America, Arguing, and Crime: ITS EASY TO FORGET THAT
 FOR DECADES THE U.S. HAD A
 HEALTHCARE SYSTEM THAT WAS THE
 ENVY OF THE WORLD. WE HAD THE
 FINEST DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS,
 PATIENTS RECEIVED HIGH QUALITY,
 AFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE, AND
 THOUSANDS OF PRIVATELY FUNDED
 CHARITIES PROVIDED HEALTH
 SERVICES FOR THE PO0
 RON PAUL
 TURNING
 POINT USA
<p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/165630900777/bushmeat-said-when-they-tell-you-how-ghastly" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://bushmeat.tumblr.com/" title="bushmeat">bushmeat</a> said:</p><blockquote><p>When they tell you how ghastly socialised healthcare is, remember what they are saying is absolute bullshit

<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253</a></p></blockquote><p>If I had a nickel every time some leftist moron linked to a World Healthcare Organization or Commonwealth Fund study, well, I would have a shitload of nickels.</p><p>Since my previous source’s website is currently down–<a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/142352613032/that-red-guy-montypla-weaselwonderworld">which I’ve used in the past</a> to slap this idiotic notion that other countries’ healthcare systems are somehow superior the US’s private system–I’ll instead point to this <a href="https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa654.pdf">other great explanation</a> by the folks over at CATO on why this pathetic claim is always made by these left-wing think-tanks:</p><blockquote><p><i>

The debate over how to reform America’s
health care sector often involves comparisons
between the United States and other countries,
and with good reason. Looking at other
countries can help us learn which policies, if
any, to emulate, and which to avoid. </i></p><p><i>There have been many attempts at international
health care system comparisons.Among
the most influential are the World Health Report
2000 published by the World Health Organization, several studies published by the
Commonwealth Fund, and individual measures
such as infant mortality and “mortality
amenable to health care.” Generally in these
studies, the United States performs poorly in
comparison to Europe, Australia, and Japan.
Therefore, scholars often use the studies to
argue for adding even more government regulations
to our already highly regulated health
care system. </i></p><p><i>However, these studies suffer from several
problems. First, they often rely on unadjusted
aggregate data—such as life expectancy, or
mortality from heart disease—that can be
affected by many non–health care factors,
including nutrition, exercise, and even crime
rates. Second,they often use process measures,
such as how many patients have received a pap
smear or mammogram in the past three years.
Process measures tell us what doctors do, but
provide only an indirect measure of doctors’
productivity. Third, some of these studies
inappropriately incorporate their own biases
about financing in their statistics, which
makes market-driven health systems appear
worse even if their outcomes are similar or better. </i></p><p><i>An additional limitation of these studies
is the omission of any measure of innovation.
None of the best-known studies factor in the
contribution of various countries to the
advances that have come to characterize the
current practice of health care in the developed
world. </i></p><p><i>Every single health care test or treatment
must be invented at some point. We would be
living in a different world today were it not
for the remarkable genius and hard work of
health care inventors in the past, as well as
investments from government health agencies
and pharmaceutical and medical device
companies. The health care issues commonly
considered most important today—controlling
costs and covering the uninsured—
arguably should be regarded as secondary to
innovation, inasmuch as a treatment must
first be invented before its costs can be
reduced and its use extended to everyone.

</i><br/></p></blockquote><p>Furthermore, from another Glen Whitman <a href="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp101.pdf">article</a>:</p><blockquote><p><i>

Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems. They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions- some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares.

<br/></i></p><p><i>

The WHO health care rankings result
from an index of health-related statistics. As
with any index, it is important to consider
how it was constructed, as the construction
affects the results.

</i><br/></p><p><i>

There is good reason to account for the
quality of care received by a country’s worst-off
or poorest citizens. Yet the Health Distribution
and Responsiveness Distribution factors
do not do that.Instead, they measure relative
differences in quality, without regard to the
absolute level of quality. To account for the
quality of care received by the worst-off, the
index could include a factor that measures
health among the poor, or a health care system’s
responsiveness to the poor. This would,
in essence, give greater weight to the well-being
of the worst off.  Alternatively, a separate health
performance index could be constructed for
poor households or members of disadvantaged
minorities. These approaches would
surely have problems of their own, but they
would at least be focused on the absolute level
of health care quality, which should be the
paramount concern.

<br/></i></p><p><i>

The WHO rankings, by purporting to
measure the efficacy of health care systems,
implicitly take all differences in health outcomes
not explained by spending or literacy
and attribute them entirely to health care system
performance. Nothing else, from tobacco
use to nutrition to sheer luck, is taken into
account. </i></p><p><i>To some extent, the exclusion of other
variables is simply the result of inadequacies
in the data. It is difficult to get information
on all relevant factors, and even more difficult
to account for their expected effects on
health. But some factors are deliberately
excluded by the WHO analysis on the basis of
paternalistic assumptions about the proper
role of health systems. An earlier paper laying
out the WHO methodological framework
asserts, “Problems such as tobacco consumption,
diet, and unsafe sexual activity must be
included in an assessment of health system
performance.” </i></p><p><i>In other words, the WHO approach holds
health systems responsible not just for treating
lung cancer, but for preventing smoking
in the first place; not just for treating heart
disease, but for getting people to exercise and
lay off the fatty foods.

<br/></i></p><p><i>

Second, the WHO approach fails to consider
people’s willingness to trade off health
against other values. Some people are happy
to give up a few potential months or even
years of life in exchange for the pleasures of
smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports,
and so on. The WHO approach, rather than
taking the public’s preferences as given,
deems some preferences better than others
(and then praises or blames the health system
for them). </i></p><p><i>A superior (though still imperfect) approach
would take people’s health-related
behavior as given, and then ask which health
systems do the best job of dealing with whatever
health conditions arise.<br/></i></p></blockquote><p>In other words, its a bunch of meaningless cherry-picked measurements framed in a way to make the private system appear terrible in order to push for more socialized medicine.  </p><p>Despite all of it’s flaws, which are usually thanks to government market intervention, the United States still has the best health care system on the entire goddamn planet per capita.  It’s most likely that the life-saving equipment and procedures that are used in other hellholes using slave healthcare to save lives are thanks to us.  </p><p>You’re welcome.</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/b97a460c917c68f3900de0bc46e50c59/tumblr_inline_owpcxquafE1r1jtxd_540.gif" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"/></figure></blockquote>

redbloodedamerica:

bushmeat said:

When they tell you how ghastly socialised healthcare is, remember what they are saying is absolute bullshit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253

If I had a nickel every time some leftist moron linked to a World Healthcare Organization or Commonwealth Fund study, well, I would have a shitload of nickels.

Since my previous source’s website is currently down–which I’ve used in the past to slap this idiotic notion that other countries’ healthcare systems are somehow superior the US’s private system–I’ll instead point to this other great explanation by the folks over at CATO on why this pathetic claim is always made by these left-wing think-tanks:

The debate over how to reform America’s health care sector often involves comparisons between the United States and other countries, and with good reason. Looking at other countries can help us learn which policies, if any, to emulate, and which to avoid. 

There have been many attempts at international health care system comparisons.Among the most influential are the World Health Report 2000 published by the World Health Organization, several studies published by the Commonwealth Fund, and individual measures such as infant mortality and “mortality amenable to health care.” Generally in these studies, the United States performs poorly in comparison to Europe, Australia, and Japan. Therefore, scholars often use the studies to argue for adding even more government regulations to our already highly regulated health care system. 

However, these studies suffer from several problems. First, they often rely on unadjusted aggregate data—such as life expectancy, or mortality from heart disease—that can be affected by many non–health care factors, including nutrition, exercise, and even crime rates. Second,they often use process measures, such as how many patients have received a pap smear or mammogram in the past three years. Process measures tell us what doctors do, but provide only an indirect measure of doctors’ productivity. Third, some of these studies inappropriately incorporate their own biases about financing in their statistics, which makes market-driven health systems appear worse even if their outcomes are similar or better. 

An additional limitation of these studies is the omission of any measure of innovation. None of the best-known studies factor in the contribution of various countries to the advances that have come to characterize the current practice of health care in the developed world. 

Every single health care test or treatment must be invented at some point. We would be living in a different world today were it not for the remarkable genius and hard work of health care inventors in the past, as well as investments from government health agencies and pharmaceutical and medical device companies. The health care issues commonly considered most important today—controlling costs and covering the uninsured— arguably should be regarded as secondary to innovation, inasmuch as a treatment must first be invented before its costs can be reduced and its use extended to everyone.

Furthermore, from another Glen Whitman article:

Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems. They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions- some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares.

The WHO health care rankings result from an index of health-related statistics. As with any index, it is important to consider how it was constructed, as the construction affects the results.

