American economic dominance

[frank ryan]

“The most conservative Ivy League school”. Lol

Every one of these studies has a specific agenda, and that agenda drives all of the assumptions upon which the numbers are based.. Don’t kid yourself.

Shoot the messenger! I realize it's no Nick Shirley expose

Those ranking aren't controversial. You can find those numbers in other places.

[tooblue]

Is that like the tallest midgetlittle person? Or the smartest Ute?

And in comes the second fallacy: attacking the institution and not the argument ... lol

[tooblue]

“The most conservative Ivy League school”. Lol

Every one of these studies has a specific agenda, and that agenda drives all of the assumptions upon which the numbers are based.. Don’t kid yourself.

Stating that every study has an agenda, is a fallacy. All research operates with intent, and assuming that intent invalidates the findings creates a false equivalency.

Don't kid yourself.

[Copelius]

“The most conservative Ivy League school”.

Is that like the tallest midgetlittle person? Or the smartest Ute?

[Jeff Lebowski]

“The most conservative Ivy League school”. Lol

Every one of these studies has a specific agenda, and that agenda drives all of the assumptions upon which the numbers are based.. Don’t kid yourself.

[frank ryan]

I can't speak for New Zealand, but 'rationing' is a loaded term. For many areas the limiting factor is population, which is becoming an increasing problem even in the states. Critical access hospitals are barely keeping afloat because of staffing. The rural hospitals where I was a laboratory medical director were constantly cycling between locoms and non-burned out physicians to keep even ERs staffed. Hell, for a time even in Bend the wait list to see a GI doc was 6 months, even for colonoscopies. The problem was corrected by funding, but whether by private or public funds it's still an issue until it's solved.

In my neck of the rural woods, there is sufficient coverage for routine screening visits, surgeries, and cancer care. But partly because of government funding and geography, a lot of the more complex needs are managed in urban areas. That necessitates coordination for travel and time off work. Mrs. NWC is getting Mohs surgery this summer. We have to travel to Vancouver for at least a day to get it done, and we were told in no uncertain terms that it would be difficult to reschedule if we couldn't make that time. Will there be a Mohs surgeon that sets up shop here? Probably if the population gets large enough. But I guarantee you large swaths of the American public are under similar constraints. In one of my prior rural hospitals oncology only visited once a month, and if someone needed care sooner they had to travel. That is implicit rationing of health care.

By the way, socialist utopia here reimburses a lot of our expenses when travel is needed

It almost makes you wonder if standards like infant mortality rates and life expectancy could be referenced to inform an opinion of what medical coverage methods provide best outcomes.

Oh here:

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-life-expectancy-compare-countries/#Life%20expectancy%20at%20birth%20by%20sex,%20in%20years,%202024

and here

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries/#Mortality%20rates%20(deaths%20per%201,000%20live%20births)%20for%20the%20five%20leading%20causes%20of%20neonatal%20and%20postneonatal%20death,%202017

[tooblue]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-medical-costs

"A 2009 study conducted by researchers at Harvard Medical School found 45,000 Americans die every year as a direct result of not having any health insurance coverage. In 2018, 27.8 million Americans went without any health insurance for the entire year."

https://pnhp.org/news/lack-of-insura...-deaths-study/

"As many as 44,789 Americans of working age die each year because they lack health insurance, more than the number who die annually from kidney disease."

Study from Yale university:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8572548/

"Despite higher national healthcare expenditure than any other country, constituting 18% of GDP,^5,6 the US ranks below 30 countries for many public health indicators, including preventable deaths,⁷ infant survival,⁸ maternal mortality,⁹ and overall life expectancy.<sup>10"

"</sup>Universal health insurance would also lead to positive economic externalities by enhancing workforce productivity. For example, prostate cancer causes $5.4 billion in lost productivity among patients, a sum further compounded by the $3.0 billion in lost productivity among spouses of these patients.<sup>72"

Of course Yale is likely even more left leaning than Harvard, so here are the thoughts from researchers at what is considered the most conservative Ivy League school:</sup>

https://spia.princeton.edu/news/qa-p...an-health-care

"The United States is the most expensive health care system in the world. We spend 18% of our GDP on health care compared to average of 8.9% of GDP for countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2017. Per capita, the U.S. spent more than $10,000 in 2017 compared to the OECD average of $3,992.

The high cost of American health care has priced out tens of millions of Americans from needed health care. Before Obamacare, we had around 40 to 45 million Americans without health insurance. Whether they received health care was based not on their health care needs but on their ability to pay. For poor people, that usually meant they went without needed health care. Uwe said that “our health insurance markets ration by price and income.” Obamacare reduced the number of uninsured in America but did not eliminate the problem. As of 2016, we still had some 27 million uninsured, and that number has climbed since."

[tooblue]

I call BS on those numbers. Stats like that are often manufactured by someone with an agenda to push.

