|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 2, 2010 23:09:38 GMT -8
...I ask the question. Why is it that we spend more money per capita, and as a percent of GDP than anyone else, yet have worse health care results?
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 3, 2010 7:59:12 GMT -8
...I ask the question. Why is it that we spend more money per capita, and as a percent of GDP than anyone else, yet have worse health care results? I posted this in another thread. It is a good analysis www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 3, 2010 8:37:57 GMT -8
...I ask the question. Why is it that we spend more money per capita, and as a percent of GDP than anyone else, yet have worse health care results? I posted this in another thread. It is a good analysis www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdfThank you for that. It is a long piece. I reviewed the charts and the exec summary and the bullets. I will read it later. What jumped out to me was a lack of comparisons of health care outcomes. Information like life expectancies, infant mortality, those are measures that can truly be compared. Perhaps they are there and in my quick perusal I missed them. We all know that there are axes to grind in any big policy question. We all know what axe the Cato Institute will be grinding. I must tell you I will be reading the report with a shaker of salt.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 3, 2010 8:41:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 3, 2010 8:43:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 3, 2010 11:21:12 GMT -8
...I ask the question. Why is it that we spend more money per capita, and as a percent of GDP than anyone else, yet have worse health care results? Are you sure the question has a valid basis. It is like asking if the cheese the moon is made of is swiss or chedder. You must not like your links either since they don't work. One thing that you can be sure of is that you can prove anything if you choose your criteria carefully and ignore the broader picture.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 3, 2010 12:34:00 GMT -8
...I ask the question. Why is it that we spend more money per capita, and as a percent of GDP than anyone else, yet have worse health care results? Are you sure the question has a valid basis. It is like asking if the cheese the moon is made of is swiss or chedder. You must not like your links either since they don't work. One thing that you can be sure of is that you can prove anything if you choose your criteria carefully and ignore the broader picture. Dang, you are correct. I have no idea why. It is easy to get to the site, but can not link. Odd.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 3, 2010 14:25:28 GMT -8
xrl.us/bhu42mxrl.us/bhu42oTry it like this. Now, did you stop to think that these kinds of stats can be skewed by the existance or absense of large high risk groups? Think drugs or Aids folks. There are other factors for sure, and many ways to look at things. The stats are nice, but the analysis of those stats will tell you a story.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 3, 2010 14:52:26 GMT -8
Now how would this fit into the equation? xrl.us/bhu44sThe rationing aspect can get ugly when these things happen. This is not only in Canada, but you see the problem of rationing when this kind of thing happens.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 3, 2010 15:12:27 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 3, 2010 15:15:11 GMT -8
Now how would this fit into the equation? xrl.us/bhu44sThe rationing aspect can get ugly when these things happen. This is not only in Canada, but you see the problem of rationing when this kind of thing happens. This was the fault of the system? Sounds like malpractice by the hospital. Same thing happens here.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 3, 2010 15:19:55 GMT -8
xrl.us/bhu42mxrl.us/bhu42oTry it like this. Now, did you stop to think that these kinds of stats can be skewed by the existance or absense of large high risk groups? Think drugs or Aids folks. There are other factors for sure, and many ways to look at things. The stats are nice, but the analysis of those stats will tell you a story. Must be my computer, but your links do not work for me. Please tell me your story here, win. Certainly the countrys at the bottom of the group are high risk countrys. What is your analysis? Why are 36 countrys higher than us when we spend twice as much?
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 3, 2010 15:28:32 GMT -8
Now how would this fit into the equation? xrl.us/bhu44sThe rationing aspect can get ugly when these things happen. This is not only in Canada, but you see the problem of rationing when this kind of thing happens. Again, it must be my computer, but link is fail. Nonetheless, your rationing point is what? Are you saying there is not rationing in our country? Any country? Remember, my question is why do our health results cost so much, yet do not match the results of countys that spend less.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 3, 2010 15:31:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 3, 2010 15:36:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 3, 2010 17:20:40 GMT -8
Now how would this fit into the equation? xrl.us/bhu44sThe rationing aspect can get ugly when these things happen. This is not only in Canada, but you see the problem of rationing when this kind of thing happens. Again, it must be my computer, but link is fail. Nonetheless, your rationing point is what? Are you saying there is not rationing in our country? Any country? Remember, my question is why do our health results cost so much, yet do not match the results of countys that spend less. The way I post links works for most everyone. You are just posting raw data with no analysis to explain why data is skewed. Our delivery system and the cost could be improved, but again you must do in depth analysis to begin to find answers. We may find that consumption of Lutefisk is part of the secret in Norway. Even though my Grandparents came from Norway, I am not willing to partake to improve my health. Look at serious tort reform and costs will change. Lots of things could change our cost. The quality is the best in the world and no amount of comparing apples to oranges will change that.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 3, 2010 19:49:04 GMT -8
Again, it must be my computer, but link is fail. Nonetheless, your rationing point is what? Are you saying there is not rationing in our country? Any country? Remember, my question is why do our health results cost so much, yet do not match the results of countys that spend less. The way I post links works for most everyone. You are just posting raw data with no analysis to explain why data is skewed. Our delivery system and the cost could be improved, but again you must do in depth analysis to begin to find answers. We may find that consumption of Lutefisk is part of the secret in Norway. Even though my Grandparents came from Norway, I am not willing to partake to improve my health. Look at serious tort reform and costs will change. Lots of things could change our cost. The quality is the best in the world and no amount of comparing apples to oranges will change that. Data is good. From data conclusions can be made. Stories about Lutefisk is just that, a story. I realize that the data does not support your story. That is why I present it.
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 3, 2010 20:48:21 GMT -8
As long as we are a nation of immigrants from all around the world, the life expectancy will reflect the average of all of those people.. Blacks in Africa have a far lower life expectancy than Blacks in America. Both manage to kill theirselves off for a myriad of stupid reasons. (AIDS, Gang/tribal warfare), accidents, heart disease, etc.) Asians die from accidents and from being killed by blacks in holdups and Germans live for ever as long as they have access to beer.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 4, 2010 4:11:11 GMT -8
The way I post links works for most everyone. You are just posting raw data with no analysis to explain why data is skewed. Our delivery system and the cost could be improved, but again you must do in depth analysis to begin to find answers. We may find that consumption of Lutefisk is part of the secret in Norway. Even though my Grandparents came from Norway, I am not willing to partake to improve my health. Look at serious tort reform and costs will change. Lots of things could change our cost. The quality is the best in the world and no amount of comparing apples to oranges will change that. Data is good. From data conclusions can be made. Stories about Lutefisk is just that, a story. I realize that the data does not support your story. That is why I present it. Data is just raw data! From your tone, you know that and are just being cantankerous! The Lutefisk idea is just as valid as any other including your raw stats.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 4, 2010 4:13:42 GMT -8
As long as we are a nation of immigrants from all around the world, the life expectancy will reflect the average of all of those people.. Blacks in Africa have a far lower life expectancy than Blacks in America. Both manage to kill theirselves off for a myriad of stupid reasons. (AIDS, Gang/tribal warfare), accidents, heart disease, etc.) Asians die from accidents and from being killed by blacks in holdups and Germans live for ever as long as they have access to beer. I think you are on to something here Joe! Will you be so kind as to further educate Aztec70? Maybe that is to big a job that has been let go far to long.
|
|