the reason why Ebola is terrifying

[bbbbmw]

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

They don't. They do have a bad government and a good national health care insurance system. The health care system itself is, as here, mostly private.
They beat us in most every measurable thing, life expectancy, infant mortality (we're particularly bad there), numbers of doctors per 1000 people, time to get in to see your family doctor, etc.

Their national cost for health care per capita is significantly lower than ours. Something like 2/3. Better results for less money. I know it's new to you, with the news sources you use, but it's the truth. National health care insurance has been proven to be better and cheaper in most every developed country, except Great Britain and Canada, where health care itself is public. Our blindness to the facts has been, and continues to be, appalling.

Here's one good resource,and it's far from my only source. I've spent a fair amount of time studying this from all angles. The proponents of national health care insurance have the data on their side, the opponents philosophical rhetoric. I'm a scientist, and I'll take data over rhetoric. Every time.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/

Here's a good article linked to on their home page. Data.

September 8, 2014
A Comparison of Hospital Administrative Costs in Eight Nations: U.S. Costs Exceed All Others by Far

This also covers it.

<Ohio Gov. John Kasich doesn't think the Affordable Care Act will be repealed, even if Republicans win a Senate majority and consolidate their hold on the House in next month's election. "That's not gonna happen," Kasich told The Associated Press during a recent re-election campaign swing.

"The opposition to it was really either political or ideological," the Republican governor added. "I don't think that holds water against real flesh and blood, and real improvements in people's lives.">

<Former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, a Republican who served as Health and Human Services secretary for President George W. Bush, says Washington lawmakers and state governors are playing on different levels.

"In the Washington world, things are about control of the news cycle and preparing for the next election," said Leavitt. "Governors are more interested in finding a way they can be comfortable in their own skins and solve problems.">
Highly credible. To repeat from above “If we isolate these countries, what’s not going to happen is the disease staying there. It will spread more, all over Africa and we’ll be at higher risk.” Duh. And who do you want to trust on this? Ann Coulter? Rush Limbaugh? Ted Cruz? Sarah Palin? Distrust in institutions is another epidemic in America, but the experts in many disciplines, who many disparage, have brought you the lifestyle you enjoy.

The EU just had a big meeting, with governments and medical experts. They decided against a travel ban. It's not because they're looking for the tourist trade from West Africa, it's because their experts also told them that a travel ban would be counter-productive. It's pretty much agreed among experts.

Needless to say, if the EU doesn't have a travel ban, ours would be absolutely pointless. I invite you to observe how the unscrupulous journalists and politicians fanning the flames, ignore that fact, too.

Let me give you some data, to give you support against the fear mongers. 43 people in close contact with the Ebola victim have just been released from quarantine. Some of them lived with him, another was his girlfriend. Almost all of the American victims (there was one press guy) have been health care workers, who spent a lot of time in very close contact with a great many very sick people. In difficult circumstances, be it Africa or a Texas hospital that was obviously ill prepared. It appears that Ebola is indeed hard to catch from casual contact.

You're a scientist? You keep repeating the myth about the US having low infant mortality scores, when that has been proven false for years. You keep comparing US healthcare costs with other countries, even though the US has a legal system that support frivolous lawsuits - which greatly inflate the cost of medicine, and "defensive" medicine (docs over-ordering so they don't get sued). You continue to ignore that the US bears the cost of drug and medical device development for the entire world, which is baked into our healthcare costs. Now you are taking about "experts" rejecting a travel ban, when that is exactly what the neighboring nations in the Hot Zone have done, and they are now Ebola-free - so it clearly, inarguably has worked for them.

Perhaps you're really a political advocate? Or maybe a Community Organizer?

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by bbbbmw

You're a scientist? You keep repeating the myth about the US having low infant mortality scores, when that has been proven false for years. You keep comparing US healthcare costs with other countries, even though the US has a legal system that support frivolous lawsuits - which greatly inflate the cost of medicine, and "defensive" medicine (docs over-ordering so they don't get sued). You continue to ignore that the US bears the cost of drug and medical device development for the entire world, which is baked into our healthcare costs. Now you are taking about "experts" rejecting a travel ban, when that is exactly what the neighboring nations in the Hot Zone have done, and they are now Ebola-free - so it clearly, inarguably has worked for them.

Perhaps you're really a political advocate? Or maybe a Community Organizer?

You sure are good at tossing out logically fallacious lines of reasoning and justification.

That's why I didn't bother to reply to your last response to my comments. I figure everyone else, except that other guy, can see them as well as I can, and you wouldn't accept that they are fallacious even if it were demonstrated to you.

You said you'd need to hire another consultant to interpret my comments. Your money would be better spent on a philosopher so you'd just have someone who could think clearly for you in the first place.

Off Topic:
Conservatives really lost out when Buckley died. Not since him have conservatives had such a literate and clear thinking champion to argue their positions. I

I don't have a problem with conservative positions. I'm more conservative than liberal myself. I have a problem with the idiots who are put forth to champion the cause. They are, for the most part, embarrassing. It's unfortunate, but the great majority of conservative positions seem to issue from merely being the opposite of the liberal one rather than having logical merit in their own right.

