Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-16-2008, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,990,458 times
Reputation: 604

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
If you have looked at the OP, you will note that the study was released this year, and specifically addressed a two-year period, 2002-2003. It also conveniently ignored deaths of people over age 75, which would exclude a large number of the deaths in France during the summer of 2003 from consideration. Conspiratorial? You decide. From the tone of one of the two (!) researchers involved (again, I refer to the article), I would infer that anti-American bias played a significant role.
Is the 75 age limit really more likely to be there to give France a "helping hand" than to make the study easier by assuming that most deaths over 75 are less likely to be "preventable," given that most people don't live much longer than that? I do think it nears conspiracy theory territory to assume the former. If they were manipulating the criteria, why would they do so in such a way as to make their own country (the UK) look bad, placing 3rd or 4th from last?

Quote:
You may incline as you wish. I would need to see a more detailed analysis before I accepted your view of the unbiased nature of the report -- or any report -- prepared by Europeans and comparing Europe to America, in the currently toxic anti-American climate there. As far as "going on and on" is concerned, there is no one "around me". I am alone here at the keyboard. But I can assure you that I have never made the claim that "America has the best healthcare in the world". Given the abundance of variables involved, such a claim would be impossible to substantiate -- just as reporting that "America has the 19th best healthcare system" is, on the face of it, an absurd statement...
I've yet to see any study, American, European, or otherwise, ranking healthcare here as better than what's found in most countries with UHC... if one ever surfaces, your claim of widespread bias might have more traction with me (it would have to be a respectable study, though, not one by the Heritage Foundation).

However, the consistency of your last couple of sentences is good/refreshing, at least.

Last edited by fishmonger; 01-16-2008 at 09:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-16-2008, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,264,523 times
Reputation: 15285
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
Is the 75 age limit really more likely to be there to give France a "helping hand" than to make the study easier by assuming that most deaths over 75 are less likely to be "preventable," given that most people don't live much longer than that? I do think it nears conspiracy theory territory to assume the former.
The 2003 French tragedy was horrific. It exposed many of the essential weaknesses of planned, state-administered health systems. Excluding it from any study purporting to "rank" healthcare delivery systems is irresponsible at best.


Quote:
I've yet to see any study, American, European, or otherwise, ranking healthcare here as better than what's found in most countries with UHC... if one ever surfaces, your claim of widespread bias might have more traction with me (it would have to be a respectable study, though, not one by the Heritage Foundation).
Taking into account the variables I have listed time and time again on this thread, and the anti-American bias extant in much of the world, I doubt if any such study will ever be produced -- since "ranking" something as diverse as healthcare is an exercise in futility.

Quote:
However, the consistency of your last couple of sentences is good/refreshing, at least.
Unfortunately, there is nothing refeshing about your consistent tendency to denigrate our country and demonize those who would defend it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,990,458 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
The 2003 French tragedy was horrific. It exposed many of the essential weaknesses of planned, state-administered health systems. Excluding it from any study purporting to "rank" healthcare delivery systems is irresponsible at best.
I don't think they "excluded it from the study," there's 15 years of elderly people before you get to 75. It wasn't a magical, "I will only hurt people over the age of 75" heat wave.

What's strange is that you seem so eager to use that one particular incident, one whose natural conditions + societal customs (most people not having air conditioning) have not been replicated recently or reacted to by any other developed countries, as a final, "essential" condemnation of the "weakness of planned, state-administered healthcare delivery systems" (meaning universal healthcare, I assume, and of course extrapolating to ALL of them from the one example of France's one 2003 incident), completely discarding your parallel argument in defense of America that you can't judge systems by their results, by the numbers of prevented deaths, etc., because of the vast social, demographic, environmental and economic differences.

So which position are we staying with? If we can blame the 2003 disaster on "the horribleness of universal health care" than we can also blame America's low ranking in a myriad of studies and statistics on the inadequacy of our own delivery policy. If we can't do the latter, then it makes no sense to assert the former with so much passion. Instead you seem to be saying that "You can't rank healthcare systems, with the one exception that America's delivery system is superior to any type of universal health care because of its 'essential weakness.'"

Quote:
Unfortunately, there is nothing refeshing about your consistent tendency to denigrate our country and demonize those who would defend it.
"Our country" is the people who live here. I have at many times criticized (you can say "denigrate") the recent policies of the US government, which is not "our country" but rather is a collection of affluent old white men elected in a two-party process that is incompletely democratic, creating a government and policy structure that is incompletely representative of the desires of the public as a whole. Most people in America, according to polls at least, want some form of universal health insurance to be put in place. Is it more "denigrating to America" to criticize our government's failure to act on that public desire, or to regard the large portion of America that thinks that way as "socialist America-haters?" Is it more Anti-American to call a policy of our government stupid or to defend the failures of our policy by using the "well, Americans are fatter and stupider and don't get along with each other as well and half of us are filthy illegal Mexicans" excuse?

Last edited by fishmonger; 01-16-2008 at 10:38 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,264,523 times
Reputation: 15285
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
I don't think they "excluded it from the study," there's 15 years of elderly people before you get to 75. It wasn't a magical, "I will only hurt people over the age of 75" heat wave.
Think what you wish. The exclusion affects the acuracy of the study.

Quote:
What's strange is that you seem so eager to use that one particular incident, one whose natural conditions + societal customs (most people not having air conditioning) have not been replicated recently or reacted to by any other developed countries, as a final, "essential" condemnation of the "weakness of planned, state-administered healthcare delivery systems" (meaning universal healthcare, I assume, and of course extrapolating to ALL of them from the one example of France's one 2003 incident), completely discarding your parallel argument in defense of America that you can't judge systems by their results, by the numbers of prevented deaths, etc., because of the vast social, demographic, environmental and economic differences.
Feel free to twist my words. I never used the term "final." I specifically used the term "many", and I made the argument that the tragedy exposed a weakness (with which the French government apparently concurred, since it was a national scandal), and that the exclusion had a tangible impact on the research. The characteristics which I attributed to America are not applicable to France in the same degree -- which is precisely why I pointed them out.


Quote:
So which position are we staying with? If we can blame the 2003 disaster on "the horribleness of universal health care" than we can also blame America's low ranking in a myriad of studies and statistics on the inadequacy of our own delivery policy. If we can't do the latter, then it makes no sense to assert the former with so much passion. Instead you seem to be saying that "You can't rank healthcare systems, with the one exception that America's delivery system is superior to any type of universal health care because of its 'essential weakness.'"
"Horribleness"? That is your inelegant term, not mine. "Universal health care"? Are you arguing that health care is not universal in the US, thereby confusing "health insurance" with "healthcare", as your side is wont to do with "immigration" and "illegal immigration"? How obdurate. What I seem in your mind to be saying is not, in fact, what I am saying: I have never argued that America's healthcare system is superior to anything, nor that it does not have weaknesses. My posts in this thread refer to a study which I preceive to be flawed, suspiciously close to politically motivated, and little more than fodder for America-bashing.

Quote:
"Our country" is the people who live here. I have at many times criticized (you can say "denigrate") the recent policies of the US government, which is not "our country" but rather is a collection of affluent old white men elected in a two-party process that is incompletely democratic, creating a government and policy structure that is incompletely representative of the desires of the public as a whole.
A racist, clumsy, and ignorant rant. That governments are not perfect and should thus be discarded is a childish argument.

Quote:
Most people in America, according to polls at least, want some form of universal health insurance to be put in place.
Irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote:
Is it more "denigrating to America" to criticize our government's failure to act on that public desire, or to regard the large portion of America that thinks that way as "socialist America-haters?"
Probably neither, if someone were so to argue. I have not.

Quote:
Is it more Anti-American to call a policy of our government stupid or to defend the failures of our policy by using the "well, Americans are fatter and stupider and don't get along with each other as well and half of us are filthy illegal Mexicans" excuse?
1. To what policy of our government are you referring which has the slightest thing to do with a flawed study ranking countries according to skewed and ill-defined criteria?

2. Why do you feel compelled to offer slurs in place of reasoned arguments?

Last edited by Yeledaf; 01-16-2008 at 11:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2008, 06:45 PM
 
1,080 posts, read 1,708,287 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
According to God, Jesus, Muhammad, Ghandi, Buddha, Ben Franklin, "the Force," Aristotle, Socrates, Jack Handy, the Torah, Confucius, J.K. Rowling, the Egyptian Sun-God Ra, Oprah, Dr. Phil, George Orwell, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Moses, the Pope, the Queen of England, Barney, the Teletubbies, Teddy Roosevelt, Mother Theresa, or Albert Einstein,

or according to primarily Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, and the Mises Institute? Why would a freeze-over devised by radical Eskimo separatists be any more your responsibility to help defend people against than a heat wave devised by nature? Would you support helping defend people against a heat wave if you thought it was caused by Satan (or the Thetans), therefore being an "act of aggression?" If the Eskimos attacked wouldn't people still have the same "responsibility to suck it up and buy a heater, I'm not going to help you, you should have anticipated the attack?"



According to your spirit guide?
Sorry, my last reply was deleted.

So I'll say it again, more nicely...what the heck are you talking about? This post makes no sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2008, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,990,458 times
Reputation: 604
The puzzle of ambiguity shall be resolved by the attempt to think in the same way that does the ambigous idiot by whom it is created, of course---
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2008, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,990,458 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
Think what you wish. The exclusion affects the acuracy of the study.



Feel free to twist my words. I never used the term "final." I specifically used the term "many", and I made the argument that the tragedy exposed a weakness (with which the French government apparently concurred, since it was a national scandal), and that the exclusion had a tangible impact on the research. The characteristics which I attributed to America are not applicable to France in the same degree -- which is precisely why I pointed them out.




"Horribleness"? That is your inelegant term, not mine. "Universal health care"? Are you arguing that health care is not universal in the US, thereby confusing "health insurance" with "healthcare", as your side is wont to do with "immigration" and "illegal immigration"? How obdurate. What I seem in your mind to be saying is not, in fact, what I am saying: I have never argued that America's healthcare system is superior to anything, nor that it does not have weaknesses. My posts in this thread refer to a study which I preceive to be flawed, suspiciously close to politically motivated, and little more than fodder for America-bashing.



A racist, clumsy, and ignorant rant. That governments are not perfect and should thus be discarded is a childish argument.



Irrelevant to the discussion.



Probably neither, if someone were so to argue. I have not.



1. To what policy of our government are you referring which has the slightest thing to do with a flawed study ranking countries according to skewed and ill-defined criteria?

2. Why do you feel compelled to offer slurs in place of reasoned arguments?
I would reply to this point by point but I'm short on time and you seem to have grossly (possibly intentionally?) misunderstood or misinterpreted much of what I wrote, while also changing the apparent meaning of much of what YOU wrote in earlier posts, may want to go over all that again... I'll probably give a fuller response later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2008, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,264,523 times
Reputation: 15285
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
I would reply to this point by point but I'm short on time and you seem to have grossly (possibly intentionally?) misunderstood or misinterpreted much of what I wrote, while also changing the apparent meaning of much of what YOU wrote in earlier posts, may want to go over all that again... I'll probably give a fuller response later.
I think you're obsessed with restating what I post to make it fit your preconceived notions of what an ignorant, nationalistic, right-wing fanatic might think. Since I am not that strawman, you are feeling frustration at not being able to simply throw out slurs and accusations without having to either make sense or address my actual criticisms of the study.

Feel free to brood over these misreadings and shortcomings of yours as long as you wish, and respond in your own good time -- consider it a take-home exam. If I think your eventual reply is worthy of a rejoinder, I'll take it up. Otherwise, not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2008, 07:53 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,406,452 times
Reputation: 4013
Just as an FYI for some, not only did the study cover a particular time frame and a defined age group, it focused -- as studies of the efficiency and effectiveness of generalized health care systems have for more than three decades -- on a particular set of causes of death that are generally thought to be reversible or preventable through appropriate medical interventions. These are sometimes (as in this study) referred to as amenable deaths. Here is a listing of them...

Intestinal infections, Tuberculosis, Other infections (diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis), Whooping cough, Septicaemia, Measles, Malignant neoplasm of colon or rectum, Malignant neoplasm of skin, Malignant neoplasm of breast, Malignant neoplasm of cervix or uteri, Malignant neoplasm of testis, Hodgkin's disease, Leukaemia, Diseases of the thyroid, Diabetes mellitus, Epilepsy, Chronic rheumatic heart disease, Hypertensive disease, Cerebrovascular disease, All respiratory diseases (excluding pneumonia and influenza), Influenza, Pneumonia, Peptic ulcer, Appendicitis, Abdominal hernia, Cholelithiasis and cholecystitis, Nephritis and nephrosis, Benign prostatic hyperplasia, Maternal death, Congenital cardiovascular anomalies, Perinatal deaths (all causes, excluding stillbirths), Misadventures to patients during surgical and medical care, Ischemic heart disease.

Notice that no naturally caused events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or sudden catastrophic heat waves, are or have ever been included in the list.

Last edited by saganista; 01-17-2008 at 08:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2008, 08:56 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,620 posts, read 28,219,543 times
Reputation: 11416
saganista, please don't confuse us with facts or having read the study.

We can't handle the truth; well, at least some people posting here can't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:39 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top