Furthermore, with the mostly private health care system we have in the US, it is more expensive to the end user, but the efficiency, accessibility, and standard of care is very high. And the US pharmaceutical industry's innovation benefits the entire world. With single payer/socialized medicine, there is more equal access, but you have more rationing, longer wait times, higher taxes, and ultimately higher poverty levels and reduced standard of living overall due to the economic drag of the social safety net. If a country like Canada decides to go the single payer route, fine - knock yourself out. I can certainly respect the reasoning behind that choice. But please spare us the moralizing. Both systems have tradeoffs. If you think there aren't a significant number of deaths in a single payer system due to rationing and long wait times, you are a fool.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/07/americans-healthcare-medical-costs

"A 2009 study conducted by researchers at Harvard Medical School found 45,000 Americans die every year as a direct result of not having any health insurance coverage. In 2018, 27.8 million Americans went without any health insurance for the entire year."

https://pnhp.org/news/lack-of-insurance-to-blame-for-almost-45000-deaths-study/

"As many as 44,789 Americans of working age die each year because they lack health insurance, more than the number who die annually from kidney disease."

[Northwestcoug]

Didn’t one of the doctors that used to post here spend some time in New Zealand and he basically validated that rationing is a problem. I remember him discussing how MRIs are very difficult to get done down there without a very significant problem since there is limited equipment due to the lack of funding since it’s all government funded.

I can't speak for New Zealand, but 'rationing' is a loaded term. For many areas the limiting factor is population, which is becoming an increasing problem even in the states. Critical access hospitals are barely keeping afloat because of staffing. The rural hospitals where I was a laboratory medical director were constantly cycling between locoms and non-burned out physicians to keep even ERs staffed. Hell, for a time even in Bend the wait list to see a GI doc was 6 months, even for colonoscopies. The problem was corrected by funding, but whether by private or public funds it's still an issue until it's solved.

In my neck of the rural woods, there is sufficient coverage for routine screening visits, surgeries, and cancer care. But partly because of government funding and geography, a lot of the more complex needs are managed in urban areas. That necessitates coordination for travel and time off work. Mrs. NWC is getting Mohs surgery this summer. We have to travel to Vancouver for at least a day to get it done, and we were told in no uncertain terms that it would be difficult to reschedule if we couldn't make that time. Will there be a Mohs surgeon that sets up shop here? Probably if the population gets large enough. But I guarantee you large swaths of the American public are under similar constraints. In one of my prior rural hospitals oncology only visited once a month, and if someone needed care sooner they had to travel. That is implicit rationing of health care.

By the way, socialist utopia here reimburses a lot of our expenses when travel is needed

[Jeff Lebowski]

Didn’t one of the doctors that used to post here spend some time in New Zealand and he basically validated that rationing is a problem. I remember him discussing how MRIs are very difficult to get done down there without a very significant problem since there is limited equipment due to the lack of funding since it’s all government funded.

Yes. ERCoug.

[falafel]

Right on death penalty, wrong on health care, wrong on MAID, right on poutine.

I will sign on for this one!

[Moliere]

Didn’t one of the doctors that used to post here spend some time in New Zealand and he basically validated that rationing is a problem. I remember him discussing how MRIs are very difficult to get done down there without a very significant problem since there is limited equipment due to the lack of funding since it’s all government funded.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Death penalty—I can understand the sentiment. Health care is a win precisely because everyone has access to it. 13 US states offer MAID, and well 40 50k die in the US each year because of lack of access to health care, so there is no winner here. Poutine is disgusting.

I call BS on those numbers. Stats like that are often manufactured by someone with an agenda to push.

Furthermore, with the mostly private health care system we have in the US, it is more expensive to the end user, but the efficiency, accessibility, and standard of care is very high. And the US pharmaceutical industry's innovation benefits the entire world. With single payer/socialized medicine, there is more equal access, but you have more rationing, longer wait times, higher taxes, and ultimately higher poverty levels and reduced standard of living overall due to the economic drag of the social safety net. If a country like Canada decides to go the single payer route, fine - knock yourself out. I can certainly respect the reasoning behind that choice. But please spare us the moralizing. Both systems have tradeoffs. If you think there aren't a significant number of deaths in a single payer system due to rationing and long wait times, you are a fool.

[dabrockster]

Merica—>Tooblue/Canada/Europepoor Economy

TooBlue/Europepoor Healthcare is better—>



What this thread has become.

[Jeff Lebowski]

IMO, we should spend more on health care/medicare and I’d like to see some defense funds reduced to do it, but it’s hard to reduce defense spending when all your allies aren’t spending enough on defense.

Looking at the long arc of history, capitalism has done more than anything else to bring people out of poverty and it’s not even close. No wealth taxing of billionaires is going to fix societal ills more than just straight up capitalism.