Now the Economy in F---- Trouble

Meriasek
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:33 am
SL Name: Meriasek Resident

Re: Now the Economy in F---- Trouble

Postby Meriasek » Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:12 am

oh, and risk factors include exposure to radiation and obesity, just as well online RPers don't spend their lives sitting in a chair, staring at a radiation-emitting screen inches away from them..........................
Mat
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:47 am
SL Name: Mat
Caste: Warrior
Role: Defender of Freedom

Re: Now the Economy in F---- Trouble

Postby Mat » Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:38 am

Most of the rankings include things in them like number of people uninsured etc in how they rack and stack. To me who can access is not indicative of how good the care is for those who can access it. That is why I do no buy many of the rankings that include such factors.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Now the Economy in F---- Trouble

Postby Glaucon » Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:49 pm

Mat wrote:Most of the rankings include things in them like number of people uninsured etc in how they rack and stack. To me who can access is not indicative of how good the care is for those who can access it. That is why I do no buy many of the rankings that include such factors.


They include such factors because most people, globally, care if people have access to health-care. Even the GOP claims to care about that, except for it's mad fringe.

However, the WHO figures you were referring to don't just include those numbers. They include a lot of other factors as well. Such as how long people live, child mortality, how satisfied people claim to be about the health-care they received, etc. And on nearly all of these, the US scores poorly (compared to other rich countries).

But hey, you don't want to trust this source because it included something you didn't like (because for you, the ideal that as many people should have access to health care is political. and thus suspect)? Check the original data that the WHO got their information from on the individual 'scores'.

Of course, you won't. And if you did, you would find something 'liberal' about it giving you an excuse to ignore it.

That is the fun thing about an anti-intellectual, anti-elitist ideological movement (like the tea-party). Any fact that proves it's claims wrong can be shouted down as being 'suspect'. After all, most of these facts are going to come from university professors, university-educated researchers, and so forth. All 'tainted' sources. Tainted by 'bourgeois' thought (Soviet Union), 'intellectualism' (fascist Spain), 'jewish and socialist taints' (Nazi Germany), or a 'liberal taint' (the tea-party movement).
Mat
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:47 am
SL Name: Mat
Caste: Warrior
Role: Defender of Freedom

Re: Now the Economy in F---- Trouble

Postby Mat » Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:24 pm

The problem is that the "facts" do not prove what many say that they do. They are biased to lead to the conclusion that their own bias is the best. For example if I am going to look at the quality of health care I would leave out those who are uninsured completely as I see no need for everyone to be forced to have it. That means everything from life expectancy to infint mortality if one were to judge how the health care is working for those who have it would exclude such people as they do not participate other than tangentially.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him
User avatar
Theoden
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:20 am
SL Name: Theoden
Caste: Warrior

Re: Now the Economy in F---- Trouble

Postby Theoden » Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:53 pm

Well, Mat actually might be on to something here, now that I think about it. Look at the university rankings for the world, for example.

The US is highly regarded as having most of the best universities in the world. Yet, this is a 'good' that is exclusive to only an extreme few. Very few students relative to the total population of students have access to this 'good'.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/w ... ld-ranking

With this same mindset, with the US having the best hospitals in the world as well (for the millionaires and billionaires), it follows that the US has the best health care in the world (even though it is highly inefficient and expensive, like our education system, and accessible to only a few).

There is a notion that the US has the best university-level education in the world (though we kind of have a horrible reputation at the high school level ...).

If one generally removes the factor of 'accessibility' when evaluating university education reputations of countries, why not health care? This is probably the underlying logic behind people like Mat and Jenny.

The only difference really is that for university education, the 'few' are the most capable in academia and/or can afford it (unless you're a legacy case or your parents donated millions to the university), and for health care, the 'few' are just the people who can afford it.

The flip-side of this is to conclude that the university education system in the US is shit because it is unequal in accessibility. But I haven't heard this line of thought often or at all, really.
...

