"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K."

[Theben]

Maybe you should use your partner's insurance...

[Thue]

Could you please be more specific and provide references, you twit?

"Statistics say that Danish health care is better" is like claiming "science says that my penis is more pleasing to women than yours"

The only difference is that the latter is manifestly true.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html (main link, health care performance)

Also

http://apps.who.int/whosis/database/...ct_process.cfm (health care resource use)

[Thue]

I'm pretty sure they're referring to the current UK, ie he wouldn't have a chance today.

Hawkings doesn't seem to think so. From http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ing-paul-rowen

So Barack Obama is facing the fight of his life (another one) as he attempts to reform the US healthcare system. The "special interests" – doctors, healthcare companies – don't like it. The "birthers" – crazy types who hope to prove he is not American – smell blood. The danger, says the Investor's Business Daily, is that he borrows too much from the UK. "The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof, are legendary. The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror script … People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." We say his life is far from worthless, as they do at Addenbrooke's hospital, Cambridge, where Professor Hawking, who has motor neurone disease, was treated for chest problems in April. As indeed does he. "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told us. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived." Something here is worthless. And it's not him.

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html (main link, health care performance)

Holy ****ing ****, you are retarded. From that link:

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)

Overall level of health and health inequalities are HOPELESSLY entwined with behavioural and possibly genetic differences between populations. Obesity and smoking rates in the US are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than in Europe, and I'll bet they're more unequally distributed as well.

"Responsiveness" was apparently the category where the US did best

Distribution of responsiveness and distribution of financial burden? This is what you've decided to base your judgment of quality of health care on?

What a ****ing joke.

[Thue]

Actually my opinion was based on numbers in the print edition of the economist, I just stumbled upon that link just now, and posted it as relevant without checking too carefully what the numbers represented..

[Ramo]

smoking rates in the US are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than in Europe

No.

http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas40.pdf

We're fatter, but they're bigger smokers. And are alchies.

[BlackCat]

Guess that KH was sober when he wrote that.

[KrazyHorse]

No.

http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas40.pdf

We're fatter, but they're bigger smokers. And are alchies.

Ramo, the health outcomes have to do with lifetime smoking, not current smoking. Please stop to think for a few moments. See, for example:

Preston, Samuel, Dana Glei and John Wilmoth. 2009. “Contribution of Smoking to International Differences in Life Expectancy.” Forthcoming in Eileen Crimmins and Samuel Preston, Divergent Trends in Life Expectancy. National Research Council. Washington, D.C.

[KrazyHorse]

Results of the study is that SIMPLY THE DIFFERENCE IN LIFETIME SMOKING RATES moves the US from 9th to 14th in the OECD for male life expectancy at age 50 and from 7th to 18th for the same statistic for women

[KrazyHorse]

You also have to account for heaviness of smoking, by the way. Not the simple proportion of smokers.

[KrazyHorse]

I haven't seen a good discussion of alcohol consumption's effect on international life expectancy differentials, but would be quite happy to flip through any study you care to mention

[KrazyHorse]

Smoking's an easy one to mess about with because the risk models are fairly well understood. Alcohol risks are far trickier. Most people drink somewhat, and it will be much more difficult for people to estimate their own lifetime consumption patterns due to the sporadic nature of alcohol consumption. Smoking tends to be a fairly steady habit, at least among heavier smokers.

[BlackCat]

Smoking's an easy one to mess about with because the risk models are fairly well understood. Alcohol risks are far trickier. Most people drink somewhat, and it will be much more difficult for people to estimate their own lifetime consumption patterns due to the sporadic nature of alcohol consumption. Smoking tends to be a fairly steady habit, at least among heavier smokers.

as if alcoholic consumption isn't a steady habit

[KrazyHorse]

August 12, 2009, 19:06
Remove user from ignore list
BlackCat
This message is hidden because BlackCat is on your ignore list.

Do you have anything useful to say, or are you still simply following me around and trying to point out typos?

[BlackCat]

August 12, 2009, 19:06
Remove user from ignore list
BlackCat
This message is hidden because BlackCat is on your ignore list.

Do you have anything useful to say, or are you still simply following me around and trying to point out typos?

That is your problem to figure out, not mine.