All the best.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

They don't. They do have a bad government and a good national health care insurance system. The health care system itself is, as here, mostly private.

That wasn't what you seemed to be saying in your earlier post, but okay, we'll go with that. You need to be careful with your wording though....the doctors who provide medical service may be private (non-government) doctors, but the funding and regulations for the majority of health care in Italy is coming from the Italian government....thus it isn't mostly private. Similar to our current VA system...the doctors don't work for the government, but the clinics are built, maintained and regulated by the US government.

True private health insurance/care (whereby an Italian citizen pays a private health care provider to provide medical care outside of the government-run system) is held by only 10% of the Italian population (at least as of 2008).

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

They beat us in most every measurable thing, life expectancy, infant mortality (we're particularly bad there), numbers of doctors per 1000 people, time to get in to see your family doctor, etc.

What measures or standards are you comparing and where is your data? I know that Italy is ranked higher than us in the WHO rankings, but you do realize that there are other benchmarks that the WHO rankings don't factor in:
- Another poster on this forum has already addressed this, but European standards for certain things, like infant mortality rates, differ greatly from our own.
- What are Italians' survival rates on common diseases like diabetes, cancer, heart issues, compared to Americans'??
- Southern Italy has an endemic problem with underfunded hospitals that lack modern technology (like the ability to scan for cancer).
- There has historically been a widespread problem with beds (capacity) for many hospitals throughout the country. This problem has gotten worse as of late because of the Italian government's tightening fiscal constraints.
-Much longer wait times than the US, despite having more doctors per capita than the US (as you pointed out).
-On the whole, Italy has fewer CT scanners than the US.
-Unsanitary conditions, poor service from the hospital staff, overcrowding also plague many Italian hospitals.

My point is that it's all relative. I don't know on what basis the WHO ranked Italy so high, but on a lot individual performance factors, Italy ranks quite poorly. Also, when well-to-do Italians need specialist care or complex surgery, guess where they go for that medical care....they go to America.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...are/50807584/1

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

Their national cost for health care per capita is significantly lower than ours. Something like 2/3. Better results for less money. I know it's new to you, with the news sources you use, but it's the truth. National health care insurance has been proven to be better and cheaper in most every developed country, except Great Britain and Canada, where health care itself is public. Our blindness to the facts has been, and continues to be, appalling.

I concede, as do many proponents of private health care, that the US spends more of its GDP on health care than any other country in the world. But keep in mind, we are one of the wealthiest country in the world. And we as a population have an incessant consumer drive. To a large degree, we as Americans spend a lot on our health care, because we can afford to.

I'm also willing to bet that the US population spends more of its GDP on cars, electronics, and other goods/services than most other countries...we generally have more money than most other countries, and we like to spend it.

I do have to say though, your "better results for less money" is not only extremely subjective but quite erroneous....for all the reasons I posted above. If you spend less money on health care, you're going to get a lesser service. Many Italians seem to agree as a 2008 poll found that 60% of their population believed that their country's health system was in urgent need of reform.

The wait times and quality of care issues with Italy's system aside, the Italian government does finance most of the publicly available health care, and because of its increasing debt obligations, it has been forced to enact serious cuts to its health care system as of late. To the magnitude of 6.8 Billion Euros over the last four years (that was referenced in the commonwealthfund.org website you linked in your post).

The best way to summarize Italy's system is, "if you pay less you get less, and if you establish a government-funded health system, be prepared to deal with the debt." I don't see any Americans scrambling to get flights into Italy for high-risk surgical procedures...I see the exact opposite.

If Italy is still capable of maintaining this health system (with its current options, coverage, accessibility) 10 years from now, I'd be very surprised.

I would encourage you to do more thorough research and look for contrarian sources, rather than just using sources that 'fit' your narrative. Here is a think-tank policy paper that you might find quite interesting.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f...pdf/pa-613.pdf

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

Highly credible. To repeat from above “If we isolate these countries, what’s not going to happen is the disease staying there. It will spread more, all over Africa and we’ll be at higher risk.” Duh. And who do you want to trust on this? Ann Coulter? Rush Limbaugh? Ted Cruz? Sarah Palin? Distrust in institutions is another epidemic in America, but the experts in many disciplines, who many disparage, have brought you the lifestyle you enjoy.

To repeat what I said earlier...banning civilian flights to and from Ebola-infected countries doesn't preclude the US government, and others, from chartering flights or sending military aircraft into those countries to maintain medical support. That's all I'll say, because you are beating a dead horse and I don't want to follow suit.

[128Convertibleguy]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Point 1. True private health insurance/care (whereby an Italian citizen pays a private health care provider to provide medical care outside of the government-run system) is held by only 10% of the Italian population (at least as of 2008).

Point 2. What measures or standards are you comparing and where is your data?

Point 3. Also, when well-to-do Italians need specialist care or complex surgery, guess where they go for that medical care....they go to America.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...are/50807584/1

Point 4. I do have to say though, your "better results for less money" is not only extremely subjective
I would encourage you to do more thorough research and look for contrarian sources, rather than just using sources that 'fit' your narrative. Here is a think-tank policy paper that you might find quite interesting.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f...pdf/pa-613.pdf

Point 5. To repeat what I said earlier...banning civilian flights to and from Ebola-infected countries doesn't preclude the US government, and others, from chartering flights or sending military aircraft into those countries to maintain medical support.

You don't like reading long posts (although you seem to enjoy writing them), so I'll limit this to short answers on a few key points. It's not nearly all of the errors.

1. Chuckle. You're simply supporting my case. Because the national health care insurance takes care of most all of their needs. With care that is at least as good, and arguably better, than ours.

2. Let's take infant mortality. Because it's a sitter. We really suck, and the difference is far more than quibbles about methodology. Here's a take, from the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2091rank.html

TWICE the rate. That ain't methodology, even our own doctors agree.

3. For a few high tech procedures, that few people ever need (like heart transplants), we're the gold standard. We do quite well at things for the rich.

For handling the stuff most everyone needs, we really suck. Which is why our stats are so bad. Vastly more American citizens (compared with the few rich foreigners who come here for the unusual) go overseas for that stuff (dental work, joint replacements, prescription drugs, etc. etc.) because it's cheaper and just as good if not better. Google "medical tourism" for details.

4. I have looked at the data, and read the paper you cite, and others like it. The paper is mostly a pile of subjective crap, flavored with a few carefully cherry picked places where we have an advantage. Where it does quote actual numbers on broad measures they agree with me. The data on this is clear and overwhelming. For health care as a whole, we pay more and get less.

We do lead the world in unnecessary procedures, such as CT scans for screening well people (because we have far more scanners than we actually need, and there's money to be made), heart surgery for conditions where medication and diet have been proven to be equally effective, etc. etc. Two non political sources for you (unlike the CATO Institute you cited for me).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-unnecessary/

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/m...sary/index.htm

Bottom line. The dead horse here is the American system of private health insurance. It's been proven over and over again, by a great many people, to be more costly and less effective than national health care insurance. In many, many, countries. Including the wonderfully efficient (sarcasm) Italy. You can keep trying to defend it, but I have the far easier job of shooting that defense down.

Even Republican (governors) agree with me, as quoted above.

To get back to the thread. 5. Please show me where in my posts I have cited transporting health care workers. I haven't. Transporting health care workers is a red herring that has nothing to do with the real issues. I've restated the experts views that a travel ban will make the risk in our country worse. Which is why the EU rejected a travel ban.

And, if they don't have one, we don't have one, unless we stop all flights from overseas. The world is connected, and we have to deal with that, not pretend we can suspend that reality at will. Mario Rubio seems to differ with me about that. He's smart enough to know better, it's shameful, and shameless political crap.

To get back to the title of the thread. Doctors without Borders sounded the alarm about Ebola this spring. They told everyone that it was only a matter of time before it knocked at their door. And the developed world ignored them. It's another reason we're now terrified. And let unscrupulous journalists fan our largely unjustified fears. As I pointed out 43 (maybe 48, I've seen both) people with considerable contact with the one dead Ebola patient are disease free. You indeed have insignificant risk from casual contact.

[bbbbmw]

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

1. Chuckle. You're simply supporting my case. Because the national health care insurance takes care of most all of their needs. With care that is at least as good, and arguably better, than ours.

2. Let's take infant mortality. Because it's a sitter. We really suck, and the difference is far more than quibbles about methodology. Here's a take, from the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2091rank.html

TWICE the rate. That ain't methodology, even our own doctors agree.

3. For a few high tech procedures, that few people ever need (like heart transplants), we're the gold standard. We do quite well at things for the rich.

For handling the stuff most everyone needs, we really suck. Which is why our stats are so bad. Vastly more American citizens (compared with the few rich foreigners who come here for the unusual) go overseas for that stuff (dental work, joint replacements, prescription drugs, etc. etc.) because it's cheaper and just as good if not better. Google "medical tourism" for details.

4. I have looked at the data, and read the paper you cite, and others like it. The paper is mostly a pile of subjective crap, flavored with a few carefully cherry picked places where we have an advantage. Where it does quote actual numbers on broad measures they agree with me. The data on this is clear and overwhelming. For health care as a whole, we pay more and get less.

We do lead the world in unnecessary procedures, such as CT scans for screening well people (because we have far more scanners than we actually need, and there's money to be made), heart surgery for conditions where medication and diet have been proven to be equally effective, etc. etc. Two non political sources for you (unlike the CATO Institute you cited for me).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-unnecessary/

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/m...sary/index.htm

Bottom line. The dead horse here is the American system of private health insurance. It's been proven over and over again, by a great many people, to be more costly and less effective than national health care insurance. In many, many, countries. Including the wonderfully efficient (sarcasm) Italy. You can keep trying to defend it, but I have the far easier job of shooting that defense down.

Even Republican (governors) agree with me, as quoted above.

To get back to the thread. 5. Please show me where in my posts I have cited transporting health care workers. I haven't. Transporting health care workers is a red herring that has nothing to do with the real issues. I've restated the experts views that a travel ban will make the risk in our country worse. Which is why the EU rejected a travel ban.

And, if they don't have one, we don't have one, unless we stop all flights from overseas. The world is connected, and we have to deal with that, not pretend we can suspend that reality at will. Mario Rubio seems to differ with me about that. He's smart enough to know better, it's shameful, and shameless political crap.

To get back to the title of the thread. Doctors without Borders sounded the alarm about Ebola this spring. They told everyone that it was only a matter of time before it knocked at their door. And the developed world ignored them. It's another reason we're now terrified. And let unscrupulous journalists fan our largely unjustified fears. As I pointed out 43 (maybe 48, I've seen both) people with considerable contact with the one dead Ebola patient are disease free. You indeed have insignificant risk from casual contact.

Counterpoints:

1. Here's some input on the Italian Health system:

"One of the reasons for high taxes and large debt levels in Italy is a government sponsored healthcare system that costs more than originally planned. The result of the high tax rates paying for healthcare is that in Italy, there is a two tiered healthcare system, much like that of the UK and what many think will eventually emerge in the US. The system, in simple terms, has a public portion and a private portion. If you are sick, you go to a doctor and at the time of the doctor visit, if you show your national health card, you do not pay anything at the time of the visit. If you need a specialist, that is where things become troublesome – waits to see a dentist can run into the months. A cardiologist, the same. Try telling someone with a toothache or chest pain in the US to wait a couple months.

So what do wealthy Italians do? They go to a private pay doctor who charges more than the government set rate and the patient pays the difference. For the wealthy and even the fairly well-to-do, this is fine – they see the top doctors. What doctors go to the private pay plan? All the best doctors, because they can.

While some might cite that the WHO ranks healthcare systems by country and ordinarily ranks Italy among the top five and the US in the 70th-or-so range. This ranking is in my opinion, somewhere between a joke and a mistake. The process by which countries are judged is often arbitrary, and I doubt you could find 100 Italian doctors that would rather be sick in an Italian hospital than at the Mayo Clinic. When former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi underwent cardiac surgery, he went to the Cleveland Clinic. [I do not want to debate this other than to say that the rankings look at outcomes and do not normalize for genetics, social makeup, etc… So it does not provide any adjustment for our urban population, our diverse population, our focus on preemies, etc…]"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmar...come-to-italy/

2. Infant Mortality - see my previous post(s) - I'm amazed you keep shilling that the US is ranked low, when the evidence is clearly to the contrary. What "Doctors agree" with that flawed analysis?

3. Our stats are not bad, and our care doesn't suck. Medical Tourism is due to cost - certainly not quality - and you can't sue someone if things go wrong overseas, like you can here. And (again) other countries are not bearing the development costs of drug and medical device development for the world. In fact, other countries can't even validate that the drugs in their pharmacies are real drugs, and not counterfeits. Why do you think the Saudi Royals, etc. all come to the US for their treatment? See Sylvia Berluscone above.

4. You're simply wrong.

5. People coming to the US from Hot Zone countries have a passport. Even if they go through Europe, they still have a passport. Liberian Passport means you don't get to America. Passport from another country with a stamp within the past 30 days from a Hot Zone country means you don't get to America. What on earth is so difficult about that? Egypt and other middle eastern countries have done that with Israel for years - if you have an Israeli passport or travel stamp on another passport, they don't let you in.

Neither the Scientific American nor Consumer Reports articles you cited address the issue of "defensive medicine" - where Doctors over-order to protect themselves from lawsuits. Estimates are that 25-33% of physician ordering is to prevent getting sued. This is a problem of our legal system,not our healthcare system. Odd that both Clinton and Obama both tried to "reform" our healthcare system, and both are lawyers, with their highest campaign contributors being the Trial Attorneys lobby.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

1. Chuckle. You're simply supporting my case. Because the national health care insurance takes care of most all of their needs. With care that is at least as good, and arguably better, than ours.

Again you're missing the big takeaway's...despite having such an "awesome" health system, 10% of Italians prefer private health care. 60% are dissatisfied with the quality of service.

You are more than willing to throw out vague qualifiers, such as "good" or "better" when describing the Italian system...but I have yet to see you specifically address the major pitfalls with a mostly public system: long wait times, inferior quality and equipment in underfunded regions, a bed capacity that shrinks as public sector debt increases.

Italy is encountering all of these problems...and there are many indicators that its increasing pile of debt will only exacerbate these problems in the future..

I hear nothing from you on these issues...convenient for you but it leaves me wondering how such a system can be called "better than ours."

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

2. Let's take infant mortality. Because it's a sitter. We really suck, and the difference is far more than quibbles about methodology. Here's a take, from the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2091rank.html

TWICE the rate. That ain't methodology, even our own doctors agree.

