Liar, liar pants on fire

JediJD said:
No Pack, it isn't a debate when you copy the inaccurate work of others, present it as an unassailable fact and can't or won't support it. The Frontline chart you are presenting isn't apples and apples, but there's no point in arguing it.
Click to expand...

Presenting the work of others as unassailable facts is not uncommon down here in the bilge.
 
Actually Packdaddys info on infant mortality appears correct, but what does it mean? He interprets it to mean somethings wrong with healthcare. I look at it and wonder what the hell else is going on. We spend twice as much as everyone else already. According to CDC stats 2/3 of these deaths involve premature births. They also say that the infant mortality rate among non-whites is more than twice that for whites. It appears to me that additional money might be better spent addressing other social issues rather than health care.
 
JediJD said:
No Pack, it isn't a debate when you copy the inaccurate work of others, present it as an unassailable fact and can't or won't support it. The Frontline chart you are presenting isn't apples and apples, but there's no point in arguing it.
Click to expand...
So you have time and resources to gather all the data and compile the statistics personally? Wow, I'm impressed. :lol:
 
Here is some more "inaccurate work of others" if you care to look. Seems like there are a lot of groups using the same inaccurate information..... oh my :lol:
expenditures.png

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html
mortality.png

http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/infant-mortality-life-expectancy.html
 
Is National Geographic a pinko liberal organization too?
Here is their "inaccurate work":
6a00e0098226918833012876a6070f970c-800wi

Who would have thought that National Geographic could go so wrong... :smt043
 
Pack, it isn't that you can't find charts, you simply can't support your position. Surely you are not saying that we aren't spending enough...but adding a federal bureacracy will cost MORE...not less. We as Americans spend more because we have it...just like we use more energy because we have the resources, we buy more BMW's per person, we have more yachts (although Monaco is up there) wanna change those too? You could cut the costs (we use more pills that most of the rest of the planet combined...see, eg, ADD and antidepressants). We are fatter than most and have huge dietary indispositions to health. We have too many MRI machines and too many of every other gadget. Societally, we are probably more medicated and snipped per person than the rest of the planet combined, but that doesn't equate to healthcare efficiencies by giving decisions to the government instead of private sector. That doesn't make insanity compassionate. The key factor here is that everyone in the world, for the best health care available, comes here. Wanna have a baby in Russia? Great deals there. How about Canada? Mexico is cheaper, still...didn't think so. We have more disposable income...and penalizing us for having it is the job of managed economy analysts.

Want to reduce heathcare costs by a third? Allow free trade in medicines, open medical care to different levels of providers, and allow the free market to make decisions. The part of this you seem to avoid is the question of how adding layers of inefficiency will improve a bad situation? I ask again, how many people will you save by letting government make these decisions...and at what cost?
 
JediJD said:
Pack, it isn't that you can't find charts, you simply can't support your position. Surely you are not saying that we aren't spending enough...but adding a federal bureacracy will cost MORE...not less. We as Americans spend more because we have it...just like we use more energy because we have the resources, we buy more BMW's per person, we have more yachts (although Monaco is up there) wanna change those too? You could cut the costs (we use more pills that most of the rest of the planet combined...see, eg, ADD and antidepressants). We are fatter than most and have huge dietary indispositions to health. We have too many MRI machines and too many of every other gadget. Societally, we are probably more medicated and snipped per person than the rest of the planet combined, but that doesn't equate to healthcare efficiencies by giving decisions to the government instead of private sector. That doesn't make insanity compassionate. The key factor here is that everyone in the world, for the best health care available, comes here. Wanna have a baby in Russia? Great deals there. How about Canada? Mexico is cheaper, still...didn't think so. We have more disposable income...and penalizing us for having it is the job of managed economy analysts.

Want to reduce heathcare costs by a third? Allow free trade in medicines, open medical care to different levels of providers, and allow the free market to make decisions. The part of this you seem to avoid is the question of how adding layers of inefficiency will improve a bad situation? I ask again, how many people will you save by letting government make these decisions...and at what cost?
Click to expand...
Did you happen to notice how much more efficient the countries in blue are than us? I would say looking at those results your position is unsustainable. I'm not being rude just truthful, the statistics speak for themselves.
6a00e0098226918833012876a6070f970c-800wi
 
Pack66Dad said:
Did you happen to notice how much more efficient the countries in blue are than us? I would say looking at those results your position is unsustainable. I'm not being rude just truthful, the statistics speak for themselves.
6a00e0098226918833012876a6070f970c-800wi
Click to expand...
The chart displays the data it does not tell you what it means. You can't fairly interpret that chart without considering all the supplemental data that helped generate it and we don't have it here. That's the problem with statistics. I see a country that commits huge resources to health and the chart makes me wonder why the results aren't better? That's all I can get from it.
 
Woody said:
The chart displays the data it does not tell you what it means. You can't fairly interpret that chart without considering all the supplemental data that helped generate it and we don't have it here. That's the problem with statistics. I see a country that commits huge resources to health and the chart makes me wonder why the results aren't better? That's all I can get from it.
Click to expand...

You can lead a horse to water, but........
 
All that chart tells me is how much different Governments restrict health care. If the Gov only allows X amount per person, that's all you get. we spend more because WE CAN.
 
Gentlemen;

May I point out that you have been roundly criticising Pack for not presenting facts. . .and now that he is presenting facts -> you are finding reasons to ignore those facts?

You guys need a waaaaahbulance. Does your insurance cover that service?


- - - - - - -- - - -

Pack has put a few metrics on the table: Life expectancy and infant mortality (I suspect they are related) and per capita spending. Woody tossed out a statistic related to premature births by minorites.


JediJD said:
Surely you are not saying that we aren't spending enough...but adding a federal bureacracy will cost MORE...not less. We as Americans spend more because we have it.......<snip> but that doesn't equate to healthcare efficiencies by giving decisions to the government instead of private sector. That doesn't make insanity compassionate. The key factor here is that everyone in the world, for the best health care available, comes here.
Click to expand...

One can connect these dots a few different ways. I think 320Bob was heading that way in one of the other threads; so let me take a stab at it:

1) The U.S. spends more than everyone else for two reasons; the first is because we can. (As Turtle just pointed out)

Our free markets drive the price up because given the choice of "pay a premium" or "die"; people pay up.

The second reason is the insurance industry, which while controlling costs on the one hand, is making a nice profit on the other hand. Remember folks. . . Blue Cross is not a non-profit.

2) Overall population metrics (infant mortality and life expectancy) are not as good as the rest of the world because not everyone has healthcare. If you don't have insurance, you generally can get emergency care but as was pointed out elsewhere. . it is not top notch healthcare.

I wonder what those statistics are for those with good insurance.

3) People around the world come to the U.S. for health care. Those who can afford it come. Just like those in the U.S. who can afford it use it.

4) Health care resources ARE limited. I bet people like Bob are scared witless that if EVERYONE gets full health care coverage; (a) who is going to pay for it? Surely the poor can't pay. . . and (b) what is going to be left for those who now pay a bit more for better care? This is a very salient question.
 
Last edited:
I think fudgepacker and cornfart need to go visit these countries and get medical attention. 50% sale, hurry while supplies last.
 
Turtlesboat said:
I think fudgepacker and cornfart need to go visit these countries and get medical attention. 50% sale, hurry while supplies last.
Click to expand...

Turtlesboat, Calling people who don't agree with your narrow, ignorant views names shows you are nothing but a coward and an imbecile.
 
Nonsense. Talk to a doctor and ask them why we spend so much. Packdaddy can post all the charts and graphs he wants but they will always tell the story the author wanted them to tell.

A doctor will tell you that reduced insurance rates driven by tort reform is the only way to materially reduce health care costs.

Niether party wants to address this issue. My wife's father is a Doctor and he retired from practice this year because he was working four months out of the year just to pay for practice insurance. Think about it we have 1.3 Million lawyers in this country and only 700,000 doctors.

Most of our politicians are lawyers so the health profession is a major source of revenue for them and their fellow ABA members.

Talking about healthcare cost without understanding the actual cost components is for political hacks. Implementing policy which does not address the actual costs is simply bad policy compounded by self serving thinking.

-John
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,206
Messages
1,428,569
Members
61,109
Latest member
Minnervos
Back
Top