Health Care for Everyone

[Danoff]

This is what I've been saying all along. It wasn't me that first used death rates/statistics to compare Healthcare systems. I have said multiple times it can't be used to compare, not that the US system is worse, not that Universal Healthcare is better, just that using death rates to compare is flawed... that's all.

You're still missing my point. If the US healthcare system was crap, we'd be seeing higher death statistics when compared to other countries. It's not a sufficient condition, but it's a necessary condition.

 

[FPV MIC]

You're still missing my point. If the US healthcare system was crap, we'd be seeing higher death statistics when compared to other countries. It's not a sufficient condition, but it's a necessary condition.

Again, you said when compared to many other countries with Universal Healthcare;

and the US death statistics substantially lagging the case statistics when compared to many countries with Universal Healthcare.

I never said your system was crap, just that you can't compare different systems by death rate. You even said...

I agree that there are a lot of complicating factors, such as demographics. Italy's population seemed to have a lot of older smokers, for example, which explains (in part) why their healthcare system got overrun.

... and that's only one factor, but it can make a huge difference in the end result. Timeline also seems to be a big factor.


Countries with Universal Healthcare vs US and World stats (below). I picked the countries that were on a post from the previous page for my own convenience.

The countries that got hit first have been by far the hardest hit. That's no reflection on their health system either. It just further shows how death rates are irrelevant to compare Healthcare systems, as I said in my first reply to you!

 

[Danoff]

Again, you said when compared to many other countries with Universal Healthcare;

Yes, you need a point of comparison to know whether or not your heathcare system is failing. Do you know what I mean when I say necessary but not sufficient?

I never said your system was crap, just that you can't compare different systems by death rate. You even said...
... and that's only one factor, but it can make a huge difference in the end result. Timeline also seems to be a big factor.

That's why the conclusions that I'm drawing are measured.

Countries with Universal Healthcare vs US and World stats (below). I picked the countries that were on a post from the previous page for my own convenience.

View attachment 911297

The countries that got hit first have been by far the hardest hit. That's no reflection on their health system either. It just further shows how death rates are irrelevant to compare Healthcare systems, as I said in my first reply to you!

You still need to be normalizing by cases rather than per capita if you want to try to weed out social effects (to the extent possible). Per capita is going to vary partly by government structure and population social customs (like handshakes vs. bowing). Normalizing by case (COVID-19 mortality rate) is a better way to look at the data.

It's not as simple as first hit = hardest hit either. Italy was not first. The US is not last.

 

[FPV MIC]

Yes, you need a point of comparison to know whether or not your heathcare system is failing. Do you know what I mean when I say necessary but not sufficient?



That's why the conclusions that I'm drawing are measured.



You still need to be normalizing by cases rather than per capita if you want to try to weed out social effects (to the extent possible). Per capita is going to vary partly by government structure and population social customs (like handshakes vs. bowing). Normalizing by case (COVID-19 mortality rate) is a better way to look at the data.

It's not as simple as first hit = hardest hit either. Italy was not first. The US is not last.

This is pointless... just like trying to compare Healthcare Systems by any sort of death rate in this situation!

 

[Danoff]

This is pointless... just like trying to compare Healthcare Systems by any sort of death rate in this situation!

You get up in arms because you thought I was doing something I wasn't... and you won't listen to any explanation about what I am talking about.... so it does seem pointless.

 

[FPV MIC]

You get up in arms because you thought I was doing something I wasn't... and you won't listen to any explanation about what I am talking about.... so it does seem pointless.

I have repeatedly explained to you that I didn't agree with one part of a post and one part only, and therefore any other point you are trying to make is irrelevant to my conversation with you. You have (to a certain extent) agreed with my point and even posted a reason why my point was valid so as far as I'm concerned this one point has been beaten to death.

Edit: Just to be clear, although I believe I've eluded to it already (several times), I'm not disputing any other point you are trying to make.

 

[Danoff]

I have repeatedly explained to you that I didn't agree with one part of a post and one part only, and therefore any other point you are trying to make is irrelevant to my conversation with you. You have (to a certain extent) agreed with my point and even posted a reason why my point was valid so as far as I'm concerned this one point has been beaten to death.

Edit: Just to be clear, although I believe I've eluded to it already (several times), I'm not disputing any other point you are trying to make.

The one point being that the US is doing a good job with death rates? You conceded that point, and then disagreed with my method of getting there (for reasons which do not undermine the conclusion I was drawing). So why did you concede the point anyway?

 

[FPV MIC]

The one point being that the US is doing a good job with death rates?

You've conveniently missed the all important ''when compared to many other countries with Universal Healthcare'' part.

so is it really relevant to how healthcare systems compare?

This is why I think it's irrelevant to compare these numbers for Health Care system comparison purposes.

This is pointless to compare with regards to Healthcare systems.

The highlighted part is what I've been referring to... and your use of that chart in post #1455 as a comparison of the US Healthcare system to the Universal Healthcare countries.... which is a flawed comparison due to many, many reasons.

Again, you said when compared to many other countries with Universal Healthcare;

just like trying to compare Healthcare Systems by any sort of death rate in this situation!

There was no need for you to add the ''countries with Universal Healthcare'' unless you were deliberately drawing a comparison between Healthcare systems. If you were just giving the US system an attaboy you could've easily left off the ''Universal Healthcare'' part.

See below: US death statistics (non universal healthcare) compared directly to countries with Universal Healthcare.

the US death statistics substantially lagging the case statistics when compared to many countries with Universal Healthcare. So for example, something like this:

As has been said, death rates aren't an accurate way to measure how a health system is performing (because there's way too many variables), but in the same post as the one above that directly compares health systems by death rate you go on to say...

our healthcare system seems to be doing a pretty fantastic job of keeping the death rates low for cases that we know about (many of which are severe).

So again I say...

This is pointless... just like trying to compare Healthcare Systems by any sort of death rate in this situation!

 

[Biggles]

If I'm jumping to the conclusion, it sounds like you're maybe dissatisfied with Medicaid. I'm not entirely sure. I was thinking along the lines of the US being all over the vaccine race, and the US death statistics substantially lagging the case statistics when compared to many countries with Universal Healthcare. So for example, something like this:

It's problematic, the statistics are hard to suss out because in the US we primarily test only the more severe COVID-19 cases. Lots of people are (or were) being told that unless their symptoms are severe, they don't get a test. You might see that alone as a failing (and it is), but our healthcare system seems to be doing a pretty fantastic job of keeping the death rates low for cases that we know about (many of which are severe).

The most relevant comparison would seem to be with Canada, which has a very similar make-up of large cities, smaller towns & expansive rural areas. Canada has been tracking at rates for infections & deaths at around 1/3 of the US. I would explain that as likely the result of a more co-ordinated federal response, no political games by any of the political parties & universal health care coverage. Doug Ford (the brother of the late, notorious, coke-snorting Toronto mayor) who is currently the "populist" Premier of Ontario comes across as a brilliant & compassionate statesman compared to your supreme leader south of the border. So there is that.

 

[Danoff]

You've conveniently missed the all important ''when compared to many other countries with Universal Healthcare'' part.

A point of reference is important.

There was no need for you to add the ''countries with Universal Healthcare'' unless you were deliberately drawing a comparison between Healthcare systems.

I was. Specifically to put the US mortality rate in context.

The most relevant comparison would seem to be with Canada, which has a very similar make-up of large cities, smaller towns & expansive rural areas. Canada has been tracking at rates for infections & deaths at around 1/3 of the US. I would explain that as likely the result of a more co-ordinated federal response, no political games by any of the political parties & universal health care coverage. Doug Ford (the brother of the late, notorious, coke-snorting Toronto mayor) who is currently the "populist" Premier of Ontario comes across as a brilliant & compassionate statesman compared to your supreme leader south of the border. So there is that.

From here, the latest figures are US: 38,664 dead out of 732,148 cases = 5.2%, Canada: 1,400 dead out of 34,356 cases = 4%.

When the US had 34k cases (March 22), the US had 427 deaths = 1.2%. I'd say Canada is within the error bars on the US response. There are other ways to break the data down, but bottom line is it doesn't look too dissimilar to me. 1/3 of the US doesn't sound right at all.

 

[FPV MIC]

A point of reference is important.

So the worst countries in the world is your reference? Every other country is doing well no matter what healthcare system they have compared to the worst case scenarios!

I was. Specifically to put the US mortality rate in context.

As I've continually said, mortality rates are flawed, especially when trying to compare healthcare systems from countries with different circumstances.
Please read below:

How to calculate the mortality rate during an outbreak
At present, it is tempting to estimate the case fatality rate by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of confirmed cases. The resulting number, however, does not represent the true case fatality rate and might be off by orders of magnitude [...]

A precise estimate of the case fatality rate is therefore impossible at present.
2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): estimating the case fatality rate – a word of caution - Battegay Manue et al., Swiss Med Wkly, February 7, 2020

The case fatality rate (CFR) represents the proportion of cases who eventually die from a disease.

Once an epidemic has ended, it is calculated with the formula: deaths / cases.

But while an epidemic is still ongoing, as it is the case with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, this formula is, at the very least, "naïve" and can be "misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a non negligible proportion of patients." [8]

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/#who-03-03-20

From here, the latest figures are US: 38,664 dead out of 732,148 cases = 5.2%, Canada: 1,400 dead out of 34,356 cases = 4%.

When the US had 34k cases (March 22), the US had 427 deaths = 1.2%. I'd say Canada is within the error bars on the US response. There are other ways to break the data down, but bottom line is it doesn't look too dissimilar to me. 1/3 of the US doesn't sound right at all.

According to that same link from worldometers your formulations are off for both countries. Example below (there's also another method other than the one I've quoted):

Let's take, for example, the data at the end of February 8, 2020: 813 deaths (cumulative total) and 37,552 cases (cumulative total) worldwide.

If we use the formula (deaths / cases) we get:

813 / 37,552 = 2.2% CFR (flawed formula).

With a conservative estimate of T = 7 days as the average period from case confirmation to death, we would correct the above formula by using February 1 cumulative cases, which were 14,381, in the denominator:

Feb. 8 deaths / Feb. 1 cases = 813 / 14,381 = 5.7% CFR (correct formula, and estimating T=7).

@Danoff If you think your system is doing well then that's fine by me, but at this point there's no real like for like comparisons between countries and their different healthcare systems.

 

[Danoff]

According to that same link from worldometers your formulations are off for both countries. Example below (there's also another method other than the one I've quoted):

@Danoff If you think your system is doing well then that's fine by me, but at this point there's no real like for like comparisons between countries and their different healthcare systems.

7 days is odd. I'd like to understand where that number comes from and whether it actually varies by country. I understand that disease pathology could influence it, but so could testing and reporting. Many of these diagnoses could be done post-mortem.

I understand that everything that goes into all of this will vary by country, which is partly why I'm not trying to draw very nuanced conclusions from this. So you're asking me to sharpen my pencil here (based on rationale I'm not really sure about), and I'm telling you it doesn't matter because I don't need that level of precision to determine what I'm trying to determine.

If the US healthcare system sucks, infection fatality rate will be high. If the infection fatality rate is high, the healthcare system doesn't necessarily suck. So you have a necessary but not sufficient condition for determining whether or not a healthcare system sucks. Infection fatality rate must be high, but it's not enough for it to be high. This allows us to see a relatively low infection fatality rate and say in conclusion that the healthcare system relatively does not suck.

Again, if the rate were high, we would not have demonstrated that it does suck.

 

[FPV MIC]

7 days is odd. I'd like to understand where that number comes from and whether it actually varies by country. I understand that disease pathology could influence it, but so could testing and reporting. Many of these diagnoses could be done post-mortem.

I understand that everything that goes into all of this will vary by country, which is partly why I'm not trying to draw very nuanced conclusions from this. So you're asking me to sharpen my pencil here (based on rationale I'm not really sure about), and I'm telling you it doesn't matter because I don't need that level of precision to determine what I'm trying to determine.

If the US healthcare system sucks, infection fatality rate will be high. If the infection fatality rate is high, the healthcare system doesn't necessarily suck. So you have a necessary but not sufficient condition for determining whether or not a healthcare system sucks. Infection fatality rate must be high, but it's not enough for it to be high. This allows us to see a relatively low infection fatality rate and say in conclusion that the healthcare system relatively does not suck.

Again, if the rate were high, we would not have demonstrated that it does suck.

That seven days wasn't a firm seven days for what I could gather, it's just an example because it's still a relatively new virus and not enough is known about it at this stage.

I also agree testing and reporting cane change things greatly. New York is a good example of this having just recently added 3700 deaths to their tally to bring it up to 10k at that time. None of those 3.7k were tested. They were just presumed to have Covid-19. This also bumped up the overall US total by about 17%. I don't think those numbers should have been added yet but rather only added later when, and if, they were confirmed to have had it.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/nyregion/new-york-coronavirus-deaths.html

There's other measures to how a healthcare system performs than just a relatively low infection fatality rate too, which isn't something your healthcare system is totally responsible for anyway (it also can be down to population density, age distribution and prevalence of underlying medical conditions in the population). There's also how patients come out the other side of treatment financially. I don't have a lot of information on how your system is working under these circumstances but the best I've been able to come up with not too much fuss is that testing is free, but everything else, even to many that have insurance, could be a financial burden to them.

I'm not sure how accurate this is but it's what I found quickly:
''Those who are hospitalized with coronavirus can expect to pay anywhere from $42,486 to $74,310 if they are uninsured or if they receive care that’s deemed out-of-network by their insurance company, according to recent analysis by independent nonprofit FAIR Health.


For those with insurance who are using in-network providers, out-of-pocket costs will be a portion of $21,936 to $38,755, depending on the cost-sharing provisions of their health plan.''
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/01/cov...uld-cost-uninsured-americans-up-to-75000.html

 

[Danoff]

There's other measures to how a healthcare system performs than just a relatively low infection fatality rate too, which isn't something your healthcare system is totally responsible for anyway (it also can be down to population density, age distribution and prevalence of underlying medical conditions in the population). There's also how patients come out the other side of treatment financially. I don't have a lot of information on how your system is working under these circumstances but the best I've been able to come up with not too much fuss is that testing is free, but everything else, even to many that have insurance, could be a financial burden to them.

I'm not sure how accurate this is but it's what I found quickly:
''Those who are hospitalized with coronavirus can expect to pay anywhere from $42,486 to $74,310 if they are uninsured or if they receive care that’s deemed out-of-network by their insurance company, according to recent analysis by independent nonprofit FAIR Health.


For those with insurance who are using in-network providers, out-of-pocket costs will be a portion of $21,936 to $38,755, depending on the cost-sharing provisions of their health plan.''
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/01/cov...uld-cost-uninsured-americans-up-to-75000.html

Cost really takes things beyond my original statement. I'm not trying to advocate that the US healthcare system is perfect.

 

[FPV MIC]

Cost really takes things beyond my original statement. I'm not trying to advocate that the US healthcare system is perfect.

When making a comparison of how Healthcare systems perform I think cost to the patient is also a relevant factor.

... and no healthcare system is perfect in my view.

 

[Danoff]

When making a comparison of how Healthcare systems perform I think cost to the patient is also a relevant factor.

... and no healthcare system is perfect in my view.

Here's my original post. You can see that it is very clearly not meant to be a holistic assessment of the US healthcare system.

If I'm jumping to the conclusion, it sounds like you're maybe dissatisfied with Medicaid. I'm not entirely sure. I was thinking along the lines of the US being all over the vaccine race, and the US death statistics substantially lagging the case statistics when compared to many countries with Universal Healthcare. So for example, something like this:

It's problematic, the statistics are hard to suss out because in the US we primarily test only the more severe COVID-19 cases. Lots of people are (or were) being told that unless their symptoms are severe, they don't get a test. You might see that alone as a failing (and it is), but our healthcare system seems to be doing a pretty fantastic job of keeping the death rates low for cases that we know about (many of which are severe).

 

[FPV MIC]

Here's my original post. You can see that it is very clearly not meant to be a holistic assessment of the US healthcare system.

Fair enough.

 

[ryzno]

There is so much wrong in this video including the prices.

 

[mustafur]

There is so much wrong in this video including the prices.

A quick look on the net says the prices if anything are more then claimed on the video, the ambulance is the one where the price can differ the most though depending on your coverage, Inhaler and Epipen prices are undervalued in the video.

 

[Sander 001]

Those free market forces again:

Privately run senior homes have more than 2x higher death rates than publicly run facilities.

 

[Sander 001]

I wonder if anything can be done to change this industry

 

[BobK]

I wonder if anything can be done to change this industry

Of course something (several things) could be done.

But given their lobbying and purchased influence, nothing will be done.

 

[Rallywagon]

Of course something (several things) could be done.

But given their lobbying and purchased influence, nothing will be done.

I think it more an American voter problem than a lobbying one. We keep voting corporate shills and corporate execs into office on both sides of the coin. For some reason people tend to vote on party lines rather than on the merits of any given candidate. This makes it easy for **** bags to weasel in to positions that allow them to enact laws and policies that favor their respective industry and/or company.
To be so succinct, if you label yourself and democrate or a republican, and stick to those lines, you are the reason America is the way it is today.

 

[BobK]

I think it more an American voter problem than a lobbying one. We keep voting corporate shills and corporate execs into office on both sides of the coin. For some reason people tend to vote on party lines rather than on the merits of any given candidate. This makes it easy for **** bags to weasel in to positions that allow them to enact laws and policies that favor their respective industry and/or company.
To be so succinct, if you label yourself and democrate or a republican, and stick to those lines, you are the reason America is the way it is today.

I agree with what you say, but the problem is both; the lobbyists and the voters. Too often both candidates would be on the take and there's no third-party candidate running, and sometimes they even run unopposed.

Also, seems a lot of people feel that "all those other congresspeople are crooks, but my guy (gal) is okay".

 

[Sander 001]

More revelations from the health insurance whistle blower

 

[Sander 001]

 

[Danoff]

I suppose the conclusion that you're supposed to draw from this is that universal healthcare is the solution?

 

[ryzno]

It's amazing how many different accounts and social media platforms I've seen this post on.
Would be nice to know the source instead of a copy and paste...

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

The source is Russia for all we know.

So what would be the solution to that problem?

I guess it would be checking how insurance is structured to make sure people are adequately covered. Insurance should cover this, but there are details missing from that story to make a proper judgement.

 

[Sander 001]

I suppose the conclusion that you're supposed to draw from this is that universal healthcare is the solution?

Heavens, no! Those have those awful death panels.

oh wait