American economic dominance

[Bo Diddley]

Huh?

"people who died while waiting for care" vs people who "died because they lacked access to care"

On what planet is that a meaningful difference?

Of course they are in different systems, the entire point is that socialized medicine is not superior to the US system in preventing deaths due to access. In fact, it is worse.

You can't trust those lefties when it comes to fairly characterizing the NHS, eh?

Died while waiting for care... You imply causation when there are a myriad of reasons why they might have died. The two metrics are measuring two different things.

Labour was the opposition party when they were making that argument and scoring political points. Labour was trying to imply causation as well.

[Moliere]

My favorite posts on Facebook/X are the ones where people complain about insurance companies denying services by claiming the services aren't needed. Then they also complain about the wait times to get treatment to then pivot to how Medicare for All would cure all these problems. There's not even a hint of irony in their posts. I consider these people some of the less intelligent and shallow thinkers of our day and age.

If you think having insurance deny services is bad, wait until you get a load of Medicare/Medicaid. If you think you have a tough time getting timely care in the US, just wait for socialized medicine and you’ll wait longer.

Im all for equal access to care. I’ve stated my position on MFA in other threads (spoiler, I’m for it becasue I think it would free up more people to innovate) but it’s not the panacea the liberals make it out to be.

[Bo Diddley]

I am highly skeptical of conclusions drawn from statics wrt deaths and healthcare in recent years. If you look at mortality rates over the past 20 years, you see that it improves overall with spikes during flu outbreaks and then a huge spike during COVID. Then after COVID, excess deaths have persisted, even while the rates are improving.

[tooblue]

Died while waiting for care... You imply causation when there are a myriad of reasons why they might have died. The two metrics are measuring two different things.

Labour was the opposition party when they were making that argument and scoring political points. Labour was trying to imply causation as well.

there is also the issue of cherry picking, scale and relevance to this thread. Lebowski's figures only represent the NHS, but not other nations, why? On the topic of scale, the NHS only serves 56 million people whereas there are 300 plus million people in the US. Let's now address relevance:

In each of the links I posted there are direct references to GDP and how a great US GDP could be leveraged to improve health care in the US. GDP (American economic dominance) of course is subject matter around which this thread is constructed.

[frank ryan]

My favorite posts on Facebook/X are the ones where people complain about insurance companies denying services by claiming the services aren't needed. Then they also complain about the wait times to get treatment to then pivot to how Medicare for All would cure all these problems. There's not even a hint of irony in their posts. I consider these people some of the less intelligent and shallow thinkers of our day and age.

If you think having insurance deny services is bad, wait until you get a load of Medicare/Medicaid. If you think you have a tough time getting timely care in the US, just wait for socialized medicine and you’ll wait longer.

Im all for equal access to care. I’ve stated my position on MFA in other threads (spoiler, I’m for it becasue I think it would free up more people to innovate) but it’s not the panacea the liberals make it out to be.

I've provided services and done utilization review stuff for medicaid folks. I know the bureaucratic issues that come it, but believe it or not, in some regards, certain insurances can be worse. Neither are peaches and cream.

I've seen plenty of instances where insurance providers do all the gatekeeping they can to not provide services the client/patient is entitled to.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Died while waiting for care... You imply causation when there are a myriad of reasons why they might have died. The two metrics are measuring two different things.

Labour was the opposition party when they were making that argument and scoring political points. Labour was trying to imply causation as well.

Haha. Do you think these people are just waiting around for their healthcare for fun? Did you even read the articles?

This is not a serious argument.

[Jeff Lebowski]

there is also the issue of cherry picking, scale and relevance to this thread. Lebowski's figures only represent the NHS, but not other nations, why? On the topic of scale, the NHS only serves 56 million people whereas there are 300 plus million people in the US.

1/3 the population of the US and yet far more deaths due to rationed healthcare. How about that?

[Bo Diddley]

Haha. Do you think these people are just waiting around for their healthcare for fun? Did you even read the articles?

This is not a serious argument.

Waiting around for fun? I'd like to retract that statement. Really sorry I said that. It was dumb of me to say. What I should have said was that the NHS is really in rough shape.

But I do think a serious argument is one where the central point being made is actually addressed. Died while waiting for care =/= died because they lacked access to care. Those are two different claims and the distinction matters.

[Moliere]

I've provided services and done utilization review stuff for medicaid folks. I know the bureaucratic issues that come it, but believe it or not, in some regards, certain insurances can be worse. Neither are peaches and cream.

I've seen plenty of instances where insurance providers do all the gatekeeping they can to not provide services the client/patient is entitled to.

I think we agree then.

I'll also add that if insurance denies coverage in teh USA, the person can just pay out of pocket to get the care needed. That isn't really an option under socialized medicine where the equipment/process is owned by the government.

