Another Liberal Fraud Exposed

[Yonivore]

So Many Half-Truths, So Little Time (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/so-many-half-truths-so-little-time.html)


A fraud not only is stating something that is untrue, but also failing to state something that is necessary to avoid making a true statement misleading. A material omission as amounting to a fraud is a basic legal concept certainly familiar to this administration.

So it is for the frequent assertion that we spend more per person on health care, but have a shorter life span than other industrialized countries. True, but there is a failure to state material facts necessary to avoid the misleading impression that the shorter life span is a result of our health care system.

In fact, we do have a shorter life span, but not because of our health care system. So points out Steve Chapman (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/16/whats_scary_about_health_care_reform_97901.html) today:


It's true that the United States spends more on health care than anyone else, and it's true that we rank below a lot of other advanced countries in life expectancy. The juxtaposition of the two facts, however, doesn't prove we are wasting our money or doing the wrong things.

It only proves that lots of things affect mortality besides medical treatment. Heath Ledger didn't die at age 28 because the American health care system failed him.

One big reason our life expectancy lags is that Americans have an unusual tendency to perish in homicides or accidents. We are 12 times more likely than the Japanese to be murdered and nearly twice as likely to be killed in auto wrecks.

In their 2006 book, "The Business of Health," economists Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider set out to determine where the U.S. would rank in life span among developed nations if homicides and accidents are factored out. Their answer? First place.

That discovery indicates our health care system is doing a poor job of preventing shootouts and drunk driving but a good job of healing the sick. All those universal-care systems in Canada and Europe may sound like Health Heaven, but they fall short of our model when it comes to combating life-threatening diseases.
A half-truth is not the truth. But there's so little time to uncover all the half-truths driving this administration.

[Yonivore]

facts are stubborn things :lol
Aren't they, though.

[Yonivore]

fuzzy math
Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't a bear; he was a Democrat.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't a bear; he was a Democrat.OK, you're confusing me. Donkey = democrat, elephant = republican, bear = communist. Right? Democrats today are socialists and communists!

[Yonivore]

OK, you're confusing me. Donkey = democrat, elephant = republican, bear = communist. Right? Democrats today are socialists and communists!
You don't seem confused at all.

[LnGrrrR]

Neat finding.

[Yonivore]

Neat finding.
I think his expertise is intelligence but, he has well-reasoned opinions on a whole host of topics.

He's generally a good read.

[iManu]

"Spurstalk, Monkeys flinging Poo... it'll just waste your day...."

"Another Liberal Fraud Exposed."

Isn't that extremely hypocritical?

I mean, maybe I'm wrong, and please correct me if I am.

This article juxtaposes the problems: WE SURE DO! have the best health care, but one is lucky to afford it, additionally, if we had a more social country, there would not be as many murders over competitive ridiculous things like shoes, car rims, and respect.

I really do not know how to combat Liberal bashing, I could threaten to talk about GEORGE BUSH incessantly!!!!

They always say the Left can attack the Right, but then they don't have a plan. Maybe the opposite is true.

(I'm sorry, I'm in a bad mood, but if we don't get social healthcare, many of my friends will die far before their time. Maybe, you don't have poor friends, so you can't relate. They shouldn't call us "bleeding-heart liberals," maybe they should call us "beating-heart liberals.")

[iManu]

What would Jesus do? He'd die making certain that people would get social health care. And just when you think you shouldn't have put your trust in him, one fish would become many, water would become wine, and bread would fall from the sky.

I don't understand how Christians can so adamantly oppose this. "Anti-abortion Anti-healthcare."

I guess, I had never considered that you can put a bottle OR a gun in a baby's mouth! Gosh, I'm in a bad mood. :toast

[Wild Cobra]

What would Jesus do? He'd die making certain that people would get social health care. And just when you think you shouldn't have put your trust in him, one fish would become many, water would become wine, and bread would fall from the sky.

I don't understand how Christians can so adamantly oppose this. "Anti-abortion Anti-healthcare."

I guess, I had never considered that you can put a bottle OR a gun in a baby's mouth! Gosh, I'm in a bad mood. :toastThat's contrary to the quote that effectively says "give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he will eat everyday."

The solution is to raise other people up. Not take tax payers down.

[iManu]

And the "power animal" for the communists is the Duck.

[iManu]

Give a man a fish, so that he might eat, so that you might be able to teach him how you got that fish.

[Wild Cobra]

Give a man a fish, so that he might eat, so that you might be able to teach him how you got that fish.
Regardless how you change it, that does not promote the general welfare. It promotes dependency.

[Yonivore]

Give a man a fish, so that he might eat, so that you might be able to teach him how you got that fish.
That'd be fine if the man would be willing to learn to fish. Problem is, you give him a fish and he thinks, "why learn? I'll just keep getting my fish from this rube."

He is more likely to learn to fish if he remains hungry during the process. Necessity is a better motivator than dependency.

