US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[trdsf]

I'm still waiting for a competing study of the same depth, as opposed to misrepresenting irrelevant research, or factoring out the parts of existing research that you don't like, or simply impugning it as biased just because you disagree with the results.

[Warren Dew]

Cheap World health care is based on them unfairly leeching off of US medical research.

You mean to say that the price of pharmacological products or medical equipment excludes the cost of the research undertaken to develop them or that "Cheap World health" gets the stuff for nothing?

The former is what is true and what I would assume Tyrannical meant.

I don't completely agree with the "unfairly" part as often the rest of the world doesn't get the treatments until they come off patent - one of the reasons I prefer U.S. health care.

[Warren Dew]

Insurance companies do not pay for research. They have no right to claim to have done so. You have no data to claim it on their behalf.

I did a search for "insurance company" and "insurance" in Tyrannical's post, and didn't find them. Maybe you should consider reading his posts more carefully - or at all - before responding to them.

[Jason]

Cheap World health care is based on them unfairly leeching off of US medical research.

You mean to say that the price of pharmacological products or medical equipment excludes the cost of the research undertaken to develop them or that "Cheap World health" gets the stuff for nothing?

The former is what is true and what I would assume Tyrannical meant.

Indeed? Proof please.

I don't completely agree with the "unfairly" part as often the rest of the world doesn't get the treatments until they come off patent - one of the reasons I prefer U.S. health care.

Pertinent, non-trivial, examples of FDA approved drugs not available outside the USA due to 'patents'.

[Warren Dew]

I don't completely agree with the "unfairly" part as often the rest of the world doesn't get the treatments until they come off patent - one of the reasons I prefer U.S. health care.

Pertinent, non-trivial, examples of FDA approved drugs not available outside the USA due to 'patents'.

Patent for Interleukin-2 expires 2016:

http://www.google.com/patents/US5989546

Not available in Ontario:

http://www.fundraisingfirms.com/police- ... fe-saving/

Cheap World health care is based on them unfairly leeching off of US medical research.

You mean to say that the price of pharmacological products or medical equipment excludes the cost of the research undertaken to develop them or that "Cheap World health" gets the stuff for nothing?

The former is what is true and what I would assume Tyrannical meant.

Indeed? Proof please.

The research costs are recovered during the patent period, since after that period companies who didn't participate in the research sell the drug, driving the price down to the manufacturing cost. As demonstrated above, the extra cost of the drug during the patent period often makes it unavailable outside the U.S. In other cases, the drug maker sells the drug cheaper outside the U.S. since they know that non-U.S. health care systems won't pay the full research overhead - incidentally causing things like the tiffs over reimportation of drugs to the U.S. from Canada.

[Tyrannical]

Now to confound my opponents

Maybe we shouldn't allow drug patents at all Let all drug research and development be public or charity funded and released into the public domain. Drug manufacturers would, well just make the stuff. I think the medical profession is at least party driven enough by humanitarian concerns to resist the lack of evil capitalist driving motivation.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm still waiting for a competing study of the same depth, as opposed to misrepresenting irrelevant research, or factoring out the parts of existing research that you don't like, or simply impugning it as biased just because you disagree with the results.

Competing study?

The US is ranked 15th on the "overall attainment" list, which is -- by the WHO's assertion -- the truer measure of health care performance (because the overall performance chart, where the US is listed as 37th, has to do with how well a country does as compared to how well the WHO expects it could do....).

So, looking at the one study here -- the US is 15th in the world. Generally, one would not expect a country that is in the top 15 to be one of the countries whose system needs to be revamped entirely. And, if the US's system sucks so bad, at 15th, then what of the other 185 (give or take) other countries that rank worse, most of which DO have socialized or nationalized health care plans of one form or another)? Why aren't THEY being focused on?

Moreover, the US is ranked 15th in a study in which 25% of the score is based on whether a country has nationalized health care. I mean -- can you at least acknowledge that where the issue is "is nationalized health care better?" that if you favor nationalized health care countries in the study, that you're pretty much begging the damn question?

[trdsf]

I'm still waiting for a competing study of the same depth, as opposed to misrepresenting irrelevant research, or factoring out the parts of existing research that you don't like, or simply impugning it as biased just because you disagree with the results.

Competing study?

The US is ranked 15th on the "overall attainment" list, which is -- by the WHO's assertion -- the truer measure of health care performance (because the overall performance chart, where the US is listed as 37th, has to do with how well a country does as compared to how well the WHO expects it could do....).

You're still data mining. In the first place, it is a study of overall performance. You reject the final result not by an issue with methodology but by impugning their motives.

In the second place, what do you think the WHO's remit is? It's the World Health Organization. They're rather better placed than you or I to be able to study how national systems compare -- and how they work and don't work.

