.”
Are you freakin’ kidding me? THAT is your beef? Not all medical innovations become inexpensive and “high-quality” (however Jim defines it).
So… medicine is supposed to be unique, in that all its innovations MUST be inexpensive to everyone, and (presumably) hugely effective in the vast majority of cases, or else it isn’t worth it.
If we apply this rationale to, say automotive electronics, then things like cruise control (which started out available only to the wealthy early adopters) would never had gotten less expensive.
NEWS FLASH: Innovations typically start as being effective for narrow circumstances, expensive, and experimental. Over time, they become more broadly applicable, or more effective, or less expensive, or some combination of the above. This is a gradual development. They are not Promethean, in that they don’t spring fully formed from the head of Zeus. Incremental changes, etc.
Personal point: Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) started out being expensive, effective for a small subset of depression cases, and had broad and unwelcome side effects. In the 30 years or so since they entered the market, they have proliferated in number and focus, so they have become more broadly applicable and effective, and their patents have expired, so they have become less expensive.
If your criteria had been in place, they would never have come to market, and I would have remained a much more limited person than I am now.
Jim, I can’t decide if you are an agent provocateur, or sincere and blindered undergrad regurgitating something from your “Theoretics of Leftist Twittery” class.
This one is flatly dishonest Yes Jim, yes you are.
“Yes, but overall Canadian health is better.”
Canadians have access to both socialized Canadian and non-socialized American health service providers. What happens to overall Canadian health if the latter disappears?
Is there a health care system, public or private, that can help Jim after his daily evisceration?
Gauging successful health care doesn’t have to always be about the life threatening illness. Consider people that want something so innocent like a face cream to treat acne. In a socialized system it is not uncommon to have to wait 4 months for a doctors visit that lasts all of about 5 minutes. Then, you have to hope that what the doctor prescribed actually works. Otherwise, you start all over again.
For us in America this is silly to wait so long for something so simple. In a socialized system they turn this on its head and make simple things as time consuming and complicated as possible.
You don’t know what you’ll miss till it’s missing.
You know, if you do just a little bit of digging on the cancer survival rates, you start finding out it ain’t as simple as the Hoover article makes it out. From WebMD:
1) The US, Japan and France (2 “socialized”, 1 not) all have the highest rates for cancer survival.
2) Those same survival rates vary significantly by type of cancer.
3) Their are significant variations in survival rates in the US by state. For example, Hawaii does very well, New York does not.
4) Race is a critical factor. Blacks have lower survival rates then whites regardless of what state they live in.
In short, there is a lot of variability in cancer survival statistics. Relying on that one data point is not helpful.
From Gerrib’s strawmen:
1) So apparently we don’t need to be socialized.
2) As noted in the Hoover article.
3) Same can be said about life expectancy numbers within the US, which is just one reason it is idiotic to compare the US to Andorra.
4) Same can be said about life expectancy numbers within the US, which is just one reason it is idiotic to compare the US to Andorra.
In short, you have debunked many of the arguments you, Gerrib, provided last week.
No, Leland, you haven’t debunked squat. Using specific cancer survival statistics to argue “socialized medicine” is bad doesn’t work. Which is what (in part) the Hoover article was trying to do.
What does work is looking at:
1) Overall life expectancy (we’re #30, behind every major industrialized country) – not even mentioned in the Hoover article.
2) Cost per unit measure (percent of GDP or per capita) to achieve those life expectancy numbers. There we’re #1. That’s not even mentioned in the Hoover article
3) Whether people who are sick can get health care. In most industrialized countries, that’s not even an issue. Obviously not so in America. A fact not mentioned in the Hoover article.
I find the Hoover article lacking in relevant facts. It’s almost as bad as discussing Hoover’s presidency without mentioning the Great Depression.
Would all of you who want government controlled medical care PLEASE find a country, with climate like where you live now, and MOVE THERE.
This is a country where the government isn’t SUPPOSED to run anything. I know they already do, but adding to it, doesn’t solve ANYTHING.
Move, please.
“1) Overall life expectancy (we’re #30, behind every major industrialized country) – not even mentioned in the Hoover article.”
And what you fail to mention is thye don’t treat infant mortality the same way we do so your comparison is bogus.
If we attempt to save an extreme preemie and fail it is considered infant mortality. In Europe, they lack the ability to do so partially and on the other hand they do not count those deaths as mortalitys.
The US is penalized for trying to save lives that would not count as deaths if they had simply allowed the mother to miscarry.
Apples Vs. Oranges.
Mike Puckett – I haven’t heard that argument.
There are about 300 million people in the US, and yes infant mortality can really skew a life expectancy number. Still, are we really loosing that many babies to account for a two-year spread? Maybe we are, but I’d like to see some hard numbers.
Those kind of numbers are not in the Hoover article.
Still, are we really loosing that many babies to account for a two-year spread?
No, but we may be losing them.
Hey Jim, earlier detection=earlier treatment=higher cure rate.
Are you really so stupid you can’t fingure that out?
Some very smart people aren’t as sure as you are about this, so like real scientists they actually ran studies. They looked at people who had PSA tests and people who didn’t, and people who had colonoscopies and people who didn’t. And so far they have not found any evidence that testing, which leads to early detection, is actually saving lives.
For much, much more about this, read “Should I Be Tested For Cancer?” by Gilbert Welch.
So… medicine is supposed to be unique, in that all its innovations MUST be inexpensive to everyone, and (presumably) hugely effective in the vast majority of cases, or else it isn’t worth it.
I never said anything like that. But if forced to choose between an innovative system that delivers mediocre results, and a less innovative system that delivers good results, I’ll take the latter. Innovation is a means to an end; it isn’t the end itself.
if forced to choose between an innovative system that delivers mediocre results, and a less innovative system that delivers good results, I’ll take the latter.
Ah, a false choice. Not a new fallacy for Jim, but rather, a common one.
“And it means that millions of people receive an unnecessary cancer diagnosis”
Only a far left nanny state I’ll tell you what you need and what you need to know Socialist could write that with a straight face.
If you autopsy people who died of other causes, you will frequently find evidence of cancer — cancer that never caused any symptoms, and had nothing to do with the patient’s death. Do you think it really would have helped those people to know that they had cancer? Would their lives have been improved by worrying that it was going to kill them, spending time in chemo, losing their hair, vomiting, having radiation treatment, recovering from surgery, perhaps dying sooner from treatment complications?
In a socialized system it is not uncommon to have to wait 4 months for a doctors visit that lasts all of about 5 minutes.
Ah, argument by anecdote. Do you know that in most socialized systems patients have shorter waiting times than in the U.S.? There’s more to the world than Canada and the U.K.
For us in America this is silly to wait so long for something so simple.
It is silly, but we do it anyway. I’ve been quoted 6 month waiting times to see a doctor in my insurance’s “network.” In the last ten years I have never seen an attending internal medicine doctor, only residents and physician’s assistants. If I wanted to see an attending, I’d have to wait.
All the horror stories that people trot out about socialized medicine — waiting lists, rationing, lack of access to desired doctors and treatments — are here already. We just pay more and get worse results.
If you autopsy people who died of other causes, you will frequently find evidence of cancer — cancer that never caused any symptoms, and had nothing to do with the patient’s death. Do you think it really would have helped those people to know that they had cancer? Would their lives have been improved by worrying that it was going to kill them, spending time in chemo, losing their hair, vomiting, having radiation treatment, recovering from surgery, perhaps dying sooner from treatment complications?
No.
Do you have any more straw men?
No, Leland, you haven’t debunked squat.
I didn’t. You did. All I did was substitute mortality rates with life expectancy, as life expectancy is just a prediction based on mortality rates.
There is a difference though. Life expectancy takes into account all causes of death. That includes suicide, murder, accidental death. Mortality rates look at specific causes of death. So when socialist use life expectancy to argue that US health care is worse than UK’s health care; they should be using age adjusted mortality rates which can compare apples to apples on specific illnesses or causes of death. In other words, who is better at preserving life from illnesses like cancer or heart disease or the flu. When you compare life expectancy, you are comparing all sorts of factors that don’t necessarily have to do with health. It certainly doesn’t make sense to compare the US life expectancy to the life expectancy of a small landlocked resort community and claim the latter has better healthcare.
Ah, argument by anecdote.
Geez Jim, can you be any more obvious in your hypocrisy? At least Josh didn’t say “Imagine that people wait longer in socialized countries than the US” and then proceed to flog his own imagination; AS YOU DID, Jim.
And don’t ask him to cite evidence for his claim; you haven’t provided any citations.
I have to admit, of all the trolls in the history of this board, Jim’s line of reasoning, if you can call it that, it the most consistantly weak and self-contradicting.
I once said that internal consistancy is the hallmark of competence.
I still use that yardstick to measure myself and others.
Mike,
There have been trolls with worse. Rand eventually banned them.
Squidward wasn’t that lame. More trollsome, yes, more psychotic, yes. Lame, no.