Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: i tend to lean to the right politically, so... « previous next »
Page: 1

Ironphist

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2385
Offline
: October 01, 2009, 11:36:07 AM

it has been a black eye for Republicans when dealing with gov't option health care plans when the left fire off infant mortality rates as the standard bearing stat for the gov't option.

according to this article by Ann Coulter - read between the potshots, you know they are there - there seems to be a little more information about how we fall short in that analysis.

i do not know if her stats are true, similarly i can't say that i've researched and concluded that the infant mortality rates that are standard fare from the left are false, but if this is true - that argument loses a lot of its fire...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33791

you can commence with the Coulter bashing, but i'd rather hear about the "meat" of the article where she compares how these stats are derived.

anybody know more about this metric?

GhostRider

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5991
Offline
#1 : October 01, 2009, 11:44:25 AM

Anything Ann Coulter says is suspect IMHO. 

The real issue, as I see it is that once again our Government has sunk to shock soundbytes to sell it's agenda to the people.  From infant mortality rates, to death panels, the debate is getting less factual by the day.


I wonder if the lower infant mortality rates among hispanics correlates to the cultural norm of large family taking care of the kids.  What I mean is, when a hispanic woman has a child, typically the mother, sister, aunts, what have you will come and stay for long periods of time.  Logic dictates that more care providers should equate to less infant mortality rate, though I am unaware of any studies that would test this thesis.


alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37361
Online
#2 : October 01, 2009, 11:49:50 AM

Even if we were to take into consideration what Coulter says the United States theoretically is still in the middle of the pack when it comes to IMR (Woo hoo we would finally beat Canada but France would still beat us out >.>).

My favorite is the assumption that other countries are not as diverse as the U.S. which is kind of whacked given France as an example is very diverse (especially southtern France) with many Africans/Arabs living there.




John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#3 : October 01, 2009, 02:51:32 PM

Even if we were to take into consideration what Coulter says the United States theoretically is still in the middle of the pack when it comes to IMR (Woo hoo we would finally beat Canada but France would still beat us out >.>).

My favorite is the assumption that other countries are not as diverse as the U.S. which is kind of whacked given France as an example is very diverse (especially southtern France) with many Africans/Arabs living there.


I think "diverse" is a code word for lots of illegal immigrants, though I don't know why they'd disguise that.

I'd like to see IMRs adjusted for illegals and idiots. And by idiots, I mean infant deaths due to stupidity/irresponsibility rather than actual medical issues, like crack babies, babies left in dumpsters, etc. No amount of reform or "free" HC is going to stop teen moms from dumping babies in dumpsters or crackheads from using rack even though they're preggers.

And I do believe we have significantly more illegals and idiots than any European country.


Randy1010

****
Starter

Posts : 436
Offline
#4 : October 01, 2009, 03:44:18 PM

Number 1 idiot--Ann Coulter. What a biatch.

Ironphist

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2385
Offline
#5 : October 01, 2009, 04:16:36 PM

well that was progressing nicely until Karen surfaced...  forget the like/dislike Coulter stuff, some people from both sides can't stand her...  all i'm saying is the data kinda debunks the IMR argument as in - our country doesn't have good healthcare because our newborns die at a higher rate than elsewhere.  this is usually the first salvo fired by those that lean left.  again, i have no idea how truthful the stats from Coulter or those recited as fact from the left are - mjs seemed to use this argument alot and was hoping to get his thoughts...

GhostRider

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5991
Offline
#6 : October 01, 2009, 04:35:05 PM

well that was progressing nicely until Karen surfaced... forget the like/dislike Coulter stuff, some people from both sides can't stand her... all i'm saying is the data kinda debunks the IMR argument as in - our country doesn't have good healthcare because our newborns die at a higher rate than elsewhere. this is usually the first salvo fired by those that lean left. again, i have no idea how truthful the stats from Coulter or those recited as fact from the left are - mjs seemed to use this argument alot and was hoping to get his thoughts...


As a very left leaning person, it sickens me that this would be tossed out there so haphazardly.  There could be any number of variables to the rate of infant mortality aside from health insurance.  Bad logic/false numbers are supposed to be the tools of the right...but hell, who can tell the two sides apart anymore?


Ironphist

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2385
Offline
#7 : October 01, 2009, 04:40:32 PM

yeah i hear ya - which is why i didn't say "see this! there, all your fiction about IMR is debunked!" ... because it really isn't.  i was just curious if anyone had any knowledge of whether the stats from either way were solid.  since i lean right, that's always been a stinger since the stats were used as fact against the US healthcare capabilities vs IMR's elsewhere.  i'm not picking a fight, just trying to figure out how real or unreal the percentages are from either side.

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31640
Offline
#8 : October 01, 2009, 05:03:03 PM

well that was progressing nicely until Karen surfaced...

That's usually the case, no?


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46231
Offline
#9 : October 01, 2009, 06:06:36 PM

I have heard criticism of this evaluation before 'phist.  And who knows what numbers or criteria are used - I found enough to enable me - individually - to be suspect of the WHO eval.

Here is one

Patient Power
Because your health care is too important to be left to politicians.
HOMEREAL REFORM: FREE MARKETSABOUTAUTHORSSTAY INFORMED
United States Health Care ranking
June 6th, 2008 | by Brian Schwartz |
“Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, noted that the United States invests more on health care than any country, but that its health care system ranks 37th.” - Denver Post, April 29 2008

A Google search reveals that many people quote this World Health Organization figure on Denver Post blogs. But do any of them know what the rankings mean? John Stossel dissects the criteria:

In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie “Sicko.” …

But there’s less to these studies than meets the eye. They measure something other than quality of medical care. So saying that the U.S. finished behind those other countries is misleading. …

The WHO judged a country’s quality of health on life expectancy. But that’s a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That’s not a health-care problem. …

When you adjust for these “fatal injury” rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.

Another reason the U.S. didn’t score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it’s crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how “fairly” health care of any quality is “distributed.” The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but “unequal distribution” would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

Other good critiques of the WHO study include Glen Whitman, who blogs about it here and published a summary here, which also links a more detailed Cato policy analysis here.

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
#10 : October 01, 2009, 09:22:08 PM

Those rankings are also from 2000 and they are no longer produce a ranking list due to the complexity (BS) of it.

\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46231
Offline
#11 : October 01, 2009, 09:25:22 PM

Yes they are, that is an article that purports to discuss the difference in the measurement criteria of the WHO report Coulter is discussing.

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant
Page: 1
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: i tend to lean to the right politically, so... « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools