Competition for medical-insurance companies?

[Elixir]

I'm with Bilby on this. Characterizing OCED data as "lies" betrays something for sure. Here is a small data-set. If it is a lie or even a case of cherry-picking, it should be easy to counter with another actual data set.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No conflict.

I said it's a small %. He is pretending it's a minuscule %.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you understand why it's difficult for anyone to take you seriously?

aa

He seems to think the people with no insurance in this nation have no waits to get health care.

They wait for months to get simple things looked at. They wait for years to get proper care. If they have chronic conditions they wait a long time to have them addressed.

I realize that. What I'm saying is despite that our outcomes are at or near the top of the pack. (Beware the lying OCED data that keeps being trotted out. 20% of their evaluation of the healthcare system is whether it's UHC. Of course UHC wins such a comparison.)

Yes, it includes that comparison; But that's not so much 'lying' as it is 'valuing the ability of all of the population to access the system'. A health care system that can magically fix a broken leg to as good as new with no wait, no pain, and comparatively low cost, but which a hundred million of your three hundred million people are not able to access at all, is not a good system, because people don't choose to break their legs; They don't say 'Oh, I was going to be knocked off my motorcycle by that hit and run driver, but I shall decide not to because I can't afford the hospital bills'.

The problem is that it isn't rating how good the care is, but how available. They wouldn't use a fudge factor like this unless they needed to in order to get the result they wanted. It's an obvious sign of dirty statistics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm with Bilby on this. Characterizing OCED data as "lies" betrays something for sure. Here is a small data-set. If it is a lie or even a case of cherry-picking, it should be easy to counter with another actual data set.

View attachment 14505

That's not a counter at all as it isn't even an evaluation of the systems as much as evaluation of the people. Some notes:

1) That infant mortality data is problematic:
1a) There are big reporting differences. I've seen all sorts of denials but there's one damning statistic: infant mortality + stillbirth produces a far flatter line than either by itself. That either means some systems (especially ours) are far better at getting the baby out alive even when it doesn't have a chance, or that some systems are more aggressive about defining a birth as live.
1b) To some extent a high infant mortality rate can be a sign of a medical system able to do more: Namely, to get to that point at all. The better the ability to handle high risk pregnancies the higher the infant mortality rate will be. I'm definitely not saying it all is due to this--we certainly do have a problem with druggies whose first contact with the doctors is in the delivery room.

2) It shows we have a big obesity problem. That's a social issue, not a failure of our medical system.

3) Two or more chronic conditions again is not the fault of the medical system--chronic conditions are only manged, not cured. It's a measure of lifestyle. (And note that it can be a sign of the medical system doing it's job--that the system diagnosed them in the first place, and to some extent it's a measure of diagnostic thresholds.)

 

[bilby]

No conflict.

I said it's a small %. He is pretending it's a minuscule %.

- - - Updated - - -

He seems to think the people with no insurance in this nation have no waits to get health care.

They wait for months to get simple things looked at. They wait for years to get proper care. If they have chronic conditions they wait a long time to have them addressed.

I realize that. What I'm saying is despite that our outcomes are at or near the top of the pack. (Beware the lying OCED data that keeps being trotted out. 20% of their evaluation of the healthcare system is whether it's UHC. Of course UHC wins such a comparison.)

Yes, it includes that comparison; But that's not so much 'lying' as it is 'valuing the ability of all of the population to access the system'. A health care system that can magically fix a broken leg to as good as new with no wait, no pain, and comparatively low cost, but which a hundred million of your three hundred million people are not able to access at all, is not a good system, because people don't choose to break their legs; They don't say 'Oh, I was going to be knocked off my motorcycle by that hit and run driver, but I shall decide not to because I can't afford the hospital bills'.

The problem is that it isn't rating how good the care is, but how available. They wouldn't use a fudge factor like this unless they needed to in order to get the result they wanted. It's an obvious sign of dirty statistics.

Have you suffered a recent blow to the head?

How available the care is is of CRITICAL importance in rating a health care system. As I explicitly set out above:

A health care system that can magically fix a broken leg to as good as new with no wait, no pain, and comparatively low cost, but which a hundred million of your three hundred million people are not able to access at all, is not a good system, because people don't choose to break their legs; They don't say 'Oh, I was going to be knocked off my motorcycle by that hit and run driver, but I shall decide not to because I can't afford the hospital bills'.

Good care that I can't access is as much use to me as no care at all, and the statistics SHOULD reflect that. Your complaint is nonsensical.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Can you understand why it's difficult for anyone to take you seriously?

aa

No conflict.

I said it's a small %. He is pretending it's a minuscule %.

Just a thought here, but instead of using opaque terms like 'small' and 'miniscule' and treating the percent symbol like some kind of random variable, you could actually supply some numbers in front of them.

aa

 

[Playball40]

I'm with Bilby on this. Characterizing OCED data as "lies" betrays something for sure. Here is a small data-set. If it is a lie or even a case of cherry-picking, it should be easy to counter with another actual data set.

View attachment 14505

That's not a counter at all as it isn't even an evaluation of the systems as much as evaluation of the people. Some notes:

1) That infant mortality data is problematic:
1a) There are big reporting differences. I've seen all sorts of denials but there's one damning statistic: infant mortality + stillbirth produces a far flatter line than either by itself. That either means some systems (especially ours) are far better at getting the baby out alive even when it doesn't have a chance, or that some systems are more aggressive about defining a birth as live.
1b) To some extent a high infant mortality rate can be a sign of a medical system able to do more: Namely, to get to that point at all. The better the ability to handle high risk pregnancies the higher the infant mortality rate will be. I'm definitely not saying it all is due to this--we certainly do have a problem with druggies whose first contact with the doctors is in the delivery room.

2) It shows we have a big obesity problem. That's a social issue, not a failure of our medical system.

3) Two or more chronic conditions again is not the fault of the medical system--chronic conditions are only manged, not cured. It's a measure of lifestyle. (And note that it can be a sign of the medical system doing it's job--that the system diagnosed them in the first place, and to some extent it's a measure of diagnostic thresholds.)

1) As if drugs are the only reason for preterm birth.........not even close.
2) Bullshit. Obesity is not a moral failing but neither here nor there, perhaps we need to look at our food supply or other sources before 'blaming' so-called obese people.
3) Again, bullshit. Things can quickly become chronic issues when not caught and treated early. When people do not have access to healthcare, that is not likely to happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) As if drugs are the only reason for preterm birth.........not even close.

1) I didn't say druggies were the only cause. I was saying that druggies avoiding care is a big factor in the difference.

2) I wasn't talking about preterm births, but infant mortality.

2) Bullshit. Obesity is not a moral failing but neither here nor there, perhaps we need to look at our food supply or other sources before 'blaming' so-called obese people.

Our food supply does not cause obesity. It may make it easier to get fat, it doesn't cause it. There are people with legitimate medical issues but most obesity is the fault of the person.

3) Again, bullshit. Things can quickly become chronic issues when not caught and treated early. When people do not have access to healthcare, that is not likely to happen.

What is cured if treated early but otherwise becomes chronic?? Nothing comes to mind.