🔥 Popular | Latest

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>
Save
Ass, Desperate, and Finn: Marc @MarcSnetiker Follow Wow it almost sounds like you're saying the men are treated as women have been in movies for iterally a century hollywoodreporter.com/review/rogue-o hat the film really lacks is a strong and vigorous male lead (such as Han Solo or John Boyega's Finn in The Force Awakens) to balance more equally with Jyn and supply a sparring partner. None of the men here has real physical or vocal stature, nor any scenes in which they can decisively emerge from the pack in a way that engages audience enthusiasm RETWEETS LIKES 47 76 12:42 PM-13 Dec 2016 johanirae: thefingerfuckingfemalefury: brookietf: thefingerfuckingfemalefury: adulthoodisokay: i want to scream but worry that if i do i won’t be able to stop [x] A film “Lacking” a male lead is a lot like a film “Lacking” an hour long sequence where everyone just screams at the viewer Nothing of value is lost by its omission and in fact the film is improved by it not being there Men are in virtually every other film, who gives a shit. Straight cis white dudes are desperate to pretend that they’re somehow being hard done by, it makes them feel better about how mediocre their lives are if they imagine that the Misandrists are conspiring against them The hell is this review talking about anyway, ‘lacking a strong male lead (such as Han Solo and Finn). Chirrut Îmwe, former Jedi who straight up ass kicked the group of stormtroopers? Baze Malbus, who runs around with a machine gun for funzies? WTF? 
Save