An outsider watching the US health care debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Our child mortality rates are poor and our life expectancy is low compared to other western nations. There have been no contrary demonstrations of these facts. No one posted actuarial tables? No one posted calculations? Links to articles in reason magazine do not constitute proof or demonstration.

---

So, you didn't look at the article at all, then. So you have no idea if the study by the O'Neills, which is what is cited in the article for the conclusions derived, is right or not. You can't just cry that it was in Reason magazine, so it must be wrong. You have to address the DATA.

Moreover, the data on life expectancy did not come from the Reason article. But, you ignore that fact as well. It is rather clear that you are not even going to view any data that contradicts your pre-conceived notions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

American's are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

---

What do you mean by that? Absolute amount? Per person? Percent of GDP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

American's are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

---

What do you mean by that? Absolute amount? Per person? Percent of GDP?

---

I'm guessing both 1, and 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raybbaby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

American's are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

---

What do you mean by that? Absolute amount? Per person? Percent of GDP?

---

I'm guessing both 1, and 3.

---

If 1, then I hope so. We have the third largest population in the world. And we are going to spend a lot more than the PRC or India per person.

If 3, then no. That is more like half again as much.

Hey, for the sake of argument I have granted the data and addressed the interpretation of the data. You chose to ignore that and to continue your attack. Quite the clever debater, aren’t you?

To say infant mortality rates in the U.S. are due to an inordinate number of low birth weight babies and shouldn’t be counted, is like saying U.S. students do poorly on scholastic exams because an inordinate number of them don’t study and therefore they shouldn’t be counted. We have low birth weight babies because expectant mothers aren't covered for prenatal care. It’s the same reason we have a high rate of premature births and complications that result in surgical deliveries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

]You have to address the DATA.

---

On numerous times we've given opposing arguments to your DATA Duplicatt. When we rebut it, you hold onto it thinking we'll forget it and then you bring it up again. Like the marrow discussion. We read your data and dispute it. You keep harping on elements even though we come up with our own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Hey, for the sake of argument I have granted the data and addressed the interpretation of the data. You chose to ignore that and to continue your attack. Quite the clever debater, aren’t you?

---

You said, "Links to articles in reason magazine do not constitute proof or demonstration." which neither granted the data or addressed the interpretation of it at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

To say infant mortality rates in the U.S. are due to an inordinate number of low birth weight babies and shouldn’t be counted, is like saying U.S. students do poorly on scholastic exams because an inordinate number of them don’t study and therefore they shouldn’t be counted. We have low birth weight babies because expectant mothers aren't covered for prenatal care. It’s the same reason we have a high rate of premature births and complications that result in surgical deliveries.

---

You never prove any of your contentions. Moreover, you misrepresent the conclusion of the study.

You'll have to excuse me if I take the word of two trained researchers over some random person with unknown credentials off the Internet.

The very form of my argument grants the premise that low birth weight babies contribute to child mortality. :roll:

Oh my I'm such a naughty girl. I don't prove my contentions. I misrepresent. I'm never the subject of an ad hominem argument.

Yes, duplicatt. You're excused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jericho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Only to the anal-retentive nit pickers of the world, Ersatz Einstein.

The world has long relied on American and British innovation in the field of medicine. Once the UK went to NHS, British innovation slacked off.

---

My my, arent you clever, almost qualify as a Europen...Almost! :shrug

Right, we've both taken shots, now we've got that out of the way....

Quote:

---

The world has long relied on American and British innovation in the field

---

Right, so the world doesn't just rely on American, but, American and BRITISH inovations...Which is a bit of a backtrack on your original statement, but, not back enough.

---

How nice of you to ignore the rest of that paragraph where I commented that, "Once the UK went to NHS, British innovation slacked off."

I had hoped you were an honest person interested in discussion. That omission makes it clear that you are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Right. Obama should damn near be impeached for saving the global economy from collapse, sending out a life preserver to the U.S. auto industry and attempting to reform the outrageous failure of the private heath care industry.

---

Who is seriously trying to do anything close to impeaching President Obama?