Some telling statistics about the state of U.S. health care

[Modbert]

Tell me Bern, did you get any interesting offers in your inbox from any Nigerian Princes lately as well?

Go ahead and find this article on Investor Business Daily and post the link here.

Too bad your chain email was debunked a long time ago.

PolitiFact | Beck says less than 10 percent of Obama Cabinet has worked in private sector

We tracked down Cembalest to ask about his methodology. He said any effort to address the topic is heavily subjective, and he expressed regret that his work had been used for political ends, saying that it was not his intention to provide fodder for bloggers and talk show hosts.

Cembalest said that he did discount the corporate experience of the three lawyers we identified — Clinton, Vilsack and Locke — and added that he awarded nothing for Donovan, Chu or Salazar, even though we found they had a fair amount private sector experience. Cembalest acknowledged fault in missing Salazar's business background, saying he would have given him a full point if he had it to do over again. But he added that the kind of private-sector experiences Chu and Donovan had (managing scientific research and handling community development lending, respectively) did not represent the kind of private-sector business experience he was looking for when doing his study.

"What I was really trying to get at was some kind of completely, 100 percent subjective assessment of whether or not a person had had enough control of payroll, dealing with shareholders, hiring, firing and risk-taking that they'd be in a position to have had a meaningful seat at the table when the issue being discussed is job creation," Cembalest said.

Cembalest said he has "written 250,000 words in research over the last decade, and every single thing I've ever done — except this one chart — was empirically based on data from the Federal Reserve" or another official source. "This is the one time I stepped out into making judgment calls, and I assure you I won't do it again. ... The frightening thing about the Internet is that people copy one chart from what you write and then it goes viral. So I've learned a lesson here that these kinds of issues are best left addressed by the people who practice them day in and day out."

Which brings us back to how Beck used Cembalest's data. We'll acknowledge that rating someone's degree of private-sector experience is an inexact science, and it's true that Beck accurately relayed the information contained in Cembalest's chart. But at PolitiFact we hold people accountable for their own words. So we rate Beck's claim False.

Do yourself a favor and read this article from July 2007:

The Doctor Will See You—In Three Months

It's not just broken for breast exams. If you find a suspicious-looking mole and want to see a dermatologist, you can expect an average wait of 38 days in the U.S., and up to 73 days if you live in Boston, according to researchers at the University of California at San Francisco who studied the matter. Got a knee injury? A 2004 survey by medical recruitment firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates found the average time needed to see an orthopedic surgeon ranges from 8 days in Atlanta to 43 days in Los Angeles. Nationwide, the average is 17 days. "Waiting is definitely a problem in the U.S., especially for basic care," says Karen Davis, president of the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which studies health-care policy.

On top of that, only 40% of U.S. doctors have arrangements for after-hours care, vs. 75% in the rest of the industrialized world. Consequently, some 26% of U.S. adults in one survey went to an emergency room in the past two years because they couldn't get in to see their regular doctor, a significantly higher rate than in other countries.

The Commonwealth survey did find that U.S. patients had the second-shortest wait times if they wished to see a specialist or have nonemergency surgery, such as a hip replacement or cataract operation (Germany, which has national health care, came in first on both measures). But Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, says doctors in countries where there are lengthy queues for elective surgeries put at-risk patients on the list long before their need is critical. "Their wait might be uncomfortable, but it makes very little clinical difference," he says.

The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close.

I don't think anyone in this country is going to argue that the actual quality of medical service in this country is terrible. The problem is the costs have gotten so out-of-hand that the far majority of people will eventually be unable to partake in the medical service without becoming wage slaves.

I could keep going but I don't think I need to. Hopefully you will take this thread as a learning experience to simply not trust everything you read in a chain email and do the research for yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Deaths due to no insurance: USA-45k, rest of modern world- 0.
Bankruptcies due to health costs: USA- 750k, rest of modern world- 0

Health Care costs here are twice theirs, and their life expectancy is higher.

And your stats are bs.

And YOUR source is . . . ?

 

[Katzndogz]

Socialized medicine in Sweden.

Still asking the rich for help.

Legless man denied wheelchair - The Local

What do you think the "comfort" deaths are in Britian or the Netherlands?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Bankruptcies due to health costs: USA- 750k, rest of modern world- 0

That is a lie. See pages 18 and 19. This is Canada.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/bsf-osb.nsf/vwapj/Redish-Sarra-Schabas-2006-ENG.pdf/$FILE/Redish-Sarra-Schabas-2006-ENG.pdf

and their life expectancy is higher.

Which has nothing to do with the health care system.

Accidents, Murders, Preemies, Fat, and U.S. Life Expectancy - Reason Magazine

And your stats are bs.

That may be true or may not be, but one thing that is not in dispute is that you're stuffed full of it yourself.

 

[Bern80]

Deaths due to no insurance: USA-45k, rest of modern world- 0.
Bankruptcies due to health costs: USA- 750k, rest of modern world- 0

Health Care costs here are twice theirs, and their life expectancy is higher.

And your stats are bs.

Another moron citing life expectency as evidence of a problem with our health care system. Will it ever end?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Deaths due to no insurance: USA-45k, rest of modern world- 0.
Bankruptcies due to health costs: USA- 750k, rest of modern world- 0

Health Care costs here are twice theirs, and their life expectancy is higher.

And your stats are bs.

Another moron citing life expectency as evidence of a problem with our health care system. Will it ever end?

When you consider that controlling for things like murder, car accidents, preemies, etc. OR controlling for our non-homogenous society erases the difference in our life expectancy and Europe's, wouldn't that mean that if we controlled for BOTH, we'd actually have a BETTER life expectancy rate?

 

[Bern80]

How about a link to these statistics?

Oh wait, you don't have one. You copied and pasted this out of a chain email.

Guess what. Just because it's on the Internet, doesn't make it true.

Since the liberals vaunted WHO report actually closely mirrors many of the statistics, I'm going to guess they're accurate. You're welcome to prove me otherwise.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever that these numbers are true. They may very well be accurate numbers, but it's not my responsibility to prove so or otherwise. You are the one who created the thread and made the claim. The onus is on you to back them up with a source. That's how it works. If this were a college course, you'd fail.

Like I said, you got this an email that was forwarded to you and you automatically believed it and pasted it here without even checking to see if it was accurate.

Yes I did get it in an e-mail. And believe it or not I am smart enough to not 'drink the kool aid' so to speak and believe everything stuck in front of my face. I asked myself a relatively simple question; Given the lack of a source for the stats, is there any other evidence present to conclude that they are false? The objective answer to that is no. We aren't in school anymore. There are no grades here. And in fact there is indirect evidence that the numbers are valid as again they do reflect similar statistics in the WHO report which also ranked America in terms of it's responsiveness and outcomes, both of which the U.S. ranked at or very near the top of the list. I am not prone to citing things that have no confirmed source. Dumbasses like yourself being the main reason why, who add nothing to a discussion other than to discussion other than essentially using it as an excuse to back your own position.

 

[Bern80]

Deaths due to no insurance: USA-45k, rest of modern world- 0.
Bankruptcies due to health costs: USA- 750k, rest of modern world- 0

Health Care costs here are twice theirs, and their life expectancy is higher.

And your stats are bs.

Another moron citing life expectency as evidence of a problem with our health care system. Will it ever end?

When you consider that controlling for things like murder, car accidents, preemies, etc. OR controlling for our non-homogenous society erases the difference in our life expectancy and Europe's, wouldn't that mean that if we controlled for BOTH, we'd actually have a BETTER life expectancy rate?

No it wouldn't. The entire assumption behind citing life expectancy is that what our physicians do in terms of saving lives or prolonging them significantly influence that statistic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Since the liberals vaunted WHO report actually closely mirrors many of the statistics, I'm going to guess they're accurate. You're welcome to prove me otherwise.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever that these numbers are true. They may very well be accurate numbers, but it's not my responsibility to prove so or otherwise. You are the one who created the thread and made the claim. The onus is on you to back them up with a source. That's how it works. If this were a college course, you'd fail.

Like I said, you got this an email that was forwarded to you and you automatically believed it and pasted it here without even checking to see if it was accurate.

Yes I did get it in an e-mail. And believe it or not I am smart enough to not 'drink the kool aid' so to speak and believe everything stuck in front of my face. I asked myself a relatively simple question; Given the lack of a source for the stats, is there any other evidence present to conclude that they are false? The objective answer to that is no. We aren't in school anymore. There are no grades here. And in fact there is indirect evidence that the numbers are valid as again they do reflect similar statistics in the WHO report which also ranked America in terms of it's responsiveness and outcomes, both of which the U.S. ranked at or very near the top of the list. I am not prone to citing things that have no confirmed source. Dumbasses like yourself being the main reason why, who add nothing to a discussion other than to discussion other than essentially using it as an excuse to back your own position.

As it happens, I have a book here at my house which verifies everything you said with other sources. It's in a box, and as soon as I locate it, I will provide you with those sources.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Another moron citing life expectency as evidence of a problem with our health care system. Will it ever end?

When you consider that controlling for things like murder, car accidents, preemies, etc. OR controlling for our non-homogenous society erases the difference in our life expectancy and Europe's, wouldn't that mean that if we controlled for BOTH, we'd actually have a BETTER life expectancy rate?

No it wouldn't. The entire assumption behind citing life expectancy is that what our physicians do in terms of saving lives or prolonging them significantly influence that statistic.

Yes, and when you control for those things physicians can't really help, like murder and traffic accidents, the discrepancy between ours and theirs disappears. Furthermore, when you control for something else physicans can do nothing about - race - the discrepancy disappears. What do you think would happen if we ran the numbers controlling for ALL those non-physician factors?

 

[Sactowndog]

While I enjoy a good laugh, I have to say that statistics need to be taken in context.

It is hard, however, to ignore what has been posted here in terms of health care.

As for Obama's cabinet, I'd like to know who the eight percent are ? They must have been real losers in the private sector. I know Valerie Jarrett was a slumlord...but she does not count. She is not on his cabinet..she is under his desk.

Specifically what context do you think we should be taking these statistics in that will change their obvious message?

I believe these statistics. However, there are issues with things like costs and accessibility that I believe should be included.

Bingo...... all those are statistics are related to people who have access. It would be more interesting to see statistics for the population as a whole not just for those who have access as of course the entire population of Britan and Canada have access and a subset of people in the US do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Specifically what context do you think we should be taking these statistics in that will change their obvious message?

I believe these statistics. However, there are issues with things like costs and accessibility that I believe should be included.

Bingo...... all those are statistics are related to people who have access. It would be more interesting to see statistics for the population as a whole not just for those who have access as of course the entire population of Britan and Canada have access and a subset of people in the US do.

Really? Where did you see "access" mentioned at all in those statistics? I'm pretty sure it says "people with cancer", not "people with cancer who have insurance". If you've got some separate statistics somewhere showing us how there are ALSO poor people dropping dead in the streets from cancer with no care, lay them on us. Otherwise, stop projecting your unverified assumptions onto the world.

 

[Listening]

Really? Where did you see "access" mentioned at all in those statistics? I'm pretty sure it says "people with cancer", not "people with cancer who have insurance". If you've got some separate statistics somewhere showing us how there are ALSO poor people dropping dead in the streets from cancer with no care, lay them on us. Otherwise, stop projecting your unverified assumptions onto the world.

I should have been more clear.

Maybe there is information underneath the general numbers (in all counts...not just for the U.S.). This might include things like cancer survival among people of certain ethnic types or compared between those who have some form of health insurance and those who do not.

It might be helpful.

It has been some time, but I recall seeing that people used to blast the U.S. for being low on life expectancy. From what I recall, there was a rather lengthy discussion about the inclusion of people who die from gunshot wounds (of which we have a greater proportion...and I am pro second amendmen even though I don't own a gun). If you take that out, our natural life expectancey is higher than most.

Also, infant mortality for which the U.S. gets dinged. Seems other countries don't count certain things that we do so it isn't an apples to apples comparison.

 

[Listening]

Deaths due to no insurance: USA-45k, rest of modern world- 0.
Bankruptcies due to health costs: USA- 750k, rest of modern world- 0

Health Care costs here are twice theirs, and their life expectancy is higher.

And your stats are bs.

Please share where you attended grade school. I need to warn everyone I know not to go there.

IF you attended high school, the same information could prevent others from falling to the same fate as yours.

 

[Meister]

Really? Where did you see "access" mentioned at all in those statistics? I'm pretty sure it says "people with cancer", not "people with cancer who have insurance". If you've got some separate statistics somewhere showing us how there are ALSO poor people dropping dead in the streets from cancer with no care, lay them on us. Otherwise, stop projecting your unverified assumptions onto the world.

I should have been more clear.

Maybe there is information underneath the general numbers (in all counts...not just for the U.S.). This might include things like cancer survival among people of certain ethnic types or compared between those who have some form of health insurance and those who do not.

It might be helpful.

It has been some time, but I recall seeing that people used to blast the U.S. for being low on life expectancy. From what I recall, there was a rather lengthy discussion about the inclusion of people who die from gunshot wounds (of which we have a greater proportion...and I am pro second amendmen even though I don't own a gun). If you take that out, our natural life expectancey is higher than most.

Also, infant mortality for which the U.S. gets dinged. Seems other countries don't count certain things that we do so it isn't an apples to apples comparison.

Don't forget auto accidents, we have more deaths because of autos than any other country in the world.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yep, let's bring the European system here. They clearly have it nailed

Legless man denied wheelchair - The Local

 

[auditor0007]

Here's a link that ranks countries based on number of deaths per 100,000 from cancer. The UK and Canada have much lower death rates from cancer than we do. Canada wasn't even in the top sixteen.

Death from cancer statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

 

[mskafka]

Bankruptcies due to health costs: USA- 750k, rest of modern world- 0

That is a lie. See pages 18 and 19. This is Canada.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/bsf-osb.nsf/vwapj/Redish-Sarra-Schabas-2006-ENG.pdf/$FILE/Redish-Sarra-Schabas-2006-ENG.pdf

and their life expectancy is higher.

Which has nothing to do with the health care system.

Accidents, Murders, Preemies, Fat, and U.S. Life Expectancy - Reason Magazine

And your stats are bs.

That may be true or may not be, but one thing that is not in dispute is that you're stuffed full of it yourself.

....trying to remember when REASON magazine became a journal of medicine. "Dr. Ronald Bailey"-with his BA in economics and PHILOSOPHY...is going to tell us that it isn't as bad as we think it is. I feel better already!

So you're willing to place your wager with a man who is as qualified as Michael Moore to make these assertions. Please don't make fun of anyone else.

 

[Bern80]

When you consider that controlling for things like murder, car accidents, preemies, etc. OR controlling for our non-homogenous society erases the difference in our life expectancy and Europe's, wouldn't that mean that if we controlled for BOTH, we'd actually have a BETTER life expectancy rate?

No it wouldn't. The entire assumption behind citing life expectancy is that what our physicians do in terms of saving lives or prolonging them significantly influence that statistic.

Yes, and when you control for those things physicians can't really help, like murder and traffic accidents, the discrepancy between ours and theirs disappears. Furthermore, when you control for something else physicans can do nothing about - race - the discrepancy disappears. What do you think would happen if we ran the numbers controlling for ALL those non-physician factors?

That's my point. You have to control for our lifestyle vs. theirs. Our diets vs. theirs. Our obesity rates vs. theirs. I would guess if you controlled for everything that is NOT in the control of a hospital or physician you would see negligible differences in life expectency.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here's a link that ranks countries based on number of deaths per 100,000 from cancer. The UK and Canada have much lower death rates from cancer than we do. Canada wasn't even in the top sixteen.

Death from cancer statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

NationMaster. Jesus Christ.

Why don't you try getting a REAL source that actually breaks down the numbers instead of throwing them at you raw with no explanations or background?

U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

THIS study has been published in Lancet Oncology, but if you want to believe that NationMaster knows more about cancer rates than they do, you go right on ahead. Tinfoil's a good look for you.