[Marcus Bryant]

It makes sense and Yanni provided a link.

:flypig

[Yonivore]

"Spurstalk, Monkeys flinging Poo... it'll just waste your day...."

"Another Liberal Fraud Exposed."

Isn't that extremely hypocritical?

I mean, maybe I'm wrong, and please correct me if I am.

This article juxtaposes the problems: WE SURE DO! have the best health care, but one is lucky to afford it,...
You miss the point right there. Even if you're not "lucky" enough to afford it, you still get it.


...additionally, if we had a more social country, there would not be as many murders over competitive ridiculous things like shoes, car rims, and respect.
I think I know why you think this is true but, I'd like to hear your explanation.


I really do not know how to combat Liberal bashing, I could threaten to talk about GEORGE BUSH incessantly!!!!

They always say the Left can attack the Right, but then they don't have a plan. Maybe the opposite is true.

(I'm sorry, I'm in a bad mood, but if we don't get social healthcare, many of my friends will die far before their time. Maybe, you don't have poor friends, so you can't relate. They shouldn't call us "bleeding-heart liberals," maybe they should call us "beating-heart liberals.")
Why will your friends die?

[spurster]

I suppose if each country gets to factor out their worst attributes, then each of them would be in first place.

[2centsworth]

Link? Btw, our worst attribute is obesity.

[Yonivore]

I suppose if each country gets to factor out their worst attributes, then each of them would be in first place.
I think the point being that if you factor out the mortality unrelated to the quality of health care, we're at the top of the heap.

[Marcus Bryant]

Ah, the inconvenient truth for the revolutionaries.

[eyeh8u]

I suppose if each country gets to factor out their worst attributes, then each of them would be in first place.

if you factor out death, we are all immortal

[spurster]

I think the point being that if you factor out the mortality unrelated to the quality of health care, we're at the top of the heap.

So you think the US is the only country where you could do that kind of "analysis"?

I take your point that the US is close to the top, but we are still paying nearly twice as much for the same results.

[Bartleby]

This article doesn't address the fact that the U.S. is behind 33 other countries (many of them much poorer than we are) when it comes to infant mortality rate, and I strongly doubt much of that disparity can be attributed to homicides and auto accidents.

[Marcus Bryant]

That rests on differences in how infant mortality stats are calculated in each country.

[Marcus Bryant]

So you think the US is the only country where you could do that kind of "analysis"?

I take your point that the US is close to the top, but we are still paying nearly twice as much for the same results.

So Americans live unhealthy lives, face a greater risk of death on the roadways, and are still at the top of the heap. Sure, it's not surprising that it would cost more. Of course, do these calculations of cost include the time spent waiting for procedures in those other countries? Do those cost stats reflect the less comfortable care that is provided in those countries? Americans are generally not willing to sit around and wait for something.

[Extra Stout]

This article doesn't address the fact that the U.S. is behind 33 other countries (many of them much poorer than we are) when it comes to infant mortality rate, and I strongly doubt much of that disparity can be attributed to homicides and auto accidents.

But can it be tied to our lack of socialized health care? That is the question.

The infant mortality rate in the U.S. is something like 6.3 per 1000 live births. A rate of 4.5 is typical for a homogeneous, developed Western European country.

Population makeup appears to make a difference. Controlling for socioeconomic status, Asians and Latinos have the lowest infant mortality rates and blacks have the highest. Blacks in the U.S. have an infant mortality rate of something like 13 per 1000 live births. The estimates of what African-American IM would be if they had equal access to health care vary widely. I even looked into Afro-Cuban IM rates compared to Cuba as a whole (Cuba's IM rates are a little lower thanb the U.S.'s, officially), to see if I could draw any parallels, but estimates varied from 4 to 24 depending upon the agenda of the reporter.

As a very speculative number, I will go with the Daily Kos estimate that, controlling for socioeconomic status, black infant mortality is twice that of non-Hispanic whites. So, that gives us a goal of 9. Barring anything better, I will use that.

Native Americans have similarly high rates. Put Blacks and Native Americans together, and they comprise 15% of the population. Taking that into account, we get a goal for infant mortality of 5.3 per 1000 live births.

So what accounts for the difference between the 5.3 that would be comparable to similarly developed countries and the 6.3 we actually achieve? The biggest difference between us and those other countries is our high rate of pre-term births.

So what are the risk factors for pre-term births, and can we observe a significant difference in the prevalence of those risk factors between the U.S. and comparable nations?

1) Pre-natal care -- the U.S. lags in access to pre-natal care.
2) Drug and alcohol use -- the U.S. has greater drug and alcohol abuse rates than other countries.
3) Obesity and obesity-related diseases -- the U.S. has a greater rate of obesity.
4) Previous abortion -- the U.S. has higher abortion rates.
5) African or Native American ethnicity -- already incorporated into the IM "goal" rate.
5) Stressful life events -- too vague to evaluate.
6) Working long hours standing up -- found no data.
7) Previous vaginal infections -- found no data.

Our drug and alcohol abuse rates, our obesity, and our abortion rates have to do either with cultural factors or with health factors outside the scope of discussion of socialized health care (such as sex education). I don't know how much each factor contributes to the shortfall.

The access to pre-natal care is they biggest issue related to infant mortality that health care reform could address. If we make the invalid assumption that it alone could get us to 5.3, we would improve from 45th to 39th on the list. Most likely we would be somewhere in between.

[Bender]

does our IM rate include ones killed or abandoned on purpose? ie 'dumpster babies'...

[Wild Cobra]

This article doesn't address the fact that the U.S. is behind 33 other countries (many of them much poorer than we are) when it comes to infant mortality rate, and I strongly doubt much of that disparity can be attributed to homicides and auto accidents.
You are really a stupid ass.

I just read Xtra-Stouts comments to you. That's the problems with many of you who criticize things, and why I call people libtards. You listen to sound bites, and don't have the intelligence or tenacity to fact check.

Another factor in infant mortality rate is that some countries don't count the numbers until they are alive and well for a day, sometimes a week. Besides that, we have a nation of losers. It's not because of lack of health care, but how many pregnant women treat themselves.

The fact (if true) that we are 33rd doesn't mean shit unless you are able to consider things when "all other factors are equal!"

[iManu]

Even though some of the whatever 40 million (half the population of Germany) don't have health insurance in the U.S. and they may sometimes still receive emergency care and some other perks, they don't receive enough: driving up everyone's health care when these pariahs are older and dying.

But, of course, HMOs have been physically dropping them off in the street (challenge me on that one.)

A natural part of frustrating competition is violence (go watch the zoo, and if you don't think people are animals, I know a few that you should meet.)

Bad health care scenario: (why my young friend will not live as long as me.) My 19 year old friend's alcoholic father had a stroke, and so he takes care of his father. His father had very mediocre health insurance from the factory that allowed him to stay in a very nice hospital for a week or so... then he was moved 30 miles away (while still not being able to move his legs or speak in anything but a number mash) to a real dump. My friend drove his bicycle 30 miles 2-3 times a week (when he could balance work) to see his father. During this time, he fell off his bike, scratched his face,

And now walks with a limp.

You see, he didn't have health care and I unfortunately don't see him "pulling himself up by the bootstraps."

I imagine he'll drink, too.... limp around, do drugs, keep on smoking, keep on resenting the flashy college kids, and when he gets sick, he won't see a Doctor, I imagine he'll still go to work and work very hard, just like he does, everyday.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet I survive him.

But, I wouldn't gamble with lives.

[Bartleby]

You are really a stupid ass.

I just read Xtra-Stouts comments to you. That's the problems with many of you who criticize things, and why I call people libtards. You listen to sound bites, and don't have the intelligence or tenacity to fact check.

Another factor in infant mortality rate is that some countries don't count the numbers until they are alive and well for a day, sometimes a week. Besides that, we have a nation of losers. It's not because of lack of health care, but how many pregnant women treat themselves.

The fact (if true) that we are 33rd doesn't mean shit unless you are able to consider things when "all other factors are equal!"

I was just making an observation. You don't have to be a total fuckwad about it.

[Yonivore]

This article doesn't address the fact that the U.S. is behind 33 other countries (many of them much poorer than we are) when it comes to infant mortality rate, and I strongly doubt much of that disparity can be attributed to homicides and auto accidents.
You're right, it's attributed to the fact we have the highest incidence of premature live births...that, unfortunately die. We're 33rd because the other 32, for the most part, can't keep them alive if they're too premature and just chalk it up to still birth and therefore, it doesn't get factored into the infant mortality rate.

[Wild Cobra]

I was just making an observation. You don't have to be a total fuckwad about it.
Why even bring such a statistic up without knowing details? It's just meaningless tripe. You're the fuckwad for wasting time with what becomes nothing more than propaganda.

[jav]

Here is a link to an outline the authors did for a presentation. Has graphs and tables.
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061017_OhsfeldtSchneiderPresentation.pdf

From what I understand, the proposed reforms resemble the Swiss system more than any other. Switzerland is ranked a close second to the US on the table after homicides are taken out of the equation. If the reforms mean more people are able to afford insurance and quality is not decreased while potentially lowering costs, why would anyone be against that? Maybe I'm being pollyannaish, but the current system is not sustainable and reforms are needed.

[iManu]

Wild Cobra, Sir, you do name call, a lot... and I feel kind of bad saying that,
because that makes me a name-caller, too.

But, maybe I shouldn't try to help you advance your diplomacy and feelings of dignity, because we have very separate views... after all, I couldn't help Ann Coulter, because she does not listen.

I'm not accusing you of not listening.

I'm just saying, you're just a little bit testy, maybe it's because Oden's knees suck so bad, maybe it's because Turkoglu signed with the Raptors...

I don't know.

[iManu]

:meeting: