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: Lane3 who wrote (8457)	8/19/2009 7:59:22 PM
From: Archie Meeties	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

"A health care system is supposed to prevent accidents? Surely you jest..." You're demonstrating that you are completely unaware of public health policy. One of the major innovations and areas of research within emergency care and public health of the past 10 years, and that is accident prevention and harm reduction. The origin of some of this research was by trauma surgeons who recognized that trauma outcomes would not be improved by further funding or improved trama protocols. Further gains in health would be found only through accident prevention. This isn't meant to be an educational thread, but I'd encourage both you and Fowler to dig a little deeper into the data to inform your opinions. pubmedcentral.nih.gov

To: Lane3 who wrote (8457)	8/19/2009 8:00:11 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

Life expectancy is a reasonable factor to consider because a good part of it is a function of health care but the data needs to be adjusted for factors outside the control of the health care system if you want valid data. This I can agree with. If you get rid of the factors that aren't "health care" then life expectancy would be a relevant measure. But the importance of it, with objective statistical analysis, isn't going to be anywhere near the weighting that was ultimately given by the WHO and it is NEVER going to be valid when cited as a standalone statistic as though it were a gold standard. Personally, I think the set of variables you would have to consider to come up with to explain health care quality in a meaningful way would have to be huge. At least 100s. And a lot of them would be very tough to quantify. For that reason, I think common sense is probably as good a measure as these studies that exist. The weightings assigned in the WHO study are so superficial as to be meaningless.