And in the third place, you're grabbing the number that does not take into account actual access to health care, but only the care system that is available to those who have access to it. A national study of necessity has to look at the entire nation, not just a percentage of the nation. We could have demonstrably the best health care system on the planet in terms of the care that is potentially available, but if it's not accessible to segments of the nation, then it's going to necessarily reflect negatively on the overall system.

Fundamentally, the only problem you have with their result is that you don't like it. And there's a definite hypocrisy involved that you're willing to accept their numbers halfway to their result, but not their result. If you don't like their methodology, then you have no business quoting their partial results. You can't pull numbers out of the middle of a report whose conclusion you disagree with and claim "these are good but the numbers they support aren't".

So, looking at the one study here -- the US is 15th in the world. Generally, one would not expect a country that is in the top 15 to be one of the countries whose system needs to be revamped entirely. And, if the US's system sucks so bad, at 15th, then what of the other 185 (give or take) other countries that rank worse, most of which DO have socialized or nationalized health care plans of one form or another)? Why aren't THEY being focused on?

I'm rather less interested in health care in countries I don't live in. While it'd be better for Egyptians if Egypt did better and better for Russians if Russia did better and better for Turks if Turkey did better, that's not what's at issue here.

Moreover, the US is ranked 15th in a study in which 25% of the score is based on whether a country has nationalized health care. I mean -- can you at least acknowledge that where the issue is "is nationalized health care better?" that if you favor nationalized health care countries in the study, that you're pretty much begging the damn question?

No, because what you're doing is combining two errors here -- the data mining one listed above, and then trying to redefine what the report says.

What the report says is that based on all the factors they looked at, the overall health system in the United States ranks 37th in the world. Just that.

My explanation for that is that industrialized/advanced nations with nationalized health care provide on average better care to their citizens than industrialized/advanced nations that do not have nationalized health care, and do so at a lower cost. This conclusion is further supported up by the 2007 Commonwealth Fund Report.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm still waiting for a competing study of the same depth, as opposed to misrepresenting irrelevant research, or factoring out the parts of existing research that you don't like, or simply impugning it as biased just because you disagree with the results.

Competing study?

The US is ranked 15th on the "overall attainment" list, which is -- by the WHO's assertion -- the truer measure of health care performance (because the overall performance chart, where the US is listed as 37th, has to do with how well a country does as compared to how well the WHO expects it could do....).

You're still data mining. In the first place, it is a study of overall performance. You reject the final result not by an issue with methodology but by impugning their motives.

Wrong. I explained the methodology, not the motives, and I explained why the overall performance test is not as helpful as the overall attainment test in judging the quality and delivery of health care. And, the WHO agrees.

In the second place, what do you think the WHO's remit is? It's the World Health Organization. They're rather better placed than you or I to be able to study how national systems compare -- and how they work and don't work.

I'm just going by what the WHO says. the US was 15th on the Overall Attainment list. That's the WHO's ranking.

And in the third place, you're grabbing the number that does not take into account actual access to health care, but only the care system that is available to those who have access to it. A national study of necessity has to look at the entire nation, not just a percentage of the nation. We could have demonstrably the best health care system on the planet in terms of the care that is potentially available, but if it's not accessible to segments of the nation, then it's going to necessarily reflect negatively on the overall system.

False! You do not know what you are talking about. The Overall Attainment and the Overall Performance rankings use the same criteria with the exception that the Overall Performance ranks the countries attainment relative to the WHO's expectations of how much better they should be doing.

Fundamentally, the only problem you have with their result is that you don't like it. And there's a definite hypocrisy involved that you're willing to accept their numbers halfway to their result, but not their result. If you don't like their methodology, then you have no business quoting their partial results. You can't pull numbers out of the middle of a report whose conclusion you disagree with and claim "these are good but the numbers they support aren't".

No, fundamentally, I have a problem with the methodology, which I explained in detail. If the issue is "should the US switch to nationalized health care" and 1/4 of the criteria weight heavily in favor of systems that have nationalized health care, then you should be able to see how that is not particularly fair.

And when 2/3 of the criteria have nothing to do with the delivery, quality or availability of health care, then something is wrong with the methodology.

Even with those downsides, the US ranked 15th out of all the countries on the planet on the Overall Attainment list. That's not even all that bad. Shouldn't we look to countries 16 through 100 and see if they need to revamp their systems?

So, looking at the one study here -- the US is 15th in the world. Generally, one would not expect a country that is in the top 15 to be one of the countries whose system needs to be revamped entirely. And, if the US's system sucks so bad, at 15th, then what of the other 185 (give or take) other countries that rank worse, most of which DO have socialized or nationalized health care plans of one form or another)? Why aren't THEY being focused on?

