This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

[Matthew Best]

I see, someone makes a claim and I have to give evidence that the claim is unfounded.

It seems like you made a claim - that the number of people being killed in the US drug wars is so great as to skew the mortality figures down significantly - and haven't managed to provide evidence for it.

Why not prove your case to everyone by producing mortality figures with the drug homicides excluded?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It seems like you made a claim - that the number of people being killed in the US drug wars is so great as to skew the mortality figures down significantly - and haven't managed to provide evidence for it.

Why not prove your case to everyone by producing mortality figures with the drug homicides excluded?

Did I make a claim or was I asking a question that presented the fallacy of statistics in conjunction with presenting the fallacy of the claim that universal health-care provided "better" health-care?

Two birds with one stone as they say.

 

[Matthew Best]

Did I make a claim or was I asking a question that presented the fallacy of statistics in conjunction with presenting the fallacy of the claim that universal health-care provided "better" health-care?

The former.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The former.

Read my sig and you will understand why you answered my question in the manner in which you did.

 

[Matthew Best]

Your sig certainly does seem to provide an insight into your posting history.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Your sig certainly does seem to provide an insight into your posting history.

It was not pointed out for that purpose.

It was to give you insight into your answer.

 

[Matthew Best]

It was not pointed out for that purpose.

I'm sure it wasn't!

 

[Architect]

Looks like the burden is on me always.

The burden on you is to prove your claims.

If you don't like it, don't come to a sceptics' forum.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The burden on you is to prove your claims.

If you don't like it, don't come to a sceptics' forum.

The burden is on me is to disprove another's claim. Good to know.

 

[Architect]

You were the one who claimed that the UK and others could only have afforded the NHS through some sort of purloining of colonial wealth.

Strangely, you have have been wholly unable to substantiate it.

Put up, or shut up. Do you recant your ludicrous claim, failing which.....prove it.

 

[Architect]

You were the one who claimed that the UK and others could only have afforded the NHS through some sort of purloining of colonial wealth.

Strangely, you have have been wholly unable to substantiate it.

Put up, or shut up. Do you recant your ludicrous claim, failing which.....prove it.

 

[jimbob]

If life expectancy isn't a measure of health, what is a better proxy?

Do those statistics account for the gun deaths caused by the drug war in America? You do know that those people die at quite a young age which will skew the results down.

Of course it does:

I have found one estimation, in what seems like an appropriate journal.

This could also go into the other discussion about firearms:

Firearm Deaths Partially Explain the Low U.S. Life Expectancy

This study estimates the years of life lost to firearm deaths in the United States, and the contribution of these deaths to the gap in life expectancy between the United States and other affluent countries. In 2000, the U.S. male life expectancy was 74.1 years, compared to an average (weighted by population) of 75.8 years in the other 34 richest countries in the world. The United States thus suffers from a life expectancy gap of 1.7 years. My calculations show that 166.8 days or 26.86 percent of this gap can be explained by the disproportionate number of U.S. firearm deaths. For females, the U.S. life expectancy of 79.5 years lags 2.56 years behind the average female life expectancy of the other 34 richest countries. Firearm deaths, reducing the life of the average U.S. female by 30.5 days, explain just 3.3 percent of the gap.

Within the United States, 256.6 days, or 10.6 percent of the life expectancy gap between white and black males of 6.6 years is due to firearm homicides. This is consistent with a previous study that found that 14.1 percent of the racial disparity in life expectancy for males was attributable to homicide by any means (Potter, 2001). Firearm homicides explain much less of the racial disparity in life expectancy for females, accounting for just 1.3 percent of the gap. Excess firearm suicides among whites reduce the racial disparity in life expectancy by 2.1 percent for males and 0.6 percent for females.

In the case of homicides, several international comparisons demonstrate that the substitution effect is minimal or nonexistent. Clarke and Mayhew (1988) find that the rate of homicides committed with a handgun in the United States is 174.6 times the rate observed in England and Wales. If a substitution effect exists, the rate of homicides committed by other means would be much higher in England and Wales. On the contrary, it is 3.7 times higher in the United States.

