Problems With Socialized Medicine & Government Healthcare

[sangha]

no, dummy. not the obvious answer. not an answer i'd acknowledge. healthcare is not a primary source of education on diet and exercise. is this what you are proposing that our healthcare system should be? are you stating that the lifestyles in other more healthful countries are those which were taught them in hospitals? how is obesity converse to the proliferation of medical coverage in the US? who's got the absurd notion now?

people know damn well that they are disgusting when they are. they see me breaking a sweat to keep in shape and characterize the media as portraying unrealistic images of people who are narrower than they are, they are aware that the differences between fitness and obesity are not magical. notwithstanding, they claim that healthy food choices are nasty rabbit food. this is culture not stupidity.

have you finished reconciling your statement about the inadequacy of medicaid with the inadequacy of single payer care? in light of success in that challenge do you still maintain some need to pursue single payer care for all in an effort to paradoxically improve health outcomes?

Wow, you've really gone off the deep end. I think it's hilarious the way you argue that the health care system has no role to play in educating the public about matters relating to their health. Of course, it's so inane you won't come right out and say it. That would be too honest for you

So instead you have to put words in my mouth about people being educated in hospitals and other nonsense.

And which of the many voices in your head told you I said anything about reconciling medicaid and single payer? If wingnuts didnt make stuff up, they'd have nothing to say

I'd ask you to quote where I said such a thing, but I know that wingnuts never back up their absurdly dishonest claims. They just post a bunch of childish insults

similarly, maybe you could pin me down saying that "the health care system has no role to play in educating the public about matters relating to their health".

i've asked you to make some sense through reconciling your statement that medicaid is inadequate, and the discussion of this thread whereby socialized healthcare like medicaid is being vetted for its efficacy. look at the title of the thread against the posture of your argument. what can i say?

in your earlier argument that quality of healthcare drives quality of outcomes, you've conceded that lifestyle is important. you insisted that lifestyle education is the outcome-facilitator in quality of healthcare to persist in a link between studies which show outcomes in the US are inferior to, say, european outcomes. challenged to come out and say whether you thought that the outcomes in europe were driven by healthcare-facilitated lifestyle education, you have gone ad hominem troll status to deflect the ways your stupid argument is imperiled. noted.

I already stated that you're not honest enough to come right out and say it, but you make your hostility to the idea of the health care system playing a greater role in educating the public very clear by getting hysterical when I mention the idea. Why else would you mischaracterize my position as extreme as wanting to make people get their health information from hospitals?

So now that I've supported my statement, why don't you do the same and show me the quote?

And again, I said nothing about comparing medicaid to single payer, and I still see no reason to do so because medicaid is not a single payer system. I have no idea why you think there is a need to reconcile anything wrt medicaid and single payer.

" challenged to come out and say whether you thought that the outcomes in europe were driven by healthcare-facilitated lifestyle education, you have gone ad hominem troll status to deflect the ways your stupid argument is imperiled. "

What are you hallucinating again? You never asked me that question. This is just another attempt to distract with a straw man argument I never made. It's exactly as I said above about the way you get hysterical about the idea that the health care system can do more to educate people. Now you're making up some drivel about how "outcomes in europe were drivien by"..blah, blah, blah

It's very simple wingnut - Health care systems can and have influenced people to change their lifestyles in a healthy manner through education and the health care system should do more of this education wherever possible.

Now try and get hysterical about that

 

[Meister]

Yes, lifestyle has a very important effect on health outcomes. Where you fail is when you completely ignore the ability of a competent health system to change peoples' lifestyle.

Even you admit the health care system is failing to educate people about the affects of lifestyle on their health. Even you admit that this is an important task. So how is this NOT a failing of our health care system?

The obvious answer is that it is, but will you admit that and acknowledge that poor health outcomes is a symptom of a malfunctioning health care system?

Just get the government to implement mandates to change our life styles.

Translation: Wingnuts don't like to admit they were wrong, so they try to change the subject

Not changing the subject, Sangha. It WILL take the government mandates to change lifestyles. Hell, their doing it now, for the love of God.
Translation: I'm such a Kool-Aid drinking winger that I can't admit he's right.

 

[sangha]

Just get the government to implement mandates to change our life styles.

Translation: Wingnuts don't like to admit they were wrong, so they try to change the subject

Not changing the subject, Sangha. It WILL take the government mandates to change lifestyles. Hell, their doing it now for the love of God.
Translation: I'm such a Kool-Aid drinking winger that I can't admit he's right.

In wingnut world, the fact that health care systems have convinced millions of people to change their lifestyles without mandates means that the only way to change peoples' lifestyles is by using mandates

 

[Meister]

Translation: Wingnuts don't like to admit they were wrong, so they try to change the subject

Not changing the subject, Sangha. It WILL take the government mandates to change lifestyles. Hell, their doing it now for the love of God.
Translation: I'm such a Kool-Aid drinking winger that I can't admit he's right.

In wingnut world, the fact that health care systems have convinced millions of people to change their lifestyles without mandates means that the only way to change peoples' lifestyles is by using mandates

Even though our government (not healthcare) is and been making laws to change lifestyles. Yes, you are in denial and can't admit the truth even if it slaps you in the face.

 

[Christopher]

Life expectancy is not the only measure we do poorly on. We pay more than anyone else. We pay 50% more than the nation with the 2nd highest per capita expense.

The idea that we do so poorly in so many ways because of factors beyond our health care system defies credibility. While a health care system cant cure every condition, a competent one does not fail to respond to numerous areas of of poor performance.

As I said, it is only one of the reasons for our low ranking. Where is the credible study that gives us the main reasons why we pay more than other countries? I haven’t seen it.

What I do know is what is driving up our costs, based upon an analysis by CBO I provided in another thread. Basically, new technology development is by far the greatest reason for increases in spending; other reasons included increases in personal income, and more access to health care spending through third party systems (Medicare and Medicaid). Basically, we spend more because we can and this increase in spending results in increases in development of new technologies, which America leads by far in money spent on development.
Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

If all you had said was "it is only one of the reasons", I would not disagree, But you went further than that. You said ". I believe based upon this study, that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating, but that our overall unhealthy lifestyles at least partially are; there are other factors as well, based upon how statistics are reported."

And increases in technology do not explain why routine procedures cost hundreds of dollars while similar procedures cost far less in other nations, nor do increases in personal income (particularly when the premiums increase several times faster than the minor iincrease in income does) and more access bring per capita costs down

Furthermore, increases in spending do not necesarily lead to development of new technology. Increased spending on providing immunizations to poor children does not lead to the development of expensive new technology. Increased spending on developing expensive new technology is what causes the development of expensive new technologies.

Basically, you're full of hot air. You want to argue that our health care system is a minor factor in health outcomes, but you can't point to what the major factor(s) is/are. You want to hide the fact that your position is baseless nonsense with static about things that have little to no influence on the cost of care or health outcomes.

What I said was that our unhealthy lifestyles are "at least partially" to blame.

From the CBO:

First, expanded third-party coverage fosters greater spending at any point by insulating consumers from part of the cost of medical services, thus encourag-ing them to consume more services than they otherwise would. That increased demand for services, in turn, contributes to rising health care costs, which further increase consumers’ demand for third-party coverage.

This supports my statement about the effects of increased spending. Perhaps you need to read the study by the CBO.

Perhaps if you have some credible evidence which shows that our health care system is to blame, you could provide that. Also, I already asked this but where is the credible study that gives us the main reasons why we pay more than other countries?

 

[sangha]

As I said, it is only one of the reasons for our low ranking. Where is the credible study that gives us the main reasons why we pay more than other countries? I haven’t seen it.

What I do know is what is driving up our costs, based upon an analysis by CBO I provided in another thread. Basically, new technology development is by far the greatest reason for increases in spending; other reasons included increases in personal income, and more access to health care spending through third party systems (Medicare and Medicaid). Basically, we spend more because we can and this increase in spending results in increases in development of new technologies, which America leads by far in money spent on development.
Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

If all you had said was "it is only one of the reasons", I would not disagree, But you went further than that. You said ". I believe based upon this study, that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating, but that our overall unhealthy lifestyles at least partially are; there are other factors as well, based upon how statistics are reported."

And increases in technology do not explain why routine procedures cost hundreds of dollars while similar procedures cost far less in other nations, nor do increases in personal income (particularly when the premiums increase several times faster than the minor iincrease in income does) and more access bring per capita costs down

Furthermore, increases in spending do not necesarily lead to development of new technology. Increased spending on providing immunizations to poor children does not lead to the development of expensive new technology. Increased spending on developing expensive new technology is what causes the development of expensive new technologies.

Basically, you're full of hot air. You want to argue that our health care system is a minor factor in health outcomes, but you can't point to what the major factor(s) is/are. You want to hide the fact that your position is baseless nonsense with static about things that have little to no influence on the cost of care or health outcomes.

What I said was that our unhealthy lifestyles are "at least partially" to blame.

From the CBO:

First, expanded third-party coverage fosters greater spending at any point by insulating consumers from part of the cost of medical services, thus encourag-ing them to consume more services than they otherwise would. That increased demand for services, in turn, contributes to rising health care costs, which further increase consumers’ demand for third-party coverage.

This supports my statement about the effects of increased spending. Perhaps you need to read the study by the CBO.

Perhaps if you have some credible evidence which shows that our health care system is to blame, you could provide that. Also, I already asked this but where is the credible study that gives us the main reasons why we pay more than other countries?

What I said was that our unhealthy lifestyles are "at least partially" to blame.

Wingnut liars always try to deny saying what they said when caught in a lie. They think one lie will fix another. This wingnut wants to pretend he didn't say "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

And here's another lie:

You said that increased spending on health care results in the development of expensive new technologies. The quote you posted says nothing like that. It says "First, expanded third-party coverage fosters greater spending at any point "

 

[Birth-of-Cool]

socialize it! – no more private hands and special interest involved – give it to the people

 

[Christopher]

If all you had said was "it is only one of the reasons", I would not disagree, But you went further than that. You said ". I believe based upon this study, that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating, but that our overall unhealthy lifestyles at least partially are; there are other factors as well, based upon how statistics are reported."

And increases in technology do not explain why routine procedures cost hundreds of dollars while similar procedures cost far less in other nations, nor do increases in personal income (particularly when the premiums increase several times faster than the minor iincrease in income does) and more access bring per capita costs down

Furthermore, increases in spending do not necesarily lead to development of new technology. Increased spending on providing immunizations to poor children does not lead to the development of expensive new technology. Increased spending on developing expensive new technology is what causes the development of expensive new technologies.

Basically, you're full of hot air. You want to argue that our health care system is a minor factor in health outcomes, but you can't point to what the major factor(s) is/are. You want to hide the fact that your position is baseless nonsense with static about things that have little to no influence on the cost of care or health outcomes.

What I said was that our unhealthy lifestyles are "at least partially" to blame.

From the CBO:

First, expanded third-party coverage fosters greater spending at any point by insulating consumers from part of the cost of medical services, thus encourag-ing them to consume more services than they otherwise would. That increased demand for services, in turn, contributes to rising health care costs, which further increase consumers’ demand for third-party coverage.

This supports my statement about the effects of increased spending. Perhaps you need to read the study by the CBO.

Perhaps if you have some credible evidence which shows that our health care system is to blame, you could provide that. Also, I already asked this but where is the credible study that gives us the main reasons why we pay more than other countries?

What I said was that our unhealthy lifestyles are "at least partially" to blame.

Wingnut liars always try to deny saying what they said when caught in a lie. They think one lie will fix another. This wingnut wants to pretend he didn't say "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

And here's another lie:

You said that increased spending on health care results in the development of expensive new technologies. The quote you posted says nothing like that. It says "First, expanded third-party coverage fosters greater spending at any point "

I have not denied anything. Please show me where I did. I just re-quoted myself.

I’m not denying that I said that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating. I agree with the UPenn’s analysis. Our rating would not be as low if we took our higher than average unhealthy lifestyles into account. Please provide credible evidence which disproves the study if you disagree.

Interesting that you would say I’m lying when in fact you just misquoted me. You added the word “expensive” to my words. Actually, you did it twice.

In addition, you took only the first part of two sentences I quoted. I call that taking what I provided out of context. If the quote I provided was not explicit enough, here you go from the same study, under the section “Changes in Third-Party Payment”:

Broader access to health insurance coverage [this is in reference to third party systems such as Medicare and Medicaid which increase coverage], as well as the greater generosity of health insurance plans on average, allows larger financial returns to investment in new medical technologies because both factors contribute to demand for new medical services. Accordingly, a falling share of out-of-pocket health care spending should hasten the development of new technologies, which can lead to higher spending overall.

Another quote, also under “Changes in Third-Party Payment”, talking about the results of expanding Medicare and Medicaid:

That expansion [the expansion of third-party payment systems], in turn, could have had a larger effect on spending by hastening the adoption of cost-increasing new technologies.

 

[sangha]

What I said was that our unhealthy lifestyles are "at least partially" to blame.

From the CBO:


This supports my statement about the effects of increased spending. Perhaps you need to read the study by the CBO.

Perhaps if you have some credible evidence which shows that our health care system is to blame, you could provide that. Also, I already asked this but where is the credible study that gives us the main reasons why we pay more than other countries?

What I said was that our unhealthy lifestyles are "at least partially" to blame.

Wingnut liars always try to deny saying what they said when caught in a lie. They think one lie will fix another. This wingnut wants to pretend he didn't say "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

And here's another lie:

You said that increased spending on health care results in the development of expensive new technologies. The quote you posted says nothing like that. It says "First, expanded third-party coverage fosters greater spending at any point "

I have not denied anything. Please show me where I did. I just re-quoted myself.

I’m not denying that I said that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating. I agree with the UPenn’s analysis. Our rating would not be as low if we took our higher than average unhealthy lifestyles into account. Please provide credible evidence which disproves the study if you disagree.

Interesting that you would say I’m lying when in fact you just misquoted me. You added the word “expensive” to my words. Actually, you did it twice.

In addition, you took only the first part of two sentences I quoted. I call that taking what I provided out of context. If the quote I provided was not explicit enough, here you go from the same study, under the section “Changes in Third-Party Payment”:

Broader access to health insurance coverage [this is in reference to third party systems such as Medicare and Medicaid which increase coverage], as well as the greater generosity of health insurance plans on average, allows larger financial returns to investment in new medical technologies because both factors contribute to demand for new medical services. Accordingly, a falling share of out-of-pocket health care spending should hasten the development of new technologies, which can lead to higher spending overall.

Another quote, also under “Changes in Third-Party Payment”, talking about the results of expanding Medicare and Medicaid:

That expansion [the expansion of third-party payment systems], in turn, could have had a larger effect on spending by hastening the adoption of cost-increasing new technologies.

This lying wingnut wants to run away from his own words, so he lies and denies that I've already posted his quote. Here it is again

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

Of course, the wingnut won't defend his own words. Instead, he'll deny saying them

I’m not denying that I said that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating. I agree with the UPenn’s analysis. Our rating would not be as low if we took our higher than average unhealthy lifestyles into account. Please provide credible evidence which disproves the study if you disagree.

Once again, the lying wingnut makes a claim and REFUSES to defend it and presents a straw man instead. This time, he repeats the claim that there are OTHER FACTORS, like lifestyle which also impact health outcomes. No one has disputed this, but the wingnut wants to pretend that is the issue because he knows he can't defend his claim that

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

The fact that there are OTHER FACTORS in no way supports the wingnuts claim that

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

ANd the wingnut also has to lie about me misquoting him. He lies and says I added the word "expensive" to his quote. A quick read shows that my use of the word was not part of my quoting him. The wingnut wants to make up all sorts of false charges in the hopes I'll forget his nonsense claim that

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

And the quote you just added does NOT support your claim that increased health care spending leads to the development of new technologies It actually says NOTHING about increased SPENDING. It talks about "Broader access to health insurance coverage ", not more spending

Wingnuts are so illiterate that they think "a falling share of out-of-pocket health care spending should hasten the development of new technologies, which can lead to higher spending overall." means "increased spending leads to the development of new technology"

The statement you made was "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

Let's see you defend it

 

[Christopher]

What I said was that our unhealthy lifestyles are "at least partially" to blame.

Wingnut liars always try to deny saying what they said when caught in a lie. They think one lie will fix another. This wingnut wants to pretend he didn't say "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

And here's another lie:

You said that increased spending on health care results in the development of expensive new technologies. The quote you posted says nothing like that. It says "First, expanded third-party coverage fosters greater spending at any point "

I have not denied anything. Please show me where I did. I just re-quoted myself.

I’m not denying that I said that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating. I agree with the UPenn’s analysis. Our rating would not be as low if we took our higher than average unhealthy lifestyles into account. Please provide credible evidence which disproves the study if you disagree.

Interesting that you would say I’m lying when in fact you just misquoted me. You added the word “expensive” to my words. Actually, you did it twice.

In addition, you took only the first part of two sentences I quoted. I call that taking what I provided out of context. If the quote I provided was not explicit enough, here you go from the same study, under the section “Changes in Third-Party Payment”:


Another quote, also under “Changes in Third-Party Payment”, talking about the results of expanding Medicare and Medicaid:

That expansion [the expansion of third-party payment systems], in turn, could have had a larger effect on spending by hastening the adoption of cost-increasing new technologies.

This lying wingnut wants to run away from his own words, so he lies and denies that I've already posted his quote. Here it is again

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

Of course, the wingnut won't defend his own words. Instead, he'll deny saying them

I’m not denying that I said that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating. I agree with the UPenn’s analysis. Our rating would not be as low if we took our higher than average unhealthy lifestyles into account. Please provide credible evidence which disproves the study if you disagree.

Once again, the lying wingnut makes a claim and REFUSES to defend it and presents a straw man instead. This time, he repeats the claim that there are OTHER FACTORS, like lifestyle which also impact health outcomes. No one has disputed this, but the wingnut wants to pretend that is the issue because he knows he can't defend his claim that

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

The fact that there are OTHER FACTORS in no way supports the wingnuts claim that

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

ANd the wingnut also has to lie about me misquoting him. He lies and says I added the word "expensive" to his quote. A quick read shows that my use of the word was not part of my quoting him. The wingnut wants to make up all sorts of false charges in the hopes I'll forget his nonsense claim that

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

And the quote you just added does NOT support your claim that increased health care spending leads to the development of new technologies It actually says NOTHING about increased SPENDING. It talks about "Broader access to health insurance coverage ", not more spending

Wingnuts are so illiterate that they think "a falling share of out-of-pocket health care spending should hasten the development of new technologies, which can lead to higher spending overall." means "increased spending leads to the development of new technology"

The statement you made was "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

Let's see you defend it

Perhaps I need to explain it one more time. You seem to fail in comprehension, although I think it is intentional on your part. I have not denied anything I’ve said, nor have I run away from what I’ve said. The fact remains that our rating would be higher if unhealthy lifestyles were taken into account. Our health care system is not to blame for our LOW [note the emphasis on low] rating. I also said that our unhealthy lifestyles are at least partially to blame for the low rating, indicating that it is not the only reason for our rating. I have defended my claims with credible studies. Even after asking you several times to provide any credible evidence, you still have nothing.
Here is what the study I provided says:

…We find that, by standards of OECD countries, the US does well in terms of screening for cancer, survival rates from cancer, survival rates after heart attacks and strokes, and medication of individuals with high levels of blood pressure or cholesterol. We consider in greater depth mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, diseases for which effective methods of identification and treatment have been developed and where behavioral factors do not play a dominant role. We show that the US has had significantly faster declines in mortality from these two diseases than comparison countries. We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system…

…measures of population health such as life expectancy do not depend only on what transpires within the health care system – the array of hospitals, doctors and other health care professionals, the techniques they employ, and the institutions that govern access to and utilization of them. Such measures also depend upon a variety of personal behaviors that affect an individual’s health such as diet, exercise, smoking, and compliance with medical protocols…

The CBO study talks about “broader access to health insurance coverage” which [and this is the part you left out which I quoted] leads “to higher spending overall”. Your attempt at taking things out of context I think is dishonest on your part.

Who are you responding to by the way? In most of your post you seem to not even be addressing me directly, in referring to me as “the wingnut”. This, by the way is quite childish. Maybe you are expecting me to respond childishly as well? Perhaps I should respond “sticks and stones…” ..oh never mind.

 

[sangha]

I have not denied anything. Please show me where I did. I just re-quoted myself.

I’m not denying that I said that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating. I agree with the UPenn’s analysis. Our rating would not be as low if we took our higher than average unhealthy lifestyles into account. Please provide credible evidence which disproves the study if you disagree.

Interesting that you would say I’m lying when in fact you just misquoted me. You added the word “expensive” to my words. Actually, you did it twice.

In addition, you took only the first part of two sentences I quoted. I call that taking what I provided out of context. If the quote I provided was not explicit enough, here you go from the same study, under the section “Changes in Third-Party Payment”:


Another quote, also under “Changes in Third-Party Payment”, talking about the results of expanding Medicare and Medicaid:

This lying wingnut wants to run away from his own words, so he lies and denies that I've already posted his quote. Here it is again

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

Of course, the wingnut won't defend his own words. Instead, he'll deny saying them

I’m not denying that I said that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating. I agree with the UPenn’s analysis. Our rating would not be as low if we took our higher than average unhealthy lifestyles into account. Please provide credible evidence which disproves the study if you disagree.

Once again, the lying wingnut makes a claim and REFUSES to defend it and presents a straw man instead. This time, he repeats the claim that there are OTHER FACTORS, like lifestyle which also impact health outcomes. No one has disputed this, but the wingnut wants to pretend that is the issue because he knows he can't defend his claim that

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

The fact that there are OTHER FACTORS in no way supports the wingnuts claim that

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

ANd the wingnut also has to lie about me misquoting him. He lies and says I added the word "expensive" to his quote. A quick read shows that my use of the word was not part of my quoting him. The wingnut wants to make up all sorts of false charges in the hopes I'll forget his nonsense claim that

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

And the quote you just added does NOT support your claim that increased health care spending leads to the development of new technologies It actually says NOTHING about increased SPENDING. It talks about "Broader access to health insurance coverage ", not more spending

Wingnuts are so illiterate that they think "a falling share of out-of-pocket health care spending should hasten the development of new technologies, which can lead to higher spending overall." means "increased spending leads to the development of new technology"

The statement you made was "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

Let's see you defend it

Perhaps I need to explain it one more time. You seem to fail in comprehension, although I think it is intentional on your part. I have not denied anything I’ve said, nor have I run away from what I’ve said. The fact remains that our rating would be higher if unhealthy lifestyles were taken into account. Our health care system is not to blame for our LOW [note the emphasis on low] rating. I also said that our unhealthy lifestyles are at least partially to blame for the low rating, indicating that it is not the only reason for our rating. I have defended my claims with credible studies. Even after asking you several times to provide any credible evidence, you still have nothing.
Here is what the study I provided says:

…We find that, by standards of OECD countries, the US does well in terms of screening for cancer, survival rates from cancer, survival rates after heart attacks and strokes, and medication of individuals with high levels of blood pressure or cholesterol. We consider in greater depth mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, diseases for which effective methods of identification and treatment have been developed and where behavioral factors do not play a dominant role. We show that the US has had significantly faster declines in mortality from these two diseases than comparison countries. We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system…

…measures of population health such as life expectancy do not depend only on what transpires within the health care system – the array of hospitals, doctors and other health care professionals, the techniques they employ, and the institutions that govern access to and utilization of them. Such measures also depend upon a variety of personal behaviors that affect an individual’s health such as diet, exercise, smoking, and compliance with medical protocols…

The CBO study talks about “broader access to health insurance coverage” which [and this is the part you left out which I quoted] leads “to higher spending overall”. Your attempt at taking things out of context I think is dishonest on your part.

Who are you responding to by the way? In most of your post you seem to not even be addressing me directly, in referring to me as “the wingnut”. This, by the way is quite childish. Maybe you are expecting me to respond childishly as well? Perhaps I should respond “sticks and stones…” ..oh never mind.

Once again, you can post as much evidence as you like about OTHER FACTORS, but you won't be doing anything to defend your statement.

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

You seem to think that the existence of OTHER FACTORS proves that the health care has no blame for our low rating. You just keep repeating it and repeating it, but you will never explain why the existence of OTHER FACTORS is any way relevant to whether our health care system has any blame for our low rating

So contrary to your claims that you have posted studies to support your inane claim, the only thing you've done is prove that there are OTHER FACTORS, a straw man which no one is disputing.

WRT your 2nd point, you also said that increased spening on health care leads to the development of new technologies which cost more than current treatments. The study you quoted does not support your claims.

In both cases, you can't seem to provide any support for your claims that are relevent. In the first case, you fetishize the OTHER FACTORS though they do nothing to support your claim that the HC system is not blame for our low rating. In the 2nd, the reports you cite do not say that increased spending on health care leads to the development of new technologies which lead to increases in hc costs

WHen will you post something that actually does support your claims, instead of posting irrelevancies and declaring they prove your inane claims?

 

[Christopher]

This lying wingnut wants to run away from his own words, so he lies and denies that I've already posted his quote. Here it is again

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

Of course, the wingnut won't defend his own words. Instead, he'll deny saying them

I’m not denying that I said that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating. I agree with the UPenn’s analysis. Our rating would not be as low if we took our higher than average unhealthy lifestyles into account. Please provide credible evidence which disproves the study if you disagree.

Once again, the lying wingnut makes a claim and REFUSES to defend it and presents a straw man instead. This time, he repeats the claim that there are OTHER FACTORS, like lifestyle which also impact health outcomes. No one has disputed this, but the wingnut wants to pretend that is the issue because he knows he can't defend his claim that

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

The fact that there are OTHER FACTORS in no way supports the wingnuts claim that

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

ANd the wingnut also has to lie about me misquoting him. He lies and says I added the word "expensive" to his quote. A quick read shows that my use of the word was not part of my quoting him. The wingnut wants to make up all sorts of false charges in the hopes I'll forget his nonsense claim that

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

And the quote you just added does NOT support your claim that increased health care spending leads to the development of new technologies It actually says NOTHING about increased SPENDING. It talks about "Broader access to health insurance coverage ", not more spending

Wingnuts are so illiterate that they think "a falling share of out-of-pocket health care spending should hasten the development of new technologies, which can lead to higher spending overall." means "increased spending leads to the development of new technology"

The statement you made was "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

Let's see you defend it

Perhaps I need to explain it one more time. You seem to fail in comprehension, although I think it is intentional on your part. I have not denied anything I’ve said, nor have I run away from what I’ve said. The fact remains that our rating would be higher if unhealthy lifestyles were taken into account. Our health care system is not to blame for our LOW [note the emphasis on low] rating. I also said that our unhealthy lifestyles are at least partially to blame for the low rating, indicating that it is not the only reason for our rating. I have defended my claims with credible studies. Even after asking you several times to provide any credible evidence, you still have nothing.
Here is what the study I provided says:

…We find that, by standards of OECD countries, the US does well in terms of screening for cancer, survival rates from cancer, survival rates after heart attacks and strokes, and medication of individuals with high levels of blood pressure or cholesterol. We consider in greater depth mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, diseases for which effective methods of identification and treatment have been developed and where behavioral factors do not play a dominant role. We show that the US has had significantly faster declines in mortality from these two diseases than comparison countries. We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system…

…measures of population health such as life expectancy do not depend only on what transpires within the health care system – the array of hospitals, doctors and other health care professionals, the techniques they employ, and the institutions that govern access to and utilization of them. Such measures also depend upon a variety of personal behaviors that affect an individual’s health such as diet, exercise, smoking, and compliance with medical protocols…

The CBO study talks about “broader access to health insurance coverage” which [and this is the part you left out which I quoted] leads “to higher spending overall”. Your attempt at taking things out of context I think is dishonest on your part.

Who are you responding to by the way? In most of your post you seem to not even be addressing me directly, in referring to me as “the wingnut”. This, by the way is quite childish. Maybe you are expecting me to respond childishly as well? Perhaps I should respond “sticks and stones…” ..oh never mind.

Once again, you can post as much evidence as you like about OTHER FACTORS, but you won't be doing anything to defend your statement.

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

You seem to think that the existence of OTHER FACTORS proves that the health care has no blame for our low rating. You just keep repeating it and repeating it, but you will never explain why the existence of OTHER FACTORS is any way relevant to whether our health care system has any blame for our low rating

So contrary to your claims that you have posted studies to support your inane claim, the only thing you've done is prove that there are OTHER FACTORS, a straw man which no one is disputing.

WRT your 2nd point, you also said that increased spening on health care leads to the development of new technologies which cost more than current treatments. The study you quoted does not support your claims.

In both cases, you can't seem to provide any support for your claims that are relevent. In the first case, you fetishize the OTHER FACTORS though they do nothing to support your claim that the HC system is not blame for our low rating. In the 2nd, the reports you cite do not say that increased spending on health care leads to the development of new technologies which lead to increases in hc costs

WHen will you post something that actually does support your claims, instead of posting irrelevancies and declaring they prove your inane claims?

If you do not understand what the CBO was saying, I can't help any further. You actually claimed before that it said nothing about increased spending. I proved you wrong. You obviously won't read it for yourself.

Here it is simple: The UPenn study concluded that our health care system is not at fault for our low longevity ranking, period. Taking this into account would make our ranking higher, period. The study also stated that "measures of population health such as life expectancy do not depend only on what transpires within the health care system – the array of hospitals, doctors and other health care professionals, the techniques they employ, and the institutions that govern access to and utilization of them. Such measures also depend upon a variety of personal behaviors that affect an individual’s health such as diet, exercise, smoking, and compliance with medical protocols"

Please enlighten me as to how our health care system is to blame for our low ranking, with some credible evidence of course.

 

[sangha]

Perhaps I need to explain it one more time. You seem to fail in comprehension, although I think it is intentional on your part. I have not denied anything I’ve said, nor have I run away from what I’ve said. The fact remains that our rating would be higher if unhealthy lifestyles were taken into account. Our health care system is not to blame for our LOW [note the emphasis on low] rating. I also said that our unhealthy lifestyles are at least partially to blame for the low rating, indicating that it is not the only reason for our rating. I have defended my claims with credible studies. Even after asking you several times to provide any credible evidence, you still have nothing.
Here is what the study I provided says:


The CBO study talks about “broader access to health insurance coverage” which [and this is the part you left out which I quoted] leads “to higher spending overall”. Your attempt at taking things out of context I think is dishonest on your part.

Who are you responding to by the way? In most of your post you seem to not even be addressing me directly, in referring to me as “the wingnut”. This, by the way is quite childish. Maybe you are expecting me to respond childishly as well? Perhaps I should respond “sticks and stones…” ..oh never mind.

Once again, you can post as much evidence as you like about OTHER FACTORS, but you won't be doing anything to defend your statement.

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

You seem to think that the existence of OTHER FACTORS proves that the health care has no blame for our low rating. You just keep repeating it and repeating it, but you will never explain why the existence of OTHER FACTORS is any way relevant to whether our health care system has any blame for our low rating

So contrary to your claims that you have posted studies to support your inane claim, the only thing you've done is prove that there are OTHER FACTORS, a straw man which no one is disputing.

WRT your 2nd point, you also said that increased spening on health care leads to the development of new technologies which cost more than current treatments. The study you quoted does not support your claims.

In both cases, you can't seem to provide any support for your claims that are relevent. In the first case, you fetishize the OTHER FACTORS though they do nothing to support your claim that the HC system is not blame for our low rating. In the 2nd, the reports you cite do not say that increased spending on health care leads to the development of new technologies which lead to increases in hc costs

WHen will you post something that actually does support your claims, instead of posting irrelevancies and declaring they prove your inane claims?

If you do not understand what the CBO was saying, I can't help any further. You actually claimed before that it said nothing about increased spending. I proved you wrong. You obviously won't read it for yourself.

Here it is simple: The UPenn study concluded that our health care system is not at fault for our low longevity ranking, period. Taking this into account would make our ranking higher, period. The study also stated that "measures of population health such as life expectancy do not depend only on what transpires within the health care system – the array of hospitals, doctors and other health care professionals, the techniques they employ, and the institutions that govern access to and utilization of them. Such measures also depend upon a variety of personal behaviors that affect an individual’s health such as diet, exercise, smoking, and compliance with medical protocols"

Please enlighten me as to how our health care system is to blame for our low ranking, with some credible evidence of course.

I understand what the CBO reports says. It says that our health care system drives costs up. The high cost of health care is a major reason for our poor rating.

In wingnut world, that means "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

Your next point is also irrelevant

The UPenn study concluded that our health care system is not at fault for our low longevity ranking, period.

So what? This discussion is not about longevity ranking, period. Once again, you've brought up a straw man irrelevancy and tried to pass it off as responsive

You said "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

NOT our health care system is not at fault for our low longevity ranking

You do understand the difference between "low rating" and "low longetivity ranking"??

Don't you?

You said "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating" When will you post some facts that support your claim?

 

[Christopher]

Once again, you can post as much evidence as you like about OTHER FACTORS, but you won't be doing anything to defend your statement.

"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

You seem to think that the existence of OTHER FACTORS proves that the health care has no blame for our low rating. You just keep repeating it and repeating it, but you will never explain why the existence of OTHER FACTORS is any way relevant to whether our health care system has any blame for our low rating

So contrary to your claims that you have posted studies to support your inane claim, the only thing you've done is prove that there are OTHER FACTORS, a straw man which no one is disputing.

WRT your 2nd point, you also said that increased spening on health care leads to the development of new technologies which cost more than current treatments. The study you quoted does not support your claims.

In both cases, you can't seem to provide any support for your claims that are relevent. In the first case, you fetishize the OTHER FACTORS though they do nothing to support your claim that the HC system is not blame for our low rating. In the 2nd, the reports you cite do not say that increased spending on health care leads to the development of new technologies which lead to increases in hc costs

WHen will you post something that actually does support your claims, instead of posting irrelevancies and declaring they prove your inane claims?

If you do not understand what the CBO was saying, I can't help any further. You actually claimed before that it said nothing about increased spending. I proved you wrong. You obviously won't read it for yourself.

Here it is simple: The UPenn study concluded that our health care system is not at fault for our low longevity ranking, period. Taking this into account would make our ranking higher, period. The study also stated that "measures of population health such as life expectancy do not depend only on what transpires within the health care system – the array of hospitals, doctors and other health care professionals, the techniques they employ, and the institutions that govern access to and utilization of them. Such measures also depend upon a variety of personal behaviors that affect an individual’s health such as diet, exercise, smoking, and compliance with medical protocols"

Please enlighten me as to how our health care system is to blame for our low ranking, with some credible evidence of course.

I understand what the CBO reports says. It says that our health care system drives costs up. The high cost of health care is a major reason for our poor rating.

In wingnut world, that means "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

Your next point is also irrelevant

The UPenn study concluded that our health care system is not at fault for our low longevity ranking, period.

So what? This discussion is not about longevity ranking, period. Once again, you've brought up a straw man irrelevancy and tried to pass it off as responsive

You said "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

NOT our health care system is not at fault for our low longevity ranking

You do understand the difference between "low rating" and "low longetivity ranking"??

Don't you?

You said "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating" When will you post some facts that support your claim?

No, what it says is there are factors which increase spending which in turn increases costs. We have greater outcomes and better response because of these increases in costs; those are the main area we excel in the ranking. You spend more, you increase outcomes and get a better response; makes sense. Those were not considered in the ranking either.
You were clearly shown as taking the CBO out of context and claiming it mentioned nothing about increases in spending. I only provided the CBO study to show what is increasing costs. Clearly it is because we are spending a lot on the development and implementation of new technologies. I have also seen some evidence that the US is shouldering the burden in development of new drugs. Other countries see the benefit, can approve drugs and new technologies more quickly. If anything, the FDA is part of the problem, not the health care system.

Of course I understand the difference between low rating and low longevity rating. Longevity ranking is a main factor in the ranking, so the UPenn study is not irrelevant. Our rating would be higher if unhealthy lifestyles were considered as a factor outside of health care systems’ control. That is my point.

There are other factors, as I said before such as how statistics are reported, which are also outside the control of our health care system (hence, our health care system is not to blame.

Where would we stand if we took out all the factors which are outside of our health care system’s control? I say based on the evidence, we would be much higher.

I'm still waiting for you to post some evidence.

 

[Cuyo]

Problems? What problems? If there were problems all kinds of companies, unions, etc. would be pestering the White House for waivers to get out from under the ObamaCare scheme.

Oops...never mind...

I believe you are very mistaken. If we went with "Single Payer" like many Libtards want to do, the government would be the one and only company shoppe in town! ... What good would a "waiver" do you then?

Single payer =/ socialized medicine. Socialized medicine implies government ownership of healthcare facilities. Single payer is just a government insurance plan similar to Medicare that applies to everyone. It can (and often does) coincide with a private insurance market.

 

[sangha]

If you do not understand what the CBO was saying, I can't help any further. You actually claimed before that it said nothing about increased spending. I proved you wrong. You obviously won't read it for yourself.

Here it is simple: The UPenn study concluded that our health care system is not at fault for our low longevity ranking, period. Taking this into account would make our ranking higher, period. The study also stated that "measures of population health such as life expectancy do not depend only on what transpires within the health care system – the array of hospitals, doctors and other health care professionals, the techniques they employ, and the institutions that govern access to and utilization of them. Such measures also depend upon a variety of personal behaviors that affect an individual’s health such as diet, exercise, smoking, and compliance with medical protocols"

Please enlighten me as to how our health care system is to blame for our low ranking, with some credible evidence of course.

I understand what the CBO reports says. It says that our health care system drives costs up. The high cost of health care is a major reason for our poor rating.

In wingnut world, that means "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

Your next point is also irrelevant

The UPenn study concluded that our health care system is not at fault for our low longevity ranking, period.

So what? This discussion is not about longevity ranking, period. Once again, you've brought up a straw man irrelevancy and tried to pass it off as responsive

You said "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

NOT our health care system is not at fault for our low longevity ranking

You do understand the difference between "low rating" and "low longetivity ranking"??

Don't you?

You said "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating" When will you post some facts that support your claim?

No, what it says is there are factors which increase spending which in turn increases costs. We have greater outcomes and better response because of these increases in costs; those are the main area we excel in the ranking. You spend more, you increase outcomes and get a better response; makes sense. Those were not considered in the ranking either.
You were clearly shown as taking the CBO out of context and claiming it mentioned nothing about increases in spending. I only provided the CBO study to show what is increasing costs. Clearly it is because we are spending a lot on the development and implementation of new technologies. I have also seen some evidence that the US is shouldering the burden in development of new drugs. Other countries see the benefit, can approve drugs and new technologies more quickly. If anything, the FDA is part of the problem, not the health care system.

Of course I understand the difference between low rating and low longevity rating. Longevity ranking is a main factor in the ranking, so the UPenn study is not irrelevant. Our rating would be higher if unhealthy lifestyles were considered as a factor outside of health care systems’ control. That is my point.

There are other factors, as I said before such as how statistics are reported, which are also outside the control of our health care system (hence, our health care system is not to blame.

Where would we stand if we took out all the factors which are outside of our health care system’s control? I say based on the evidence, we would be much higher.

I'm still waiting for you to post some evidence.

"No, what it says is there are factors which increase spending which in turn increases costs. "

No, it does not say that. If it did, there would be quotes around the words when you posted them. Those are YOUR words, not the CBO's

What the CBO says is that increased spending in OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM leads to increases in costs. IOW, they are blaming our health care system for the high costs. In your wingnut delusions, that means "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

"You spend more, you increase outcomes and get a better response; makes sense"

The CBO report does not say that. In fact, there are studies which show that increased ispending do not always lead to better outcomes. For example, increased screening for breast cancer has not always resulted in higher rates of detection and prevention.

"You spend more, you increase outcomes and get a better response; makes sense. Those were not considered in the ranking either. "

Youre making stuff up. The study did not take spending into account, but it DID take outcomes into account. In fact, the study was mostly about outcomes. And when you rankoutcomes, spending SHOULD NOT be a consideration. When you rank outcomes, you rank OUTCOMES, not spending.

"You were clearly shown as taking the CBO out of context and claiming it mentioned nothing about increases in spending."

I never said that the CBO said NOTHING about increases in spending. I specifically noted the CBO blamed increased costs on our health care system. Please don't make up stuff about what I said.

" I only provided the CBO study to show what is increasing costs. "

No, you claimed that increasing spending results in developing new technology which increases costs. The CBO does not support your claim that increased spending is increasing costs. That's why you can't quote where the CBO report says that.

"If anything, the FDA is part of the problem, not the health care system."

Umm, the FDA is part of the health care system.

"Of course I understand the difference between low rating and low longevity rating. Longevity ranking is a main factor in the ranking, so the UPenn study is not irrelevant"

You are lying. Longetivity is NOT the main factor in the ranking. Please stop making stuff up.

"Our rating would be higher if unhealthy lifestyles were considered as a factor outside of health care systems’ control. That is my point."

And you just proved my point. You can't support your position with facts, so you have to pretend that the health care system doesn't influence people's lifestyles.

 

[Christopher]

I understand what the CBO reports says. It says that our health care system drives costs up. The high cost of health care is a major reason for our poor rating.

In wingnut world, that means "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

Your next point is also irrelevant

The UPenn study concluded that our health care system is not at fault for our low longevity ranking, period.

So what? This discussion is not about longevity ranking, period. Once again, you've brought up a straw man irrelevancy and tried to pass it off as responsive

You said "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

NOT our health care system is not at fault for our low longevity ranking

You do understand the difference between "low rating" and "low longetivity ranking"??

Don't you?

You said "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating" When will you post some facts that support your claim?

No, what it says is there are factors which increase spending which in turn increases costs. We have greater outcomes and better response because of these increases in costs; those are the main area we excel in the ranking. You spend more, you increase outcomes and get a better response; makes sense. Those were not considered in the ranking either.
You were clearly shown as taking the CBO out of context and claiming it mentioned nothing about increases in spending. I only provided the CBO study to show what is increasing costs. Clearly it is because we are spending a lot on the development and implementation of new technologies. I have also seen some evidence that the US is shouldering the burden in development of new drugs. Other countries see the benefit, can approve drugs and new technologies more quickly. If anything, the FDA is part of the problem, not the health care system.

Of course I understand the difference between low rating and low longevity rating. Longevity ranking is a main factor in the ranking, so the UPenn study is not irrelevant. Our rating would be higher if unhealthy lifestyles were considered as a factor outside of health care systems’ control. That is my point.

There are other factors, as I said before such as how statistics are reported, which are also outside the control of our health care system (hence, our health care system is not to blame.

Where would we stand if we took out all the factors which are outside of our health care system’s control? I say based on the evidence, we would be much higher.

I'm still waiting for you to post some evidence.

"No, what it says is there are factors which increase spending which in turn increases costs. "

No, it does not say that. If it did, there would be quotes around the words when you posted them. Those are YOUR words, not the CBO's

What the CBO says is that increased spending in OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM leads to increases in costs. IOW, they are blaming our health care system for the high costs. In your wingnut delusions, that means "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

"You spend more, you increase outcomes and get a better response; makes sense"

The CBO report does not say that. In fact, there are studies which show that increased ispending do not always lead to better outcomes. For example, increased screening for breast cancer has not always resulted in higher rates of detection and prevention.

"You spend more, you increase outcomes and get a better response; makes sense. Those were not considered in the ranking either. "

Youre making stuff up. The study did not take spending into account, but it DID take outcomes into account. In fact, the study was mostly about outcomes. And when you rankoutcomes, spending SHOULD NOT be a consideration. When you rank outcomes, you rank OUTCOMES, not spending.

"You were clearly shown as taking the CBO out of context and claiming it mentioned nothing about increases in spending."

I never said that the CBO said NOTHING about increases in spending. I specifically noted the CBO blamed increased costs on our health care system. Please don't make up stuff about what I said.

" I only provided the CBO study to show what is increasing costs. "

No, you claimed that increasing spending results in developing new technology which increases costs. The CBO does not support your claim that increased spending is increasing costs. That's why you can't quote where the CBO report says that.

"If anything, the FDA is part of the problem, not the health care system."

Umm, the FDA is part of the health care system.

"Of course I understand the difference between low rating and low longevity rating. Longevity ranking is a main factor in the ranking, so the UPenn study is not irrelevant"

You are lying. Longetivity is NOT the main factor in the ranking. Please stop making stuff up.

"Our rating would be higher if unhealthy lifestyles were considered as a factor outside of health care systems’ control. That is my point."

And you just proved my point. You can't support your position with facts, so you have to pretend that the health care system doesn't influence people's lifestyles.

Still nothing to support your position and once again you are misrepresenting what I said in many cases. For instance, I did not say that longevity is THE main factor; I said it was A main factor. Also, yes you did say that the CBO mentioned nothing about spending. I will show you your quote in context if you would like. Please learn to read what I have posted and stop taking what I said and twisting it or taking it out of context. Then we can move on.

My point still stands: if we were to take out all of the factors that are beyond the control of our health care system, our ranking would not be so low. Our ranking would be more equal to other top-ranked countries. Hence, our health care system is not at fault for our low ranking. I'm not saying the system does not have problems. The biggest issue every system is facing is that growth and the associated costs are unsustainable.

Our overall health outcomes are measured by longevity, infant mortality, etc. These are very strongly influenced by lifestyle factors. Other factors, as I mentioned, include how countries measure premature births. Some will not count births by a certain number of weeks, while the US does. Overall the rankings do not correctly reflect our health care system when compared to other health care systems.

 

[sangha]

No, what it says is there are factors which increase spending which in turn increases costs. We have greater outcomes and better response because of these increases in costs; those are the main area we excel in the ranking. You spend more, you increase outcomes and get a better response; makes sense. Those were not considered in the ranking either.
You were clearly shown as taking the CBO out of context and claiming it mentioned nothing about increases in spending. I only provided the CBO study to show what is increasing costs. Clearly it is because we are spending a lot on the development and implementation of new technologies. I have also seen some evidence that the US is shouldering the burden in development of new drugs. Other countries see the benefit, can approve drugs and new technologies more quickly. If anything, the FDA is part of the problem, not the health care system.

Of course I understand the difference between low rating and low longevity rating. Longevity ranking is a main factor in the ranking, so the UPenn study is not irrelevant. Our rating would be higher if unhealthy lifestyles were considered as a factor outside of health care systems’ control. That is my point.

There are other factors, as I said before such as how statistics are reported, which are also outside the control of our health care system (hence, our health care system is not to blame.

Where would we stand if we took out all the factors which are outside of our health care system’s control? I say based on the evidence, we would be much higher.

I'm still waiting for you to post some evidence.

"No, what it says is there are factors which increase spending which in turn increases costs. "

No, it does not say that. If it did, there would be quotes around the words when you posted them. Those are YOUR words, not the CBO's

What the CBO says is that increased spending in OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM leads to increases in costs. IOW, they are blaming our health care system for the high costs. In your wingnut delusions, that means "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

"You spend more, you increase outcomes and get a better response; makes sense"

The CBO report does not say that. In fact, there are studies which show that increased ispending do not always lead to better outcomes. For example, increased screening for breast cancer has not always resulted in higher rates of detection and prevention.

"You spend more, you increase outcomes and get a better response; makes sense. Those were not considered in the ranking either. "

Youre making stuff up. The study did not take spending into account, but it DID take outcomes into account. In fact, the study was mostly about outcomes. And when you rankoutcomes, spending SHOULD NOT be a consideration. When you rank outcomes, you rank OUTCOMES, not spending.

"You were clearly shown as taking the CBO out of context and claiming it mentioned nothing about increases in spending."

I never said that the CBO said NOTHING about increases in spending. I specifically noted the CBO blamed increased costs on our health care system. Please don't make up stuff about what I said.

" I only provided the CBO study to show what is increasing costs. "

No, you claimed that increasing spending results in developing new technology which increases costs. The CBO does not support your claim that increased spending is increasing costs. That's why you can't quote where the CBO report says that.

"If anything, the FDA is part of the problem, not the health care system."

Umm, the FDA is part of the health care system.

"Of course I understand the difference between low rating and low longevity rating. Longevity ranking is a main factor in the ranking, so the UPenn study is not irrelevant"

You are lying. Longetivity is NOT the main factor in the ranking. Please stop making stuff up.

"Our rating would be higher if unhealthy lifestyles were considered as a factor outside of health care systems’ control. That is my point."

And you just proved my point. You can't support your position with facts, so you have to pretend that the health care system doesn't influence people's lifestyles.

Still nothing to support your position and once again you are misrepresenting what I said in many cases. For instance, I did not say that longevity is THE main factor; I said it was A main factor. Also, yes you did say that the CBO mentioned nothing about spending. I will show you your quote in context if you would like. Please learn to read what I have posted and stop taking what I said and twisting it or taking it out of context. Then we can move on.

My point still stands: if we were to take out all of the factors that are beyond the control of our health care system, our ranking would not be so low. Our ranking would be more equal to other top-ranked countries. Hence, our health care system is not at fault for our low ranking. I'm not saying the system does not have problems. The biggest issue every system is facing is that growth and the associated costs are unsustainable.

Our overall health outcomes are measured by longevity, infant mortality, etc. These are very strongly influenced by lifestyle factors. Other factors, as I mentioned, include how countries measure premature births. Some will not count births by a certain number of weeks, while the US does. Overall the rankings do not correctly reflect our health care system when compared to other health care systems.

So I have nothing to support the claim that the health care system can get people to change their lifestyles?

I guess you missed the campaign against tobacco, which has resulted in lower smoking rates for children? I guess you missed the way the hog farmers changed the way they raised pigs to meet the publics' desire for low fat meat?

"For instance, I did not say that longevity is THE main factor; I said it was A main factor.'

And you have no support for that claim either. Longevity was a factor. There was nothing that made it a MAIN factor. You are just making stuff up again.

"Also, yes you did say that the CBO mentioned nothing about spending. "

And yet, once again, you can't post the quote where I said this. You say you CAN post, yet you DON'T actually post it.

I said the international study that ranked the US so low did not take spending into accoutn. Please stop lying about what I said.

"My point still stands: if we were to take out all of the factors that are beyond the control of our health care system, our ranking would not be so low. Our ranking would be more equal to other top-ranked countries. Hence, our health care system is not at fault for our low ranking. "

It is a tautology to say that if you take out the negatives, the result will be more positive. This is a straw man that no one is disagreeing with.

However, the study which ranked the health care of nations all over the world, did not take out the factors that are beyond the control of the health system in the US because they did not do that for ANY nation. We are not the only nation where lifestyles impact health. That is true all over the world

So, of course we would do better if they took out all the factors beyond OUR control. The same is true for every other nation. So if they did the same for every other country, there's no reason to think we would not end up in the same spot.

But worst of all, even if what you said was true, it still wouldn't lead to the conclusion that "our health care system is not at fault for our low ranking"

If we took out all those factors you mentioned, there is still no evidence that our ranking would improve ENOUGH to move us significantly higher in the rankings.

"Our overall health outcomes are measured by longevity, infant mortality, etc. These are very strongly influenced by lifestyle factors. "

This is true for EVERY nation. You have presented absolutely NO EVIDENCE that our ranking would change if it eliminated all those factors.

 

[Christopher]

"No, what it says is there are factors which increase spending which in turn increases costs. "

No, it does not say that. If it did, there would be quotes around the words when you posted them. Those are YOUR words, not the CBO's

What the CBO says is that increased spending in OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM leads to increases in costs. IOW, they are blaming our health care system for the high costs. In your wingnut delusions, that means "our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"

"You spend more, you increase outcomes and get a better response; makes sense"

The CBO report does not say that. In fact, there are studies which show that increased ispending do not always lead to better outcomes. For example, increased screening for breast cancer has not always resulted in higher rates of detection and prevention.

"You spend more, you increase outcomes and get a better response; makes sense. Those were not considered in the ranking either. "

Youre making stuff up. The study did not take spending into account, but it DID take outcomes into account. In fact, the study was mostly about outcomes. And when you rankoutcomes, spending SHOULD NOT be a consideration. When you rank outcomes, you rank OUTCOMES, not spending.

"You were clearly shown as taking the CBO out of context and claiming it mentioned nothing about increases in spending."

I never said that the CBO said NOTHING about increases in spending. I specifically noted the CBO blamed increased costs on our health care system. Please don't make up stuff about what I said.

" I only provided the CBO study to show what is increasing costs. "

No, you claimed that increasing spending results in developing new technology which increases costs. The CBO does not support your claim that increased spending is increasing costs. That's why you can't quote where the CBO report says that.

"If anything, the FDA is part of the problem, not the health care system."

Umm, the FDA is part of the health care system.

"Of course I understand the difference between low rating and low longevity rating. Longevity ranking is a main factor in the ranking, so the UPenn study is not irrelevant"

You are lying. Longetivity is NOT the main factor in the ranking. Please stop making stuff up.

"Our rating would be higher if unhealthy lifestyles were considered as a factor outside of health care systems’ control. That is my point."

And you just proved my point. You can't support your position with facts, so you have to pretend that the health care system doesn't influence people's lifestyles.

Still nothing to support your position and once again you are misrepresenting what I said in many cases. For instance, I did not say that longevity is THE main factor; I said it was A main factor. Also, yes you did say that the CBO mentioned nothing about spending. I will show you your quote in context if you would like. Please learn to read what I have posted and stop taking what I said and twisting it or taking it out of context. Then we can move on.

My point still stands: if we were to take out all of the factors that are beyond the control of our health care system, our ranking would not be so low. Our ranking would be more equal to other top-ranked countries. Hence, our health care system is not at fault for our low ranking. I'm not saying the system does not have problems. The biggest issue every system is facing is that growth and the associated costs are unsustainable.

Our overall health outcomes are measured by longevity, infant mortality, etc. These are very strongly influenced by lifestyle factors. Other factors, as I mentioned, include how countries measure premature births. Some will not count births by a certain number of weeks, while the US does. Overall the rankings do not correctly reflect our health care system when compared to other health care systems.

So I have nothing to support the claim that the health care system can get people to change their lifestyles?

I guess you missed the campaign against tobacco, which has resulted in lower smoking rates for children? I guess you missed the way the hog farmers changed the way they raised pigs to meet the publics' desire for low fat meat?

"For instance, I did not say that longevity is THE main factor; I said it was A main factor.'

And you have no support for that claim either. Longevity was a factor. There was nothing that made it a MAIN factor. You are just making stuff up again.

"Also, yes you did say that the CBO mentioned nothing about spending. "

And yet, once again, you can't post the quote where I said this. You say you CAN post, yet you DON'T actually post it.

I said the international study that ranked the US so low did not take spending into accoutn. Please stop lying about what I said.

"My point still stands: if we were to take out all of the factors that are beyond the control of our health care system, our ranking would not be so low. Our ranking would be more equal to other top-ranked countries. Hence, our health care system is not at fault for our low ranking. "

It is a tautology to say that if you take out the negatives, the result will be more positive. This is a straw man that no one is disagreeing with.

However, the study which ranked the health care of nations all over the world, did not take out the factors that are beyond the control of the health system in the US because they did not do that for ANY nation. We are not the only nation where lifestyles impact health. That is true all over the world

So, of course we would do better if they took out all the factors beyond OUR control. The same is true for every other nation. So if they did the same for every other country, there's no reason to think we would not end up in the same spot.

But worst of all, even if what you said was true, it still wouldn't lead to the conclusion that "our health care system is not at fault for our low ranking"

If we took out all those factors you mentioned, there is still no evidence that our ranking would improve ENOUGH to move us significantly higher in the rankings.

"Our overall health outcomes are measured by longevity, infant mortality, etc. These are very strongly influenced by lifestyle factors. "

This is true for EVERY nation. You have presented absolutely NO EVIDENCE that our ranking would change if it eliminated all those factors.

There is plenty of evidence that the US has a higher level of unhealthy lifestyles when compared with other countries. It is in the UPenn study if you had actually read it. I shouldn’t have to do your homework for you.

With that said, I’m going to stop giving you a shovel. You just keep digging yourself further into a hole. I will however, give you where you lied once since you seem to have forgotten.

What I quoted from the CBO (refer to post #48):

Broader access to health insurance coverage [this is in reference to third party systems such as Medicare and Medicaid which increase coverage], as well as the greater generosity of health insurance plans on average, allows larger financial returns to investment in new medical technologies because both factors contribute to demand for new medical services. Accordingly, a falling share of out-of-pocket health care spending should hasten the development of new technologies, which can lead to higher spending overall...

...That expansion [the expansion of third-party payment systems], in turn, could have had a larger effect on spending by hastening the adoption of cost-increasing new technologies.

Your lie about what the CBO said (refer to post #49):

the quote you just added...actually says NOTHING about increased SPENDING.

Note that both quotes I added talked about higher or increased spending. I have highlighted the words spending for your benefit. The second quote I provided from the CBO actually talked about cost-increasing new technologies.

Good luck with your dishonesty. I will no longer be responding to you. You will not even take the time to ready the studies I provided, yet say you read them and understand them. You will not provide any credible evidence to support your claims either. I have been patient enough.

 

[sangha]

Still nothing to support your position and once again you are misrepresenting what I said in many cases. For instance, I did not say that longevity is THE main factor; I said it was A main factor. Also, yes you did say that the CBO mentioned nothing about spending. I will show you your quote in context if you would like. Please learn to read what I have posted and stop taking what I said and twisting it or taking it out of context. Then we can move on.

My point still stands: if we were to take out all of the factors that are beyond the control of our health care system, our ranking would not be so low. Our ranking would be more equal to other top-ranked countries. Hence, our health care system is not at fault for our low ranking. I'm not saying the system does not have problems. The biggest issue every system is facing is that growth and the associated costs are unsustainable.

Our overall health outcomes are measured by longevity, infant mortality, etc. These are very strongly influenced by lifestyle factors. Other factors, as I mentioned, include how countries measure premature births. Some will not count births by a certain number of weeks, while the US does. Overall the rankings do not correctly reflect our health care system when compared to other health care systems.

So I have nothing to support the claim that the health care system can get people to change their lifestyles?

I guess you missed the campaign against tobacco, which has resulted in lower smoking rates for children? I guess you missed the way the hog farmers changed the way they raised pigs to meet the publics' desire for low fat meat?

"For instance, I did not say that longevity is THE main factor; I said it was A main factor.'

And you have no support for that claim either. Longevity was a factor. There was nothing that made it a MAIN factor. You are just making stuff up again.

"Also, yes you did say that the CBO mentioned nothing about spending. "

And yet, once again, you can't post the quote where I said this. You say you CAN post, yet you DON'T actually post it.

I said the international study that ranked the US so low did not take spending into accoutn. Please stop lying about what I said.

"My point still stands: if we were to take out all of the factors that are beyond the control of our health care system, our ranking would not be so low. Our ranking would be more equal to other top-ranked countries. Hence, our health care system is not at fault for our low ranking. "

It is a tautology to say that if you take out the negatives, the result will be more positive. This is a straw man that no one is disagreeing with.

However, the study which ranked the health care of nations all over the world, did not take out the factors that are beyond the control of the health system in the US because they did not do that for ANY nation. We are not the only nation where lifestyles impact health. That is true all over the world

So, of course we would do better if they took out all the factors beyond OUR control. The same is true for every other nation. So if they did the same for every other country, there's no reason to think we would not end up in the same spot.

But worst of all, even if what you said was true, it still wouldn't lead to the conclusion that "our health care system is not at fault for our low ranking"

If we took out all those factors you mentioned, there is still no evidence that our ranking would improve ENOUGH to move us significantly higher in the rankings.

"Our overall health outcomes are measured by longevity, infant mortality, etc. These are very strongly influenced by lifestyle factors. "

This is true for EVERY nation. You have presented absolutely NO EVIDENCE that our ranking would change if it eliminated all those factors.

There is plenty of evidence that the US has a higher level of unhealthy lifestyles when compared with other countries. It is in the UPenn study if you had actually read it. I shouldn’t have to do your homework for you.

With that said, I’m going to stop giving you a shovel. You just keep digging yourself further into a hole. I will however, give you where you lied once since you seem to have forgotten.

What I quoted from the CBO (refer to post #48):

Broader access to health insurance coverage [this is in reference to third party systems such as Medicare and Medicaid which increase coverage], as well as the greater generosity of health insurance plans on average, allows larger financial returns to investment in new medical technologies because both factors contribute to demand for new medical services. Accordingly, a falling share of out-of-pocket health care spending should hasten the development of new technologies, which can lead to higher spending overall...

...That expansion [the expansion of third-party payment systems], in turn, could have had a larger effect on spending by hastening the adoption of cost-increasing new technologies.

Your lie about what the CBO said (refer to post #49):

the quote you just added...actually says NOTHING about increased SPENDING.

Note that both quotes I added talked about higher or increased spending. I have highlighted the words spending for your benefit. The second quote I provided from the CBO actually talked about cost-increasing new technologies.

Good luck with your dishonesty. I will no longer be responding to you. You will not even take the time to ready the studies I provided, yet say you read them and understand them. You will not provide any credible evidence to support your claims either. I have been patient enough.

"There is plenty of evidence that the US has a higher level of unhealthy lifestyles when compared with other countries. It is in the UPenn study if you had actually read it. I shouldn’t have to do your homework for you"

And yet, you can't quote any of this evidence.

"Note that both quotes I added talked about higher or increased spending. I have highlighted the words spending for your benefit. The second quote I provided from the CBO actually talked about cost-increasing new technologies."

Umm, neither of those quotes talk about increased spending. They talk about Broader access to health insurance coverage and That expansion [the expansion of third-party payment systems],

"Broader access" and "expansion of 3rd party payment systems" are not "higher or increased spending"

IOW, neither of those quotes say that increased spending on health care leads to the development of new technologies. They say "Accordingly, a falling share of out-of-pocket health care spending should hasten the development of new technologies"

They are saying that LESS SPENDING leads to the development of new technologies. This is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what you claim.