I'm rather less interested in health care in countries I don't live in. While it'd be better for Egyptians if Egypt did better and better for Russians if Russia did better and better for Turks if Turkey did better, that's not what's at issue here.

Of course, but the fact is, the difference between 15th and 5th is not that great, so to pretend (and it is pretending) that the US is somehow offering substandard health care to its people is just downright dishonest. Moreover, obviously, if the methodology focused entirely on delivery, quality and access to health care, instead of extraneous factors, the US would certainly move up. In at least one category, US is ranked 1st.

Moreover, the US is ranked 15th in a study in which 25% of the score is based on whether a country has nationalized health care. I mean -- can you at least acknowledge that where the issue is "is nationalized health care better?" that if you favor nationalized health care countries in the study, that you're pretty much begging the damn question?

No, because what you're doing is combining two errors here -- the data mining one listed above, and then trying to redefine what the report says.

Absolutely not -- I'm not "data mining" -- I'm reporting what the study said, and it's not redefining what the report says -- it's clarifying what the report says for people who haven't cared what it says, but rather ran around waving "37th in the world" around as if it meant that health care in the US is worse than in Costa Rica.

What the report says is that based on all the factors they looked at, the overall health system in the United States ranks 37th in the world. Just that.

15th in Overall Attainment.
the 37th is the report that ranked attainment as against what the WHO considered it should be "expected" to do based on expenditures.

Yes, it says that based on the factors they looked at -- and of those factors 25% were heavily weighted toward national health care and 2/3 did not relate to the delivery, quality and availability of health care.

My explanation for that is that industrialized/advanced nations with nationalized health care provide on average better care to their citizens than industrialized/advanced nations that do not have nationalized health care, and do so at a lower cost. This conclusion is further supported up by the 2007 Commonwealth Fund Report.

The WHO report does not demonstrate that, and if you would look at the methodology, you would agree.

[trdsf]

Funny how your assertions don't have any backing in the link you provided to Politifact, which was in no way an analysis of the WHO's study, but of the general accuracy of a music video quoting the study. To be sure, Politifact identified a number of questions about the methodology, but it did not identify anything that actually refuted either the study or the methodology.

Anyway, let's quote the source you linked to:

The other, called "overall performance," took that number and adjusted it for how well a country's health system was doing compared to how well WHO's experts believed it should be doing based on education level and economic resources.

- and -

WHO officials make no bones about their desire to push countries in the direction of aiding the have-nots.

Hm. I'm looking for the words "nationalized health care". I'm not seeing them, or anything even remotely like them. In short, you're making them up. Politifact's explanation of what the WHO's is simply this: 'for the money you spend, and the technology and facilities you have, you're not doing as well as you could be doing.'

NOT 'you need nationalized health care' or 'we ranked you lower because you don't have nationalized health care'.

NOT that the ranking of 37 is invalid, or that the ranking of 15 is more valid.

So I stand by my statements that you're both data mining and impugning their motives, because your claims are not backed up even by your own source.

I'm done here.

[Coito ergo sum]

You are being intellectually dishonest, because nationalized health care systems are automatically, the way the WHO did the study, ranked higher in terms of "how well WHO's experts believed it should be doing based on education level and economic resources."

And, in any case, whether a country "could be doing better" doesn't mean it isn't doing better than most. Don't you get that? A poor country, like Costa Rica, which is doing o.k. with the resources it has, is ranked higher than the US as a result of the Overall Performance weighting. Is that so hard to understand? And, isn't quite obvious that it is not a fair picture of which country, the US or Costa Rica, delivers better health care?

Of course it is not a fair picture. And, the reason you're "done with it" is most likely because you know it to be true, but you'd rather play semantics than acknowledge it.

[Tyrannical]

Well, looks like the election will be about the Obama care Tax now.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cthulhu-i ... 8324409752

[maiforpeace]

Romney's anybody but Obama campaign - even the Boner admits people aren't going to fall in love with Mitt.

The chorus of voices knocking Mitt Romney for running an "anybody but Obama" campaign and calling on him to do more continues to grow louder.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Former Bush White House policy adviser Yuval Levin. The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan. The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol. National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru. The New York Times' David Brooks. Politico's Jonathan Martin. Slate's John Dickerson. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin. And Noonan again.

All of these people -- either conservative supporters or nonpartisan, credible voices in the media -- have said Romney is either failing to provide a compelling vision for his candidacy or failing to lay out sufficient detail to explain how he would govern if elected president.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/0 ... 56424.html

[tattuchu]

Well there are advantages to being as bland a candidate as Mitt Romney. At least little old ladies don't die from excitement shortly after hugging him