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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DanD who wrote (65008)	5/10/2008 7:03:41 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543544

These guys think maybe not: It seems to me that what's important in this is that the longevity data commonly used are off if you're trying to compare health systems due to variation in non-health-related deaths from country to country. No matter how much people take issue with how attempted adjustments have been made, no one has disputed this defect in the data. The fact remains that the standard data don't tell us anything useful about relative health care.

To: DanD who wrote (65008)	5/10/2008 9:28:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543544

I think the relative numbers for each country would be similar or the same Really? These guys think maybe not: They suggest the other method would be a better way to do it, but they don't come out and say it would provide different results. They also can be used to show the US has lousy trama care Yes that's an additional complication, each adjustment could need its own adjustments. It gets really complex, really soon. I think that whatever raw or adjusted version you use, it would be best not to put to much weight on the stat.