Re: Now the Economy in F---- Trouble

Postby ... » Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:03 pm

Glaucon wrote:Hmmmm, let's see. Governments have been expanding their role in modern countries for a couple of centuries. During that time, some things have improved a little bit, perhaps. People pretty much stopped dying of hunger and exposure. No more plagues. Many common illnesses have nearly disappeared. Violent death has become far more rare. People live to be much older. People can read and write. People can be any religion without the local churches trying to do them in for it. Most people have more stuff now than a 14th century king could dream of having, including TV's, phones and computers. Slavery was abolished. Gays get to be gays, openly. People can fly. A few of us even went to the moon.

Yeah, clearly, nothing has improved.


Are you suggesting a causal link between increasing government and all of the improvements you listed?
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Now the Economy in F---- Trouble

Postby Glaucon » Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:31 pm

Oor wrote:
Glaucon wrote:Hmmmm, let's see. Governments have been expanding their role in modern countries for a couple of centuries. During that time, some things have improved a little bit, perhaps. People pretty much stopped dying of hunger and exposure. No more plagues. Many common illnesses have nearly disappeared. Violent death has become far more rare. People live to be much older. People can read and write. People can be any religion without the local churches trying to do them in for it. Most people have more stuff now than a 14th century king could dream of having, including TV's, phones and computers. Slavery was abolished. Gays get to be gays, openly. People can fly. A few of us even went to the moon.

Yeah, clearly, nothing has improved.


Are you suggesting a causal link between increasing government and all of the improvements you listed?


Yes.

Not saying that all of these are the direct result of the expanding role of governments. In some, the various levels of organized government just facilitated a little. Some are more directly a product of scientific and technological advances. But then again, scientific and technological advances have been helped along significantly by governments, over the last few hundred years. Some I mentioned, like general literacy, are pretty much the direct effect of the expanding role of government.
...

Re: Now the Economy in F---- Trouble

Postby ... » Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:38 pm

k m8.
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Now the Economy in F---- Trouble

Postby Glaucon » Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:02 pm

@ Oor: You're welcome.

@ Theoden & Mat:

If you ask yourself... which people in which country are taller... do you go comparing, say, the top 10% of the tallest people in those countries? Or do you take the average height?

Easy answer. So, if you were looking at child death, or how old people get, why should you look at anything but at averages of the whole population? How could you even compare countries if you didn't? Country Z might have great health-care for one half of the country, with the other half not having access to it. Another country might only give access to health-care to communist party-members. You cannot compare countries by comparing groups within countries using some standard (like having insurance or not) that isn't the same for every country.

So, why should you 'rate' health-care by just looking at the top 10%? Or even the top 60%, or 80%? No one is contesting that the USA has some of the best hospitals and doctors in the world. It is the richest large country in the world. It would be extremely odd if it wasn't in the top when it came to having some of the best medical facilities. But is that what matters?

Your university comparison is flawed. Because universities are selective by their very nature (not everyone is supposed to attend university-level education). So, if you ask what countries have the best universities, it is not clear what you ask. Averages? The top tier? But if you were asking the question of what country offered the best EDUCATION, then it would stop making sense looking at the best schools and the best universities & colleges in a country: again, you'd be looking at the whole of the country and the whole of the population (though comparing 'education' is far harder and more 'political' than comparing health-care, because it lacks the clear and obvious indicators that come with health-care, except maybe math-test results - because those can be compared, internationally).

But hey... it makes no sense to me, but....if you were to look at 'insured people only' (so leaving out the non-insured part) and compare THOSE to countries around the world (where everyone is insured, so what you might call an 'unfair comparisson), the US health care system would do better, relatively, sure. But it would STILL NOT BE THE BEST.

The claim that the USA has the best health care system in the world remains a flat-out political lie.

(And oh, if you were to do what I don't think you should do... compare the 'insured' part of the US with, say, everyone in the UK... that other little problem of the US system would stand out even more starkly: the fact that it is WAY MORE EXPENSIVE. The most cost-inefficient system in the world.
Mat
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:47 am
SL Name: Mat
Caste: Warrior
Role: Defender of Freedom

Re: Now the Economy in F---- Trouble

Postby Mat » Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:07 pm

your reasoning is flawed. Sure if were to look at life expectancy you could rank and stack according to that and it would make sense to go by averages. However to draw a conclusion about the quality of the health care based on that data you could not draw meaningful conclusions like you would like because you are including people who are not participating in health care really.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him

Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron