By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Healthcare isn't a business, it's peoples lives

fmc83 on 26 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
vlad321 said:

For the Financial Fairness, yes we already addressed this. What's the point of having great healthcare if only a few people are able to pay for it? Or even worse, if they do get treated the poorer are only put under much greater strain under depth, causing long-term stress, and so on and so forth. Ultimately the poorer end up with debt, chronic stress, and overall they end up a lot worse situation than the rich after the treatment. It's a thoroughly valid statistic.

 

 

The problem is what you think "better" is. To me, when I see a country ranking based on healthcare, I expect someone getting treated in a country ranked 10th, to get better treatment then someone in a country ranked 20th.

Using that statistic to rank countries, means this is not the case. 

 

 

By your logic, North Korea has one of the best health care systems, because Kim Jong-Il will certainly get better treatment then some (if not all) of the people in the Number 1 country on the list.

 

Won't happen though, because this list shows the average of the people living in one country.

 

 



http://nintendo-geheimtipps.blogspot.com

Around the Network
akuma587 on 26 April 2009
fmc83 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
vlad321 said:

For the Financial Fairness, yes we already addressed this. What's the point of having great healthcare if only a few people are able to pay for it? Or even worse, if they do get treated the poorer are only put under much greater strain under depth, causing long-term stress, and so on and so forth. Ultimately the poorer end up with debt, chronic stress, and overall they end up a lot worse situation than the rich after the treatment. It's a thoroughly valid statistic.

 

 

The problem is what you think "better" is. To me, when I see a country ranking based on healthcare, I expect someone getting treated in a country ranked 10th, to get better treatment then someone in a country ranked 20th.

Using that statistic to rank countries, means this is not the case. 

 

 

By your logic, North Korea has one of the best health care systems, because Kim Jong-Il will certainly get better treatment then some (if not all) of the people in the Number 1 country on the list.

 

Won't happen though, because this list shows the average of the people living in one country.

 

 

Exactly.  A theoretical healthcare system in which theoretical people receive treatment is totally meaningless.  It is highly relevant to look at what actually happens.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

vlad321 on 26 April 2009
Kasz216 said:

That's not what Financial Fairness is Vlad.

I already mentioned this.... as did that report.

Financial Fairness has NOTHING to do with quality of treatment.

It's not a valid statistic.

 

While once again.  Health distribution is irrelevent if you don't account for factors outside of healthcare that are actually greater then healthcare when it comes to health.

 

 

It's percent of their income that people pay. Yes, if an household pays an extraordinary amount while another doesn,t one is more likely to go into debt, stress, etc. More importantly, if that's the case the one with lower income may reserve going to a doctor for a checkup that could be potentially fatal. Overall it discourages the poor from going to the hospital when maybe they should have. THis is also a report on the system as a whole.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Kasz216 on 26 April 2009
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:

That's not what Financial Fairness is Vlad.

I already mentioned this.... as did that report.

Financial Fairness has NOTHING to do with quality of treatment.

It's not a valid statistic.

 

While once again.  Health distribution is irrelevent if you don't account for factors outside of healthcare that are actually greater then healthcare when it comes to health.

 

 

It's percent of their income that people pay. Yes, if an household pays an extraordinary amount while another doesn,t one is more likely to go into debt, stress, etc. More importantly, if that's the case the one with lower income may reserve going to a doctor for a checkup that could be potentially fatal. Overall it discourages the poor from going to the hospital when maybe they should have. THis is also a report on the system as a whole.

Which is... impossible.

You can't make a ranking system between 1 and whatever if your trying to measure multiple different variables.

It's statistical stupidtity.  Anyone who's had a class in statistics can tell you that.  You need to keep what your measuring simple... and it being one measurement.

It's likely why the WHO doesn't do it anymore.


Also when it comes to stress... unless some new study has come out... Stress is something most related to personality.

 

 



akuma587 on 26 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:

 

It's percent of their income that people pay. Yes, if an household pays an extraordinary amount while another doesn,t one is more likely to go into debt, stress, etc. More importantly, if that's the case the one with lower income may reserve going to a doctor for a checkup that could be potentially fatal. Overall it discourages the poor from going to the hospital when maybe they should have. THis is also a report on the system as a whole.

Which is... impossible.

You can't make a ranking system between 1 and whatever if your trying to measure multiple different variables.

It's statistical stupidtity.  Anyone who's had a class in statistics can tell you that.  You need to keep what your measuring simple... and it being one measurement.

It's likely why the WHO doesn't do it anymore.

Are you seriously trying to claim that it is impossible to do a legitimate statistical analysis when you consider more than one factor?  And that it isn't at all relevant to look at the effect multiple factors have?

That's like saying that because GM's workers are paid well that the company is successful.  It makes absolutely no sense.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 26 April 2009
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:

 

It's percent of their income that people pay. Yes, if an household pays an extraordinary amount while another doesn,t one is more likely to go into debt, stress, etc. More importantly, if that's the case the one with lower income may reserve going to a doctor for a checkup that could be potentially fatal. Overall it discourages the poor from going to the hospital when maybe they should have. THis is also a report on the system as a whole.

Which is... impossible.

You can't make a ranking system between 1 and whatever if your trying to measure multiple different variables.

It's statistical stupidtity.  Anyone who's had a class in statistics can tell you that.  You need to keep what your measuring simple... and it being one measurement.

It's likely why the WHO doesn't do it anymore.

Are you seriously trying to claim that it is impossible to do a legitimate statistical analysis when you consider more than one factor?  And that it isn't at all relevant to look at the effect multiple factors have?

That's like saying that because GM's workers are paid well that the company is successful.  It makes absolutely no sense.

 

The factors are compeltly unrelated.

It's like trying to judge which car is the best by taking into account saftey, number of cupholders, price, relability and how cool it looks.

The factors have little to nothing in common.  Making a direct "1-50 best" ranking completly idiotic... espiecally with no weighting.



akuma587 on 26 April 2009

So how would you rank the quality of a car? Are you saying it is impossible to rank anything based on quality as a whole? That's absurd and you know it is.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 26 April 2009
akuma587 said:
So how would you rank the quality of a car? Are you saying it is impossible to rank anything based on quality as a whole? That's absurd and you know it is.

You wouldn't.

You would rank each factor seperatly and come to no greater conclusion then that.

You would rank them in saftey.

You would rank them in cupholders..

etc.

That's it.

As different factors are important to different people.

 

Making a defined ranking based on these factors added together has no basis in scientific fact.

 

Such rankings are merely made because consumers eat them up a lot easier despite having tenous bearings in reality.



Kasz216 on 26 April 2009

And that by the way is ignoring the fact that comparisons between countries are largely ineherntly flawed anyway do to numerous reasons.

For an example even people who are pro socialized healthcare no matter the cost or bearing could understand...

If you dropped a school system plan from Europe into a third world country. The third world coutnries school system would not do nearly as well because people there have a culture where women should not learn.

Drop an equal healthcare system into a country of people who eat a lot and unhealthy foods at that... and.



HappySqurriel on 26 April 2009

Gathering statistics and comparing them across systems could be done, but a final ranking of the systems to determine the "Best" system in the world would be (at best) arbitrary or (at worst) entirely political ...

The United States is probably the hardest country to really judge the quality of healthcare system because the top 25% of patients receive the best treatment in the world, the middle 50% receive healthcare that is on par with most other western healthcare systems, and the bottom 25% receive no/poor healthcare services. If you were to jude the system based on the top 75% of people there is no system in the world which is competitive with the United States ... at the same time, if you look at the bottom 25% only the United States is a nightmare.

Now, you can look at the bottom 25% and say that the free market system has failed them and the government needs to step up and provide worse service (on average) for the other 75% of people ... Or you could look at trying to solve the core problems that are driving up the cost of service beyond the ability for a large portion of the population to have adequate service. I would personally suggest that you solve the cost issue because after something becomes run by the government and is full of pubic sector unions you will never be able to make any efforts to reduce the cost.