Actually, Jonnythan, I DID comment on the original proposition, way back on page two of this thread. You can check it out if you like, it's still there, timed and dated.

Perhaps you didn't read the thread as thoroughly as you thought you had... or perhaps even indulged in some "selective" data gathering (see my post above about statistics).

In order to save you the trouble of scrolling back to page two, I have copied and pasted my own article on the subject, which was made in response to a question raised by JMO. Text is as follows:






jmo said:

My favourite argument I've heard against socialised health care was actually on CNN. This guy was asked what his opinion on Obama's proposed plans where, he said 'I don't think it is fair to make rich people pay for poor people's health care during an economic crisis'.




Jennifer1984 (that is, me) replied:

I think that's a cultural difference, JMO. There is a radically different attitude towards wealth in the US to here. An American works hard, gets rich and that's good. He has earned his wealth and is entitled to enjoy it. If anyone criticises him for it, he tells that person to do the same thing that he did. It doesn't matter what you do..... you could be in automobiles, or you could be in tin cans, it's the drive to the top that counts.

We are somewhat different. We tend to relate wealth to class..... and they are not necessarily the same thing, but that is how they are often perceived. Some of the upper and middle classes see their National Insurance stamp as a way of "giving back" to the working class. They themselves have private health care and may argue that in doing so, they are contributing to a system that they themselves don't benefit from, which means more resources are available to those less fortunate than themselves.

Also, we now have six or seven generations of citizens who have never known life before the NHS. It is in our national consciousness and it's impossible to think of a Britain without it. With all its faults and failures (of which there are many) and for all the interference by politicians, wasteful bureaucracy and ineffective management, at its core are the doctors and nurses who care. They give a damn.

The "Front Line" professional medical staff do miracles with what they have and, under immense pressure, they give a bloody good service to the people.

There may be resistance to universal healthcare FREE AT THE POINT OF NEED within the US at this time, but I reckon that if it were implemented, in fifty years from now, Obama may be seen as a blessed visionary.

My tip to the US people: Give it a try. You might just find you like it.

(text of post ends)


There, Jonnythan.... I hope that satisfies your desire to see my viewpoint on the subject matter. I'd be interested to read your response.


.

No, he was analyzing the report that you used as a reference. Have you done the same? If you did, would your conclusion be any more valuable than John Stossel's?

Maybe my TFS is broken, because there isn't a single post by you on page two of this thread.

You did make a comment related to the article on page 3, but your entire comment consisted of attacking the author's qualifications and reputation. You still haven't made a single comment addressing the author's points as far as I can see.

So that everyone is clear, let me reiterate two key points in the article that seem most salient to me.


"The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy.... [but] when you adjust for these 'fatal injury' rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation."

"The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution."


Comments on these quotes?


By the way, I've taught statistics (among other things) to university seniors studying for their MCATs.

I know I'm not Jennifer, but my opinion on those:

1) Assuming it's true, wouldn't the medical response to a fatal accident affect mortality rates? To just cut those numbers out wholesale seem a bit "chainsaw instead of a scalpel".

2) To disqualify the WHO's criterion because it seems "socialist" without discussing the merits of the requirement seems foolish to me. There's a reason that distribution is important. If only some people have health care while other's don't, then it doesn't matter how good the health care is if many people don't have access to it. For those people it's as if there were no healthcare at all. How well would a country rank if that were the case?

Benny Hill did an excellent skit about the NHS,with filthy conditions,rude doctors smoking cigars and dropping the ashes on their patients,drinking on the job and feeling up the nurses. While next door at the hospital for
private patients there were cut flowers and champagne!

There's probably very little difference among quality of ER care in the US vs the other "top" nations on the list. Remember that everyone gets emergency care in the US whether they have insurance or not.

The US has very high levels of highway and violent crime fatalities. The article doesn't seek to prove that the US has a great health care system, just that the judging methods used by the study are highly flawed, which appears to be true.





He doesn't just dismiss it as "socialist" - he explains what he means by that. The study does seem to place significant emphasis on how "fairly" health care is distributed.

The take-home message from the charts appears to be that health care in the US pretty much sucks. Stossel's point seems to be that in at least one very important area - actual quality of health care - the US system is not being fairly judged.


Is he right? I don't know, I haven't actually read the study's methodology. I've been hoping that someone would address Stossel's specific criticisms as they pertain to the report itself and either confirm or debunk them, but that clearly hasn't happened. In retrospect it would have been much easier for me to just read the study myself

I think we should all quit watching the news, and instead, get all our information from Saturday Night Live.

I'll give you the first one, but I still think distribution is an important factor. It's just practical, really. Even if we had the best healthcare in the world, if it's only available to a few what good is it? It's not difficult to set up a very expesive lavish healthcare system that's only available to the super rich for instance. You could do that anywhere. The challenge is having a health care system that serves all equally AND well.

I don't think anyone is arguing with that, least of all me.

I feel like I'm missing something. If you're not arguing with that point then...why do you seem to be arguing that point from John Stossell's article?

I'm not. Stossel isn't even arguing that distribution is irrelevant. He's arguing (IMO) that the emphasis placed on it unfairly hurts America's ranking.

I guess it comes down to opinion then. I think that it's perfectly appropriate to put equal emphasis on distribution as any other practical factor. I think it's fair. Distribution of health care is a very real problem here. A recent study found that those without health insurance were 40% more likely to die prematurely than those with health insurance. And with 35 million+ people without health insurance, that's a lot of people in a very dangerous situation.