CONCLUSION

My findings suggest that the U.S. life expectancy would improve significantly with effective interventions to reduce firearm deaths. These deaths account for 26.86 percent of the U.S. males' excess mortality when compared to peer nations, and 8.7 percent of the racial gap between black and white males in the United States.

"These deaths account for 26.86 percent of the U.S. males' excess mortality when compared to peer nations, and 8.7 percent of the racial gap between black and white males in the United States."

So, yes Jerome, it is significant, but only explains about a quarter of the difference between the US and the other thirty-four other richest countries.


In fact I am surprised at the magnitude of the effect, but it still leaves 74% unexplained....

I might cross post some of this on the gun-rights thread...

 

[jimbob]

And many of these peer nations have lower GDP per capita.


New Zealand:

Infant mortality rate: total: 5.67 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 6.48 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 4.82 deaths/1,000 live births (2007 est.)

Life expectancy at birth: total population: 78.96 years
male: 75.97 years
female: 82.08 years (2007 est.)

GDP - per capita (PPP): $27,300 (2007 est.)

The US

Infant mortality rate:
total: 6.37 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 7.02 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.68 deaths/1,000 live births (2007 est.)

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 78 years
male: 75.15 years
female: 80.97 years (2007 est.)

GDP - per capita (PPP): $46,000 (2007 est.)

 

[jimbob]

And please tell me how New Zealand has been sheltering behind anyone in terms of defense.

 

[Architect]

Well Jerome, JimBob dies your research for you (again) and finds that you're talking mince. Again.

Not really your day, is it? No wonder you don't want to post evidence to back up your claims.....it seems to be in short supply.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I have found one estimation, in what seems like an appropriate journal.

Thank for for your research.

"The United States thus suffers from a life expectancy gap of 1.7 years."

Now add 1.7 years to your previous stats and tell me were we are.



Keep in mind that this is only one factor to be considered.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Thank for for your research.

"The United States thus suffers from a life expectancy gap of 1.7 years."

Now add 1.7 years to your previous stats and tell me were we are.

We're at a point where the UK and Canada spend half per capita on healthcare than what the United States does, and Americans are still living shorter lives (on average). After factoring out the 5.4 months lost due to gun related homicide, we're still left with Americans living, on average, 15 months fewer than UK citizens.

It does not appear your money is well spent.

It appears your extremely expensive health care system is no better than the UK's or Canada's.

Now that we have demonstrated--dare I say, proved--to you that for all the vast expenditures the US makes on healthcare you're not any better off for it, what else do you have to offer in defense of your contention that the American healthcare system is better than the UK's or Canada's?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It does not appear your money is well spent.

Agreed. That is why I do not want more of a ineffective system.

It appears your extremely expensive health care system is no better than the UK's or Canada's.

The majority of the expense; per citizen served, is born by the government, and as such I do not want such an ineffective system.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, at least Jerome is consistent. He started this thread in effect declaring that his government is too incompetent to be able to organise effective universal healthcare.

It has been pointed out to him innumerable times that other governments manage to organise pretty effective universal healthcare and do it for less expenditure than the USA spends on healthcare, and certainly in the case of Britain, for less expenditure of public money that the US spends in public money on its socialised healthcare, which only covers a relatively small percentage of the population, not 100% as it does in Britain (Prime Ministers and party leaders included).

Jerome comes right back with an assertion that nevertheless, the USA government is too incompetent to achieve anything like this.

Rolfe.

 

[jimbob]

I have found one estimation, in what seems like an appropriate journal.

Thank for for your research.

"The United States thus suffers from a life expectancy gap of 1.7 years."

Now add 1.7 years to your previous stats and tell me were we are.



Keep in mind that this is only one factor to be considered.

"These deaths account for 26.86 percent of the U.S. males' excess mortality when compared to peer nations, and 8.7 percent of the racial gap between black and white males in the United States."

So, yes Jerome, it is significant, but only explains about a quarter of the difference between the US and the other thirty-four other richest countries.


In fact I am surprised at the magnitude of the effect, but it still leaves 74% unexplained by gun-deaths.