There is good reason to account for the quality of care received by a country’s worst-off or poorest citizens. Yet the Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution factors do not do that.Instead, they measure relative differences in quality, without regard to the absolute level of quality. To account for the quality of care received by the worst-off, the index could include a factor that measures health among the poor, or a health care system’s responsiveness to the poor. This would, in essence, give greater weight to the well-being of the worst off.  Alternatively, a separate health performance index could be constructed for poor households or members of disadvantaged minorities. These approaches would surely have problems of their own, but they would at least be focused on the absolute level of health care quality, which should be the paramount concern.

The WHO rankings, by purporting to measure the efficacy of health care systems, implicitly take all differences in health outcomes not explained by spending or literacy and attribute them entirely to health care system performance. Nothing else, from tobacco use to nutrition to sheer luck, is taken into account. 

To some extent, the exclusion of other variables is simply the result of inadequacies in the data. It is difficult to get information on all relevant factors, and even more difficult to account for their expected effects on health. But some factors are deliberately excluded by the WHO analysis on the basis of paternalistic assumptions about the proper role of health systems. An earlier paper laying out the WHO methodological framework asserts, “Problems such as tobacco consumption, diet, and unsafe sexual activity must be included in an assessment of health system performance.” 

In other words, the WHO approach holds health systems responsible not just for treating lung cancer, but for preventing smoking in the first place; not just for treating heart disease, but for getting people to exercise and lay off the fatty foods.

Second, the WHO approach fails to consider people’s willingness to trade off health against other values. Some people are happy to give up a few potential months or even years of life in exchange for the pleasures of smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports, and so on. The WHO approach, rather than taking the public’s preferences as given, deems some preferences better than others (and then praises or blames the health system for them). 

A superior (though still imperfect) approach would take people’s health-related behavior as given, and then ask which health systems do the best job of dealing with whatever health conditions arise.

In other words, its a bunch of meaningless cherry-picked measurements framed in a way to make the private system appear terrible in order to push for more socialized medicine.  

Despite all of it’s flaws, which are usually thanks to government market intervention, the United States still has the best health care system on the entire goddamn planet per capita.  It’s most likely that the life-saving equipment and procedures that are used in other hellholes using slave healthcare to save lives are thanks to us.  

You’re welcome.

America
America
Arguing
Arguing
Crime
Crime
gif
gif
Life
Life
News
News
Sex
Sex
Smoking
Smoking
sports
sports
Taken
Taken
The Worst
The Worst
tumblr
tumblr
Work
Work
Australia
Australia
Best
Best
Blog
Blog
Cancer
Cancer
Cato
Cato
Europe
Europe
Exercise
Exercise
Genius
Genius
Good
Good
Happy
Happy
Heart
Heart
Help
Help
How To
How To
Http
Http
Information
Information
Japan
Japan
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Test
Test
Time
Time
Today
Today
United
United
World
World
Construction
Construction
Diet
Diet
International
International
Superior
Superior
Bullshit
Bullshit
Essence
Essence
Government
Government
Living
Living
Luck
Luck
Medicine
Medicine
Reason
Reason
Statistics
Statistics
Single
Single
Been
Been
how
how
usa
usa
media
media
united states
united states
debate
debate
the who
the who
another
another
bbc
bbc
ask
ask
job
job
pdf
pdf
red
red
lung cancer
lung cancer
website
website
private
private
sites
sites
looking
looking
a different world
a different world
com
com
index
index
intervention
intervention
data
data
class
class
tobacco
tobacco
who
who
heart disease
heart disease
push
push
paul
paul
paramount
paramount
medical
medical
paper
paper
source
source
can
can
nickel
nickel
pap smear
pap smear
img
img
down
down
easy
easy
tanks
tanks
commonwealth
commonwealth
issues
issues
account
account
comparison
comparison
planet
planet
citizens
citizens
health
health
article
article
three
three
org
org
market
market
why
why
think
think
envy
envy
world health organization
world health organization
own
own
consumption
consumption
them
them
all
all
first
first
exchange
exchange
device
device
innovation
innovation
the world
the world
framework
framework
remember
remember
make
make
they
they
public
public
slave
slave
words
words
you
you
disease
disease
src
src
system
system
services
services
doctors
doctors
level
level
cite
cite
post
post
glen
glen
moron
moron
what
what
still
still
made
made
order
order
for
for
months
months
study
study
www
www
measure
measure
lung
lung
pap
pap
capita
capita
object
object
basis
basis
states
states
systems
systems
companies
companies
aggregate
aggregate
efficacy
efficacy
factor
factor
uncertainty
uncertainty
pas
pas
crime rates
crime rates
left wing
left wing
use
use
href
href
sector
sector
potential
potential
used
used
bushmeat
bushmeat
hard work
hard work
using
using
treatment
treatment
distribution
distribution
more
more
this
this
the best
the best
get
get
high
high
great
great
country
country
slap
slap
worst
worst
guy
guy
poor
poor
nothing
nothing
always
always
people
people
full
full
well
well
such
such
different
different
present
present
thanks
thanks
just
just
whatever
whatever
though
though
fails
fails
then
then
having sex
having sex
explanation
explanation
currently
currently
incoherent
incoherent
everyone
everyone
different world
different world
imperfect
imperfect
regard
regard
remarkable
remarkable
and then
and then
focused
focused
tmblr
tmblr
eating
eating
those
those
appear
appear
including
including
expected
expected
assumptions
assumptions
saying
saying
high quality
high quality
surely
surely
every time
every time
as well
as well
goddamn
goddamn
i would
i would
relevant
relevant
separate
separate
amenable
amenable
proper
proper
rely
rely
their
their
substantial
substantial
concern
concern
terrible
terrible
however
however
usually
usually
objective
objective
values
values
a pap smear
a pap smear
furthermore
furthermore
claim
claim
attribute
attribute
emulate
emulate
suffer
suffer
were
were
rather
rather
notion
notion
there
there
laying
laying
productivity
productivity
pathetic
pathetic
extent
extent
quality
quality
omission
omission
relative
relative
orig
orig
analysis
analysis
paternalistic
paternalistic
typically
typically
fatty
fatty
incorporate
incorporate
ghastly
ghastly
welcome
 welcome
care
 care
better
 better
hard
 hard
way
 way
come
 come
left
 left
place
 place
yet
 yet
problems
 problems
instead
 instead
said
 said
lives
 lives
years
 years
else
 else
others
 others
in the first place
 in the first place
none
 none
flaws
 flaws
smear
 smear
already
 already
give up
 give up
there is
 there is
rankings
 rankings
attempts
 attempts
difficult
 difficult
tumblr blog
 tumblr blog
meaningless
 meaningless
turning point
 turning point
in other words
 in other words
health-care-system
health-care-system
out
out
over
over
point
point
playing
playing
ron
ron
wing
wing
decades
decades
Off
Off
Performance
Performance
Forget
Forget
And
And
Other
Other
U S
U S
Height
Height
When
When
Its A
Its A
Leftist
Leftist
Number
Number
Activity
Activity
Weight
Weight
First Place
First Place
Simply
Simply
That
That
Behavior
Behavior
But
But
Not
Not
Sexual
Sexual
Current
Current
Mammogram
Mammogram
Nutrition
Nutrition
Healthcare
Healthcare
Organization
Organization
Give
Give
The
The
The First
The First
Not The
Not The
Health Care
Health Care
Trade
Trade
From
From
Important
Important
All Of It
All Of It
Patients
Patients
Past
Past
Cherry
Cherry
Report
Report
Save
Save
Its
Its
Practice
Practice
Every
Every
Take
Take
Many
Many
Present Them
Present Them
Few
Few
The U
The U
Individual
Individual
I Had
I Had
Role
Role
These
These
Without
Without
National
National
Uk News
Uk News
Effects
Effects
Results
Results
Such As
Such As
At Least
At Least
Minorities
Minorities
Bunch
Bunch
Countries
Countries
To Us
To Us
Was
Was
With
With
Learn
Learn
Result
Result
Our
Our
In A
In A
Should
Should
Are
Are
Have
Have
Figure
Figure
Poorly
Poorly
Taking
Taking
Foods
Foods
Had
Had
Width
Width
Do Not
Do Not
Absolute
Absolute
Do Not Do That
Do Not Do That
Img Src
Img Src
A Href
A Href
Https
Https
Linked
Linked
Received
Received
How Many
How Many
Which
Which
Only
Only
About
About
Assessment
Assessment
Rates
Rates
Pharmaceutical
Pharmaceutical
Measurements
Measurements
Per
Per
Process
Process
Tumblr Com
Tumblr Com
Between
Between
Since
Since
Arise
Arise
Has
Has
Often
Often
Before
Before
Being
Being
Sheer
Sheer
Mortality
Mortality
Most
Most
Against
Against
Turning Point Usa
Turning Point Usa
Driven
Driven
Folks
Folks
Inline
Inline
Must
Must
The United States
The United States
The Us
The Us
Some People
Some People
Tell
Tell
Life Saving
Life Saving
Depend
Depend
Second
Second
Responsible
Responsible
Excluded
Excluded
Literacy
Literacy
Than
Than
Differences
Differences
Dealing
Dealing
Worse
Worse
Beliefs
Beliefs
Avoid
Avoid
Inventors
Inventors
Explained
Explained
Getting
Getting
Well Being
Well Being
Given
Given
In The Past
In The Past
Outcomes
Outcomes
Known
Known
Even
Even
Turning
Turning
Fund
Fund
Saving
Saving
Title
Title
Idiotic
Idiotic
Some
Some
Finest
Finest
Lay
Lay
Framed
Framed
Factors
Factors
Scholars
Scholars
Thousands
Thousands
Agencies
Agencies
Limitation
Limitation
Good Reason
Good Reason
Could
Could
Costs
Costs
Disadvantaged
Disadvantaged
It Was
It Was
Contribution
Contribution
Therefore
Therefore
Having
Having
Consider
Consider
A Few
A Few
Affected
Affected
Approach
Approach
Arguably
Arguably
Commonly
Commonly
Deliberately
Deliberately
Earlier
Earlier
Inasmuch
Inasmuch
Infant
Infant
Several
Several
Trade Off
Trade Off
A Bunch Of
A Bunch Of
A Nickel
A Nickel
About The
About The
Adding
Adding
Affects
Affects
Any
Any
Best Job
Best Job
Bunch Of
Bunch Of
Conditions
Conditions
Could Be
Could Be
Debate Over
Debate Over
Entirely
Entirely
Equipment
Equipment
Even More
Even More
Exclusion
Exclusion
Files
Files
For The
For The
Forget That
Forget That
Get Information
Get Information
Government Market Intervention
Government Market Intervention
Have A
Have A
Help Us
Help Us
If I Had A Nickel
If I Had A Nickel
If I
If I
In The
In The
Influential
Influential
Into
Into
It Is
It Is
Its Easy
Its Easy
Lay Off
Lay Off
Looking At
Looking At
Make The
Make The
More Government
More Government
Most Important
Most Important
Most Influential
Most Influential
National Health Care
National Health Care
Non
Non
Indirection
Indirection
momentous
momentous
ifs
ifs
yours
yours
gamers
gamers
ons
ons
gotten
gotten
focusing
focusing
the keys
the keys
madding
madding
needed
needed
needed
needed
madding
madding
the keys
the keys
focusing
focusing
gotten
gotten
ons
ons
gamers
gamers
yours
yours
ifs
ifs
momentous
momentous
Indirection
Indirection
Non
Non
National Health Care
National Health Care
Most Influential
Most Influential
Most Important
Most Important
More Government
More Government
Make The
Make The
Looking At
Looking At
Lay Off
Lay Off
Its Easy
Its Easy
It Is
It Is
Into
Into
Influential
Influential
In The
In The
If I
If I
If I Had A Nickel
If I Had A Nickel
Help Us
Help Us
Have A
Have A
Government Market Intervention
Government Market Intervention
Get Information
Get Information
Forget That
Forget That
For The
For The
Files
Files
Exclusion
Exclusion
Even More
Even More
Equipment
Equipment
Entirely
Entirely
Debate Over
Debate Over
Could Be
Could Be
Conditions
Conditions
Bunch Of
Bunch Of
Best Job
Best Job
Any
Any
Affects
Affects
Adding
Adding
About The
About The
A Nickel
A Nickel
A Bunch Of
A Bunch Of
Trade Off
Trade Off
Several
Several
Infant
Infant
Inasmuch
Inasmuch
Earlier
Earlier
Deliberately
Deliberately
Commonly
Commonly
Arguably
Arguably
Approach
Approach
Affected
Affected
A Few
A Few
Consider
Consider
Having
Having
Therefore
Therefore
Contribution
Contribution
It Was
It Was
Disadvantaged
Disadvantaged
Costs
Costs
Could
Could
Good Reason
Good Reason
Limitation
Limitation
Agencies
Agencies
Thousands
Thousands
Scholars
Scholars
Factors
Factors
Framed
Framed
Lay
Lay
Finest
Finest
Some
Some
Idiotic
Idiotic
Title
Title
Saving
Saving
Fund
Fund
Turning
Turning
Even
Even
Known
Known
Outcomes
Outcomes
In The Past
In The Past
Given
Given
Well Being
Well Being
Getting
Getting
Explained
Explained
Inventors
Inventors
Avoid
Avoid
Beliefs
Beliefs
Worse
Worse
Dealing
Dealing
Differences
Differences
Than
Than
Literacy
Literacy
Excluded
Excluded
Responsible
Responsible
Second
Second
Depend
Depend
Life Saving
Life Saving
Tell
Tell
Some People
Some People
The Us
The Us
The United States
The United States
Must
Must
Inline
Inline
Folks
Folks
Driven
Driven
Turning Point Usa
Turning Point Usa
Against
Against
Most
Most
Mortality
Mortality
Sheer
Sheer
Being
Being
Before
Before
Often
Often
Has
Has
Arise
Arise
Since
Since
Between
Between
Tumblr Com
Tumblr Com
Process
Process
Per
Per
Measurements
Measurements
Pharmaceutical
Pharmaceutical
Rates
Rates
Assessment
Assessment
About
About
Only
Only
Which
Which
How Many
How Many
Received
Received
Linked
Linked
Https
Https
A Href
A Href
Img Src
Img Src
Do Not Do That
Do Not Do That
Absolute
Absolute
Do Not
Do Not
Width
Width
Had
Had
Foods
Foods
Taking
Taking
Poorly
Poorly
Figure
Figure
Have
Have
Are
Are
Should
Should
In A
In A
Our
Our
Result
Result
Learn
Learn
With
With
Was
Was
To Us
To Us
Countries
Countries
Bunch
Bunch
Minorities
Minorities
At Least
At Least
Such As
Such As
Results
Results
Effects
Effects
Uk News
Uk News
National
National
Without
Without
These
These
Role
Role
I Had
I Had
Individual
Individual
The U
The U
Few
Few
Present Them
Present Them
Many
Many
Take
Take
Every
Every
Practice
Practice
Its
Its
Save
Save
Report
Report
Cherry
Cherry
Past
Past
Patients
Patients
All Of It
All Of It
Important
Important
From
From
Trade
Trade
Health Care
Health Care
Not The
Not The
The First
The First
The
The
Give
Give
Organization
Organization
Healthcare
Healthcare
Nutrition
Nutrition
Mammogram
Mammogram
Current
Current
Sexual
Sexual
Not
Not
But
But
Behavior
Behavior
That
That
Simply
Simply
First Place
First Place
Weight
Weight
Activity
Activity
Number
Number
Leftist
Leftist
Its A
Its A
When
When
Height
Height
U S
U S
Other
Other
And
And
Forget
Forget
Performance
Performance
Off
Off
decades
decades
wing
wing
ron
ron
playing
playing
point
point
over
over
out
out
health-care-system
health-care-system
in other words
 in other words
turning point
 turning point
meaningless
 meaningless
tumblr blog
 tumblr blog
difficult
 difficult
attempts
 attempts
rankings
 rankings
there is
 there is
give up
 give up
already
 already
smear
 smear
flaws
 flaws
none
 none
in the first place
 in the first place
others
 others
else
 else
years
 years
lives
 lives
said
 said
instead
 instead
problems
 problems
yet
 yet
place
 place
left
 left
come
 come
way
 way
hard
 hard
better
 better
care
 care
welcome
 welcome
ghastly
ghastly
incorporate
incorporate
fatty
fatty
typically
typically
paternalistic
paternalistic
analysis
analysis
orig
orig
relative
relative
omission
omission
quality
quality
extent
extent
pathetic
pathetic
productivity
productivity
laying
laying
there
there
notion
notion
rather
rather
were
were
suffer
suffer
emulate
emulate
attribute
attribute
claim
claim
furthermore
furthermore
a pap smear
a pap smear
values
values
objective
objective
usually
usually
however
however
terrible
terrible
concern
concern
substantial
substantial
their
their
rely
rely
proper
proper
amenable
amenable
separate
separate
relevant
relevant
i would
i would
goddamn
goddamn
as well
as well
every time
every time
surely
surely
high quality
high quality
saying
saying
assumptions
assumptions
expected
expected
including
including
appear
appear
those
those
eating
eating
tmblr
tmblr
focused
focused
and then
and then
remarkable
remarkable
regard
regard
imperfect
imperfect
different world
different world
everyone
everyone
incoherent
incoherent
currently
currently
explanation
explanation
having sex
having sex
then
then
fails
fails
though
though
whatever
whatever
just
just
thanks
thanks
present
present
different
different
such
such
well
well
full
full
people
people
always
always
nothing
nothing
poor
poor
guy
guy
worst
worst
slap
slap
country
country
great
great
high
high
get
get
the best
the best
this
this
more
more
distribution
distribution
treatment
treatment
using
using
hard work
hard work
bushmeat
bushmeat
used
used
potential
potential
sector
sector
href
href
use
use
left wing
left wing
crime rates
crime rates
pas
pas
uncertainty
uncertainty
factor
factor
efficacy
efficacy
aggregate
aggregate
companies
companies
systems
systems
states
states
basis
basis
object
object
capita
capita
pap
pap
lung
lung
measure
measure
www
www
study
study
months
months
for
for
order
order
made
made
still
still
what
what
moron
moron
glen
glen
post
post
cite
cite
level
level
doctors
doctors
services
services
system
system
src
src
disease
disease
you
you
words
words
slave
slave
public
public
they
they
make
make
remember
remember
framework
framework
the world
the world
innovation
innovation
device
device
exchange
exchange
first
first
all
all
them
them
consumption
consumption
own
own
world health organization
world health organization
envy
envy
think
think
why
why
market
market
org
org
three
three
article
article
health
health
citizens
citizens
planet
planet
comparison
comparison
account
account
issues
issues
commonwealth
commonwealth
tanks
tanks
easy
easy
down
down
img
img
pap smear
pap smear
nickel
nickel
can
can
source
source
paper
paper
medical
medical
paramount
paramount
paul
paul
push
push
heart disease
heart disease
who
who
tobacco
tobacco
class
class
data
data
intervention
intervention
index
index
com
com
a different world
a different world
looking
looking
sites
sites
private
private
website
website
lung cancer
lung cancer
red
red
pdf
pdf
job
job
ask
ask
bbc
bbc
another
another
the who
the who
debate
debate
united states
united states
media
media
usa
usa
how
how
Been
Been
Single
Single
Statistics
Statistics
Reason
Reason
Medicine
Medicine
Luck
Luck
Living
Living
Government
Government
Essence
Essence
Bullshit
Bullshit
Superior
Superior
International
International
Diet
Diet
Construction
Construction
World
World
United
United
Today
Today
Time
Time
Test
Test
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Japan
Japan
Information
Information
Http
Http
How To
How To
Help
Help
Heart
Heart
Happy
Happy
Good
Good
Genius
Genius
Exercise
Exercise
Europe
Europe
Cato
Cato
Cancer
Cancer
Blog
Blog
Best
Best
Australia
Australia
Work
Work
tumblr
tumblr
The Worst
The Worst
Taken
Taken
sports
sports
Smoking
Smoking
Sex
Sex
News
News
Life
Life
gif
gif
Crime
Crime
Arguing
Arguing
America
America

ITS EASY TO FORGET THAT FOR DECADES THE US HAD A HEALTHCARE SYSTEM THAT WAS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD WE HAD THE FINEST DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS PATIENTS RECEIVED HIGH QUALITY AFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE AND THOUSANDS OF PRIVATELY FUNDED CHARITIES PROVIDED HEALTH SERVICES FOR THE PO0 RON PAUL TURNING POINT USA <p><a href=httpredbloodedamericatumblrcompost165630900777bushmeat-said-when-they-tell-you-how-ghastly class=tumblr_blog>redbloodedamerica<a><p> <blockquote><p><a href=httpbushmeattumblrcom title=bushmeat>bushmeat<a> said<p><blockquote><p>When they tell you how ghastly socialised healthcare is remember what they are saying is absolute bullshit <a href=httpwwwbbccouknewshealth-40608253>httpwwwbbccouknewshealth-40608253<a><p><blockquote><p>If I had a nickel every time some leftist moron linked to a World Healthcare Organization or Commonwealth Fund study well I would have a shitload of nickels<p><p>Since my previous source’s website is currently down–<a href=httpredbloodedamericatumblrcompost142352613032that-red-guy-montypla-weaselwonderworld>which I’ve used in the past<a> to slap this idiotic notion that other countries’ healthcare systems are somehow superior the US’s private system–I’ll instead point to this <a href=httpsobjectcatoorgpubspaspa654pdf>other great explanation<a> by the folks over at CATO on why this pathetic claim is always made by these left-wing think-tanks<p><blockquote><p><i> The debate over how to reform America’s health care sector often involves comparisons between the United States and other countries and with good reason Looking at other countries can help us learn which policies if any to emulate and which to avoid <i><p><p><i>There have been many attempts at international health care system comparisonsAmong the most influential are the World Health Report 2000 published by the World Health Organization several studies published by the Commonwealth Fund and individual measures such as infant mortality and “mortality amenable to health care” Generally in these studies the United States performs poorly in comparison to Europe Australia and Japan Therefore scholars often use the studies to argue for adding even more government regulations to our already highly regulated health care system <i><p><p><i>However these studies suffer from several problems First they often rely on unadjusted aggregate data—such as life expectancy or mortality from heart disease—that can be affected by many non–health care factors including nutrition exercise and even crime rates Secondthey often use process measures such as how many patients have received a pap smear or mammogram in the past three years Process measures tell us what doctors do but provide only an indirect measure of doctors’ productivity Third some of these studies inappropriately incorporate their own biases about financing in their statistics which makes market-driven health systems appear worse even if their outcomes are similar or better <i><p><p><i>An additional limitation of these studies is the omission of any measure of innovation None of the best-known studies factor in the contribution of various countries to the advances that have come to characterize the current practice of health care in the developed world <i><p><p><i>Every single health care test or treatment must be invented at some point We would be living in a different world today were it not for the remarkable genius and hard work of health care inventors in the past as well as investments from government health agencies and pharmaceutical and medical device companies The health care issues commonly considered most important today—controlling costs and covering the uninsured— arguably should be regarded as secondary to innovation inasmuch as a treatment must first be invented before its costs can be reduced and its use extended to everyone <i><br><p><blockquote><p>Furthermore from another Glen Whitman <a href=httpsobjectcatoorgsitescatoorgfilespubspdfbp101pdf>article<a><p><blockquote><p><i> Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems They are not The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions- some of them logically incoherent some characterized by substantial uncertainty and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares <br><i><p><p><i> The WHO health care rankings result from an index of health-related statistics As with any index it is important to consider how it was constructed as the construction affects the results <i><br><p><p><i> There is good reason to account for the quality of care received by a country’s worst-off or poorest citizens Yet the Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution factors do not do thatInstead they measure relative differences in quality without regard to the absolute level of quality To account for the quality of care received by the worst-off the index could include a factor that measures health among the poor or a health care system’s responsiveness to the poor This would in essence give greater weight to the well-being of the worst off Alternatively a separate health performance index could be constructed for poor households or members of disadvantaged minorities These approaches would surely have problems of their own but they would at least be focused on the absolute level of health care quality which should be the paramount concern <br><i><p><p><i> The WHO rankings by purporting to measure the efficacy of health care systems implicitly take all differences in health outcomes not explained by spending or literacy and attribute them entirely to health care system performance Nothing else from tobacco use to nutrition to sheer luck is taken into account <i><p><p><i>To some extent the exclusion of other variables is simply the result of inadequacies in the data It is difficult to get information on all relevant factors and even more difficult to account for their expected effects on health But some factors are deliberately excluded by the WHO analysis on the basis of paternalistic assumptions about the proper role of health systems An earlier paper laying out the WHO methodological framework asserts “Problems such as tobacco consumption diet and unsafe sexual activity must be included in an assessment of health system performance” <i><p><p><i>In other words the WHO approach holds health systems responsible not just for treating lung cancer but for preventing smoking in the first place not just for treating heart disease but for getting people to exercise and lay off the fatty foods <br><i><p><p><i> Second the WHO approach fails to consider people’s willingness to trade off health against other values Some people are happy to give up a few potential months or even years of life in exchange for the pleasures of smoking eating having sex playing sports and so on The WHO approach rather than taking the public’s preferences as given deems some preferences better than others and then praises or blames the health system for them <i><p><p><i>A superior though still imperfect approach would take people’s health-related behavior as given and then ask which health systems do the best job of dealing with whatever health conditions arise<br><i><p><blockquote><p>In other words its a bunch of meaningless cherry-picked measurements framed in a way to make the private system appear terrible in order to push for more socialized medicine <p><p>Despite all of it’s flaws which are usually thanks to government market intervention the United States still has the best health care system on the entire goddamn planet per capita It’s most likely that the life-saving equipment and procedures that are used in other hellholes using slave healthcare to save lives are thanks to us <p><p>You’re welcome<p><figure class=tmblr-full data-orig-height=250 data-orig-width=450><img src=https78mediatumblrcomb97a460c917c68f3900de0bc46e50c59tumblr_inline_owpcxquafE1r1jtxd_540gif data-orig-height=250 data-orig-width=450><figure><blockquote> Meme

found @ 27 likes ON 2018-06-04 22:29:44 BY ME.ME

source: tumblr