Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (2785)	11/9/2007 8:18:03 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

"The United States spends far more on health care per person than any other nation. Yet we have lower life expectancy than most other rich countries. Furthermore, every other advanced country provides all its citizens with health insurance; only in America is a large fraction of the population uninsured or underinsured. You might think that these facts would make the case for major reform of America’s health care system" This is classic. Folks take statements like that and perceive an automatic "ergo" in them. You get the same kind of mindless reactions in the environmental and terrorism arenas. For example: Islamic terrorists destroyed the WTC ERGO we must invade Iraq. Mindless. Krugman is either dumber than someone in his position should be, has little respect for the intellect of his readers, and or will say anything to advocate his cause. Sure, those symptoms suggest one or more problems. But they don't begin to isolate the problem or provide any insight re what should be done about it/them. Yeah, yeah. You're thinking that I'm just reacting to something with which I don't agree. But there's a difference between agreeing/disagreeing and objective logic shortfall. For example, the first sentence, the per capita cost of healthcare, followed by the second, life expectancy, suggests to the careless thinker a connection between the two--that we're not getting a good return on our investment. He even asserts that directly later on in the piece. In fact, they're both complicated with many elements and largely independent of each other. But analysis and complexity are too much work while not as appealing as rhetoric.

To: Road Walker who wrote (2785)	11/9/2007 2:50:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Yet we have lower life expectancy than most other rich countries. Which does equal even worse health (we may or may not have worse health but life span alone doesn't show this), let alone "worse health care". And even if you assumed worse health care that wouldn't indicate "we would do better with single payer". "Single payer", in addition to not being an accurate term for some of the European's health care systems, is also far from the only difference between the systems. Life span isn't the only measure of health. In a number of other measures, including ones more closely tide to health care, such as cancer survival rates. The US either does the best, or nearly the best. In addition to the source of funding not being the only differences in the health care systems, and life span not being the only measure of health, the health care systems are not the only factor in determining health. Krugman talks about cheeseburgers and unprotected teenage sex. That's a start but then you have to consider more auto accidents, more non-auto accidents, more murders, and other factors. And other factors, only some of which we have good relevant statistics for. Differences in crime, lifestyle and personal decisions, economic factors, genetic factors, etc. Or if you want a response from another respected economist, rather than my own response Beyond Those Health Care Numbers nytimes.com Message 24023951