[frank ryan]

I think we agree then.

I'll also add that if insurance denies coverage in teh USA, the person can just pay out of pocket to get the care needed. That isn't really an option under socialized medicine where the equipment/process is owned by the government.

Problem is a lot of people can't afford that. A lot of working people can't.

I've seen people shoved off of care when they needed it because they couldn't pay. One of the reasons I hated working in a hospital setting. I'd have to fight some battles to keep people who were in no shape to discharged from leaving because there either admitted without insurance or their approval ended. Right now a lot of people have been sent scrambling because of changes to Medicaid.

Sometimes I didn't win the battle and ended up being right.

Leftists were unhappy with Romney/Obama because it wasn't single payer. But it sure wasn't the apocalyptic event conservatives kvetched about.

A lot of nations with public care private insurance too. I think Germany is like this.

I don't care how coverage for medical care is delivered if it becomes more accessible. But we can do better.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Waiting around for fun? I'd like to retract that statement. Really sorry I said that. It was dumb of me to say. What I should have said was that the NHS is really in rough shape.

But I do think a serious argument is one where the central point being made is actually addressed. Died while waiting for care =/= died because they lacked access to care. Those are two different claims and the distinction matters.

I think it is only a distinction in your head. They have significant rationing and long wait times. People die waiting as a direct consequence of that.

If they have to wait so long to get healthcare that they end up dying as a result, how on earth is that not dying because of lack of access to healthcare? I honestly don’t understand your argument.

[Bo Diddley]

I think it is only a distinction in your head. They have significant rationing and long wait times. People die waiting as a direct consequence of that.

If they have to wait so long to get healthcare that they end up dying as a result, how on earth is that not dying because of lack of access to healthcare? I honestly don’t understand your argument.

If they end up dying as a result of the wait, I agree they died because they lacked timely access to care. But the statistic you posted doesn't tell us that. It counts everyone who died while waiting, not everyone whose death was caused by waiting. Who knows how many would have died anyway?

The US estimate, as imperfect as it is, controls for confounding factors. The NHS figure is a raw count. Those are not equivalent measures.

[tooblue]

1/3 the population of the US and yet far more deaths due to rationed healthcare. How about that?

The continued cherry picking does not help your argument which as pointed out is based on fallacious reasoning. If comparison is the method you prefer to utilize as a part of your overall methodology, and scale is only important in making deprecatory claims concerning rationing, why not compare other countries health care as well?

Because we both know that will only further undermine your unsupportable arguments.

As Diddly continues to correctly assert: you are equating two measures that are not equatable. In one of the links I provided which you have not addressed except with fallacious reasoning, it is estimated that as many as 24 million Americans don't even have health care. Circling back to the initial premise of this entire thread, and as supported by scientifically corroborated research, this could be addressed by better utilizing GDP (American economic dominance) to the benefit of all citizens.

How about that?

[Jeff Lebowski]

The continued cherry picking does not help your argument which as pointed out is based on fallacious reasoning. If comparison is the method you prefer to utilize as a part of your overall methodology, and scale is only important in making deprecatory claims concerning rationing, why not compare other countries health care as well?

Because we both know that will only further undermine your unsupportable arguments.

As Diddly continues to correctly assert: you are equating two measures that are not equatable. In one of the links I provided which you have not addressed except with fallacious reasoning, it is estimated that as many as 24 million Americans don't even have health care. Circling back to the initial premise of this entire thread, and as supported by scientifically corroborated research, this could be addressed by better utilizing GDP (American economic dominance) to the benefit of all citizens.

How about that?

So the sources that confirm your bias are correct and rigorous, and the ones that prove you wrong are "fallacious reasoning"?

[Jeff Lebowski]

If they end up dying as a result of the wait, I agree they died because they lacked timely access to care. But the statistic you posted doesn't tell us that. It counts everyone who died while waiting, not everyone whose death was caused by waiting. Who knows how many would have died anyway?

The US estimate, as imperfect as it is, controls for confounding factors. The NHS figure is a raw count. Those are not equivalent measures.

???

So you don't think the Royal College of Emergency Medicine accounted for such a fundamental distinction in their research? For the ER study, they specifically said "excessive waits".

Ditto for researchers from London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Oxford University and Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council. You don't think they were smart enough to make that distinction either?

The report found there were 30,000 excess deaths in 2015 in England and Wales and that these were likely associated with NHS and social care cuts.

Note the term "excess deaths".

And you seem to be ignoring this one, which is not related to waiting at all:

One in six doctors have seen patients die because of rationing in NHS resources, according to a new survey.

More than half said they had seen patients suffer due to treatment rationing and two thirds said that they had been told not to prescribe certain drugs by their NHS trust, even though the results could be fatal.