Socialized Medicine

Sorry if I don't have the time to read it, but I'm guessing the authors didn't account for a Wald scenario. Namely, the fact that the US executes more instances of so-and-so medical procedure seems good, but it betrays the fact that the US needs to execute them in such high numbers in the first place.

And yet, somehow somehow the US is behind Cuba in infant mortality and life expectancy despite spending 15 times as much on healthcare.

all per capita, of course

why should anyone care about your opinions, psycho?

Are they? I'm sure they can see that they are getting more healthcare for less money at the end of the day. If you can't afford healthcare, why would you vote for a system that will deny you care?

Wow stop posting any time.

remember to kill yourself

...

Tens of thousands of people die in the US every year because they can't afford health insurance

Retard

You'll be first among the ones lined up against the wall

This is bait. OP nothing more than an Oligarchy with a boner for killing the very people who make him rich.

Opinions like this are why the guillotine is a perfectly valid way to implement a new social/economic system. Those who value not the lives of others lose the value in their own. Pigs aren't human, and dangerous animals get euthanized.

Canada and Bongistan's systems are also notoriously bad as far as public healthcare goes.

Well the poor aren't exactly going to care about how great the medicine they aren't getting is, so even shitty medicine they can get is a great sell.

Here is a healthy brain exercise to improve statistical literacy:

Two partisans of different game consoles talk about a recent media event where the two respective companies as well as third-party developers presented the games currently in development. Both come to an agreement that third-party titles that are available on multiple platforms shouldn't count as an argument for why any of them is better or worse, and that it is the number of exclusive titles that matters. Alice says that, at least according to the measure number of exclusives, console A must be better than the Bobstation Bob prefers, since when you look at the library of console A, the percentage of that library that are exclusives is a higher percentage than the percentage of exclusives of the Bobstation's library. Is Alice necessarily correct about that?

I claim I can train a group of people to become top athletes and I put them into two categories, "top achievers" and "the rest". I don't promise any of them will get to pro level, but I promise fantastic improvements will happen within a few months. The groups get tested every week, and sure enough, there are improvements happening in both groups every time. The data looks fantastic. You want to know what the secret of my method is and interview a couple of these people. Each individual you talk to tells you that I don't give any exercise instructions, nutrition tips, play games with them, I don't do a fucking thing, and that their performance stays the same each time they are tested. The folks you interview seem honest. The people who measure and report the average results from each group are absolutely reliable guys that wouldn't ever lie. What is my method?

Suppose a country has two health-systems, a high-quality one for people who can afford it and a rather rudimentary one that is available to anybody. Suppose the high-quality one doesn't change in its quality and the rudimentary one gets canceled. What happens to the quality of the health service measured in how people who get treatment experience it?

Assuming equal numbers of non-exclusives between the two consoles, then yes, if a/x > b/x and x>0, then a>b. However, if there is a third console, C, and there are multi-platform games which are on console C and on one but not both consoles A and B, then alice's assertion is not necessarily true.
Also, whether more exclusives = better is a different argument, but that claim wasn't actually made.

These are fun, working on the second one now.

You start by ranking the athletes on performance from best to worst. You make divide the groups into 'top achievers' and 'the rest' at an arbitrary point, putting all the athletes with the best performance into the 'top achievers' category, and the rest in 'the rest'. This ensures that the average score of 'top achievers' is significantly higher than 'the rest'. Where you divide them doesn't actually matter, so long as there is a sufficient numbers of athletes 'top achievers' category. Prior to every testing, you take at least one of the lowest performing member(s) of 'top achievers' and move the athlete to 'the rest'. By removing the lowest performing member(s) from top achievers, you inflate their score. As even the lowest member of the 'top achievers' is above average for 'the rest', their addition also inflates the average score of 'the rest'.

Correct.

Correct.

And the third one is all too easy, too dull to bother writing an answer for, and it's pretty similar to an issue I have with the statistics with the data presented by OP (what a coincidence, eh?). What's the point of comparing average waiting times for non-emergency surgery for people who get that non-emergency surgery, when the comparison here is between countries with universal health care and a country without? Another way of phrasing the same thing: There are people who have a waiting time of infinity. Now, maybe that's just me, but I think a waiting time of infinity is rather bad. How do you deal with thinking about that? Trying to get an average waiting time and then adding a bunch of infinities doesn't quite work, but neither does ignoring it, if one cares about describing reality.

(I think the best simple measure of quality of life and health is looking at the average lifespan.)

Nothing, laddy. Just like there's nothing wrong with you being murdered.

Right-wingers.
They don't even care about their own self-interest.

A few points:

Both Germany and Canada has socialised medicine. Thus the huge disparity in cancer mortality rates is likely because of some other factor.

This goes along with the fact that doctors in the US see fewer people as the data says, and thus increases the chance that cancer even gets diagnosed in the US.

Let's not forget that the NHS was gutted by the tories too, so this is really just the result of the old liberal motte and bailey tactic where you first cut the budget for public services and then use the resulting poor quality as an excuse for more cuts.

based on fucking what?

In the US people don't get treated for little stuff that balloon to an emergency at one point which creates big unnecessary costs.

Americuck """health"""care kills over 40k people a year

news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

The reason for those statistics in the OP is because only part (a big part, but still not all) of the population has access to healthcare, so the resources are spread less thinly. For example for the first graph, showing that waiting times in the US are shorter for surgeries, can be explained by the fact that you need to get all your surgeries pre-approved by your insurance. If you're uninsured, or your insurance doesn't approve it, you're fucked, and that also means the waiting lists are shorter. But it's not because there's better healthcare.
Not to mention, the American healthcare system is extremely inefficient. It's the most/one-of-the-most costly healthcare system in the world (both in absolute and in relative terms), with the highest proportion of admin costs (and in absolute terms it's even higher).
commonwealthfund.org/publications/in-the-literature/2014/sep/hospital-administrative-costs

These threads make me smile when i live in social democratic Nordic country and have the best healthcare in the world.

...