Differing standards of measurement do account for some of that difference...a large part of that difference is due to a higher percentage of preterm births in the US relative to other countries.

Bottom line is that more infants die in the US not because we have a lesser medical capability in that area, but because more mothers are giving birth to preterm babies (who have a higher mortality rate period, regardless of nationality). Another medical issue all in itself, but not necessarily reflective of any medical inability on our part.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

3. For a few high tech procedures, that few people ever need (like heart transplants), we're the gold standard. We do quite well at things for the rich.

For handling the stuff most everyone needs, we really suck. Which is why our stats are so bad. Vastly more American citizens (compared with the few rich foreigners who come here for the unusual) go overseas for that stuff (dental work, joint replacements, prescription drugs, etc. etc.) because it's cheaper and just as good if not better. Google "medical tourism" for details.

Heart surgery, cancer treatment, and other complicated surgeries are in fact used quite often and many people, not just Americans, need that type of medical care. And in many, if not all, of those areas, America provides the best level of care across the socio-economic spectrum, not just for the rich.


That's reflected in studies like the one below.
America outperforms Europe in Cancer treatment:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

It's a neoliberal thinktank group, so don't get your panties in a bunch.

And rather than me do the work for you, please provide a good source which shows that many Americans go overseas for medical procedures or even routine stuff...I haven't heard of that, I've only heard the opposite.

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

4. I have looked at the data, and read the paper you cite, and others like it. The paper is mostly a pile of subjective crap, flavored with a few carefully cherry picked places where we have an advantage. Where it does quote actual numbers on broad measures they agree with me. The data on this is clear and overwhelming. For health care as a whole, we pay more and get less.

You're so willing to call studies that are contrarian to your own opinions "subjective crap." That phrase which you use is itself subjective, especially when it lacks anything to back it up. Where is your proof? Where is your counter argument backed by evidence? I don't know where this CATO study supports your point, please show me.

Many medical experts acknowledge that while Europeans have better access to health care than most Americans, the level and quality of care is anywhere from mediocre to very bad. That's why well-to-do people in those places still prefer to buy their own health coverage. Essentially it has created a system where the elites can get on-call health coverage and the middle and poor classes have to grind through the government's overly bureaucratic system.

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

We do lead the world in unnecessary procedures, such as CT scans for screening well people (because we have far more scanners than we actually need, and there's money to be made), heart surgery for conditions where medication and diet have been proven to be equally effective, etc. etc. Two non political sources for you (unlike the CATO Institute you cited for me).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-unnecessary/

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/m...sary/index.htm

Just because its not a DC-based think-tank doesn't mean that these kinds of journals and online media don't have a bias. Anyway, I totally agree with you that there are lot of unnecessary procedures and pills that are used by many Americans (this partially explains why there is such a large disparity in GDP spending on health costs between America and Europe). In fact, I largely acknowledge that the American system is heavily flawed and needs revisions, especially for the poor.

But I see far too many problems and inefficiencies with Europe's mostly government-based system to call it the solution for our health care dilemma.

[nagisak31]

^ psh you and your sources. 128 don't need no stinkin' sources!

[Dalko43]

^+1 Nice movie reference!

[128Convertibleguy]

I'll be very brief. This has gotten tiresome. I have numbers, you have rhetoric. As a scientist, I prefer numbers. The numbers below can be obtained from many sources. Note that the differences are HUGE, well beyond quibbles about methodology. This isn't even remotely close.

Life Expectancy. Italy 82.4. US 78.6

Infant mortality per 1000 live births. Italy 3.3 US 6.17

Doctors per 100000 people. Italy 4.2 US 2.3

Which means you get in to see your doctor when necessary far faster.

Health care cost per capita. Italy $3100 US $8500.

Better health care at less than 50% of the cost. Not remotely close. Even if Italy's care was only as good as ours (and you surely can't prove it's worse), their system would still be far better. And Italy is just one example of many Western democracies, chosen because it's hardly better government at work here.

Note that the above are broad measures. Individual disease data is naturally scattered. So you can search and find individual diseases where we do better, by cherry picking the data. Another no no for scientists.

Feel free to carry on with right wing rhetoric from sources like Fauxnews, the CATO institute, etc etc. I'll respond only to hard data on broad measures from unbiased sources.

To get back to the thread. 50,000 Americans will die from the flu this year. Many preventable if we had health care insurance for all, as does pretty much every other Western democracy. None have died from Ebola. Which problem actually deserves our attention? Yet unscrupulous journalists and politicians continue to fan the flames of fear. These are the same people who oppose health care insurance for all. How they live with themselves is beyond me.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

I have numbers, you have rhetoric. As a scientist, I prefer numbers.

Please note that in my responses to your earlier posts, I asked for specific data to prove your opinions such as CATO's study being "subjective crap" and Italy's public option offering "more for less." I also asked for data which proves your claim that a significant number of Americans travel overseas for better medical care.

Much of your response on these isssues has consisted of rhetoric and dismissive insults or you simply refuse to answer my inquiries.

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

The numbers below can be obtained from many sources. Note that the differences are HUGE, well beyond quibbles about methodology. This isn't even remotely close.

Life Expectancy. Italy 82.4. US 78.6

Infant mortality per 1000 live births. Italy 3.3 US 6.17

Doctors per 100000 people. Italy 4.2 US 2.3

Which means you get in to see your doctor when necessary far faster.

Health care cost per capita. Italy $3100 US $8500

No one disputes those numbers. I acknowledge them as they are either because America does under perform Europe in some of those areas or because there are mitigating factors:
- differences in methodologies and pre-term birth rates for infant mortality rates (reference my CDC link for the infant mortality rate).

- where was your data which showed that Italians have a shorter wait time??? Having more hospital beds or doctors doesn't prove that.

-We've addressed, in fact you acknowledged yourself that Americans in general spend more of their GDP on health costs, in many cases on unnecessary procedures. Spending more money on health care, in and of itself is not necessarily and indicator that the American health system is weaker than everyone else's.

I also showed to you that there are certain diseases where Americans have a higher survival rate relative to Europeans:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

Yet for some reason, you don't seem interested in addressing those numbers.

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

Note that the above are broad measures. You can search and find individual diseases where we do better, by cherry picking the data. Another no no for scientists.

Well hold on there...why is it okay to bring up infant mortality rates and doctors per capita, but not survival rates for certain diseases? Why is one piece of information "cherry-picking" but other pieces are to be considered hard proof that our health system is inferior?

This seems like a lopsided standard to me.

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

Feel free to carry on with right wing rhetoric from sources like Fauxnews, the CATO institute, etc etc. I'll respond only to hard data on broad measures from unbiased sources.

Is the CDC right-wing?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm

how about NCPA?

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

The more I see your post, the more I realize that its not about who's right or left or independent...all that matters to you is that policy papers and groups and think-tanks conform to your world views in order to be credible.

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

To get back to the thread. 50,000 Americans will die from the flu this year. Many preventable if we had health care insurance for all, as does pretty much every other Western democracy. None have died from Ebola. Which problem actually deserves our attention? Yet unscrupulous journalists and politicians continue to fan the flames of fear. These are the same people who oppose health care insurance for all. How they live with themselves is beyond me.

I highly doubt Ebola will become a country-wide epidemic. I agree that there are other medical issues that are more pressing in the near term and long. I also agree that there are many political pundits and leaders who are using the Ebola crisis as political ammo against their enemies. Such is American politics, and you have your head in the sand if you think Conservatives are the only ones who do this kind of stuff.

MSNBC, amongst others, are just as guilty as Fox of doing this kind of stuff.

What I won't sign off on is allowing virus-infected people to fly into our country, no questions asked. If this administration, the President and CDC included, had been on its toes, we could have nipped this problem in the butt before it became such a crisis. Even if Europe wasn't on board, banning or at least restricting flights from certain African countries, while not foolproof would have been a reasonable precaution...but that didn't happen.

This kind of negligence is simply indicative of the current administration's decision-making skills and leadership, or lackthereof, when it comes to handling crises.

[bbbbmw]

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

To get back to the thread. 50,000 Americans will die from the flu this year. Many preventable if we had health care insurance for all, as does pretty much every other Western democracy. None have died from Ebola. Which problem actually deserves our attention? Yet unscrupulous journalists and politicians continue to fan the flames of fear. These are the same people who oppose health care insurance for all. How they live with themselves is beyond me.

Uhhh.... With Obamacare, we do have health insurance for all. In fact, if you make up to $92k/yr, the government will pick up some or all of the tab. And under every healthcare plan, you are guaranteed 100% coverage for preventive care. All you have to do is get yourself to a clinic for a flu shot. The government will even pick up the tab for your taxi ride. But you are right - there will still be people dying from the flu, because the government can't use everyone's money to make people accountable.

[TXSTYLE]

New York your turn...

http://news.yahoo.com/doctor-visited...003404036.html

[nagisak31]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Please note that in my responses to your earlier posts, I asked for specific data to prove your opinions such as CATO's study being "subjective crap" and Italy's public option offering "more for less." I also asked for data which proves your claim that a significant number of Americans travel overseas for better medical care.

Much of your response on these isssues has consisted of rhetoric and dismissive insults or you simply refuse to answer my inquiries.

That's just the way he is. Then the argument gets "tiresome" and he pretends to quit, but comes right back. It is hilarious.

[NickyC]

This thread is more terrifying than Ebola.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

I'll be very brief. This has gotten tiresome. I have numbers, you have rhetoric. As a scientist, I prefer numbers. The numbers below can be obtained from many sources. Note that the differences are HUGE, well beyond quibbles about methodology. This isn't even remotely close.

Life Expectancy. Italy 82.4. US 78.6

Infant mortality per 1000 live births. Italy 3.3 US 6.17

Doctors per 100000 people. Italy 4.2 US 2.3

Which means you get in to see your doctor when necessary far faster.

Health care cost per capita. Italy $3100 US $8500.

Better health care at less than 50% of the cost. Not remotely close. Even if Italy's care was only as good as ours (and you surely can't prove it's worse), their system would still be far better. And Italy is just one example of many Western democracies, chosen because it's hardly better government at work here.

Note that the above are broad measures. Individual disease data is naturally scattered. So you can search and find individual diseases where we do better, by cherry picking the data. Another no no for scientists.

Feel free to carry on with right wing rhetoric from sources like Fauxnews, the CATO institute, etc etc. I'll respond only to hard data on broad measures from unbiased sources.

To get back to the thread. 50,000 Americans will die from the flu this year. Many preventable if we had health care insurance for all, as does pretty much every other Western democracy. None have died from Ebola. Which problem actually deserves our attention? Yet unscrupulous journalists and politicians continue to fan the flames of fear. These are the same people who oppose health care insurance for all. How they live with themselves is beyond me.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

I'll be very brief. This has gotten tiresome. I have numbers, you have rhetoric. As a scientist, I prefer numbers. The numbers below can be obtained from many sources. Note that the differences are HUGE, well beyond quibbles about methodology. This isn't even remotely close.

Life Expectancy. Italy 82.4. US 78.6

Infant mortality per 1000 live births. Italy 3.3 US 6.17

Doctors per 100000 people. Italy 4.2 US 2.3

Which means you get in to see your doctor when necessary far faster.

Health care cost per capita. Italy $3100 US $8500.

Better health care at less than 50% of the cost. Not remotely close. Even if Italy's care was only as good as ours (and you surely can't prove it's worse), their system would still be far better. And Italy is just one example of many Western democracies, chosen because it's hardly better government at work here.

Note that the above are broad measures. Individual disease data is naturally scattered. So you can search and find individual diseases where we do better, by cherry picking the data. Another no no for scientists.

Feel free to carry on with right wing rhetoric from sources like Fauxnews, the CATO institute, etc etc. I'll respond only to hard data on broad measures from unbiased sources.

To get back to the thread. 50,000 Americans will die from the flu this year. Many preventable if we had health care insurance for all, as does pretty much every other Western democracy. None have died from Ebola. Which problem actually deserves our attention? Yet unscrupulous journalists and politicians continue to fan the flames of fear. These are the same people who oppose health care insurance for all. How they live with themselves is beyond me.

+100

Thank you. Now you see why I put one of the rhetoricians on my ignore list....The Karl Rove style of political discourse doesn't require facts cogent arguments; it only calls for sound bites that sound good, or that sound at least inflammatory/fear-causing/dire enough to force one's opposition to take a defensive posture to refute one's specious claims/accusations.

That sort of thing plays well among folks who aren't well versed in economics, finance and/or a very specific set of circumstances, the latter being the case with the Ebola outbreaks.

All the best.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by tony20009

+100

Thank you. Now you see why I put one of the rhetoricians on my ignore list.... The Karl Rove style of political discourse doesn't require facts cogent arguments; it only calls for sound bites that sound good, or that sound at least inflammatory/fear-causing/dire enough to force one's opposition to take a defensive posture to refute one's specious claims/accusations.

That sort of thing plays well among folks who aren't well versed in economics, finance and/or a very specific set of circumstances, the latter being the case with the Ebola outbreaks.

All the best.

So now I am being compared to Karl Rove??? I don't know whether I should be offended or laugh. I have what you might call pragmatic views on international affairs, but I am as libertarian as you get when it comes to domestic and social issues here. If you want to test me on my stance, I'm willing to bet that I will disagree with Karl Rove on domestic/legal issues more often than not.

Anyway, @Tony20009, you accusing someone else of being a "rhetorician" is one of the most definitive cases of 'the pot calling the kettle black' that I have ever seen on this forum.

Enjoy your vow of silence...

Edit: I also thoroughly enjoy how though you try to portray yourself as agnostic on the trivial struggles between the Democrats and Republicans, yet you only ever call out Republicans for misdeeds and errors. Karl Rove is supposedly the big bad political operative who embodies everything that is wrong with the US political system....and of course Democrats have nothing like that on their side.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

To get back to the thread. 50,000 Americans will die from the flu this year. Many preventable if we had health care insurance for all, as does pretty much every other Western democracy. None have died from Ebola.

Also please stop throwing around rhetoric and quotes from the Ebola Czar Ron Klaine and do your own research. 50K people don't die from the flu every year.

The annual average # of deaths ranges any where from 36k to 23k depending on how far back you go to gather data and calculate the average.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010...w-you-slice-it

I know NPR is way too Karl Rove-like for your tastes, so please forgive me...

Also, people who contract the flu have a fraction of a percent chance (less than 1%) of dying.

People who contract Ebola, have about a 50% chance of dying.

You're welcome.

[128Convertibleguy]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

50K people don't die from the flu every year.

The annual average # of deaths ranges any where from 36k to 23k

The number is somewhat uncertain, but your low estimate is just fine. It doesn't change the point at all.

Number of people infected here with the flu. Millions, it's highly contagious. Number of people who die of the flu every year. 23,000.

Number of people infected here with Ebola. 2, both health care workers in close contact, who likely did not have adequate protection. No one has been infected through casual contact. It's not very contagious, at all. Number of people infected here who've died. Zero. The survival rate so far is 100%.

To say these problems are even remotely comparable is silly. Ebola fear is being whipped up by unscrupulous journalists and politicians for their own personal gain. It's beyond shameful. People should not buy into it.

Meanwhile, the irrational madness continues, with its willful ignorance of the science and the experts. Quarantines. This is like closing your eyes and saying a problem has disappeared. Clearly, the best way to protect America is to fight Ebola at its source, in Africa. Volunteers are a key tool. To discourage them via an unjustified and onerous quarantine is counter productive to keeping us safe. There could be a procedure where they monitor their temperature and report it. Or something else that's reasonable and justified.

Do you really want our defense against Ebola to be governed by that expert in medicine and infectious disease, Chris Christie?

The volunteers should be greeted as heroes on their return, not abused.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

The number is somewhat uncertain, but your low estimate is just fine. It doesn't change the point at all.

Number of people infected here with the flu. Millions, it's highly contagious. Number of people who die of the flu every year. 23,000.

Number of people infected here with Ebola. 2, both health care workers in close contact, who likely did not have adequate protection. No one has been infected through casual contact. It's not very contagious, at all. Number of people infected here who've died. Zero. The survival rate so far is 100%.

A lot more people do die from the flu...how many of them are elderly and have weak immune systems or other diseases that exacerbate that illness would be a good question to answer. But I don't disagree with that statistic of 23k people dying annually (at least its more truthful than what you claimed earlier).

However that does not mitigate the threat of Ebola. It is actually very contagious, albeit in a different sort of way from the flu. That's why so many aid workers have contracted the virus despite having worn protective gear.

It also does have a much higher mortality rate (50% versus the Flu's sub 1%) and no known cure, unlike the Flu...which is why Ebola presents a bigger threat than the Flu. Honestly I think any sane person would chose to have the Flu rather than have Ebola.

We have actually had one person die here in the US:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0HX1OK20141008

So the survival rate in the US is not 100%, and even if it was, that is not indicative of the disease's overall damage potential. You are greatly misrepresenting the threat of Ebola when you say bullshit like that.

I have no worries of a country-wide Ebola epidemic, but let's be real...Ebola is a more dangerous virus to to have than the Flu.

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

To say these problems are even remotely comparable is silly. Ebola fear is being whipped up by unscrupulous journalists and politicians for their own personal gain. It's beyond shameful. People should not buy into it.

As I have said before, there is some amount of political finger-pointing going on here, but that doesn't mean that this Ebola crisis is totally without risks or dangers. It is a contagious virus with a high probability of killing those it infects (nearly 5000 deaths in West Africa in the span of a few months).

To compare the lethality of the Flu to that of Ebola (or to suggest that the Flu is more deadly than Ebola) is insane on your part. If you truly are a scientist as you claim to be, you are discarding your professional credibility in favor of propagating a political narrative. Remember when you said how you 'preferred numbers to rhetoric' in an earlier post?

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

Meanwhile, the irrational madness continues, with its willful ignorance of the science and the experts. Quarantines. This is like closing your eyes and saying a problem has disappeared. Clearly, the best way to protect America is to fight Ebola at its source, in Africa. Volunteers are a key tool. To discourage them via an unjustified and onerous quarantine is counter productive to keeping us safe. There could be a procedure where they monitor their temperature and report it. Or something else that's reasonable and justified.

Do you really want our defense against Ebola to be governed by that expert in medicine and infectious disease, Chris Christie?

The volunteers should be greeted as heroes on their return, not abused.

You really like regurgitating other people's opinions don't you?!? Quarantines are recommended for just about every type of contagious disease/virus.

WHO does not advise families or communities to care for individuals who may present with symptoms of Ebola virus disease in their homes. Rather, seek treatment in a hospital or treatment centre staffed by doctors and nurses qualified and equipped to treat Ebola virus victims.

People are infectious as long as their blood and secretions contain the virus. For this reason, infected patients receive close monitoring from medical professionals and receive laboratory tests to ensure the virus is no longer circulating in their systems before they return home.

What is the treatment?

To help control further spread of the virus, people that are suspected or confirmed to have the disease should be isolated from other patients and treated by health workers using strict infection control precautions .

From the World Health Organization's website concerning Ebola treatment.

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/faq-ebola/en/

Who would you rather listen to, a professional political operative like Ron Klaine, who has no medical background, or the World Health Organization?

If the world governments are worried about discouraging would-be volunteers from going overseas to help the infected regions, they should set up a government sponsored program that would handle transportation to/from the infected regions and monitor/screen the volunteers as they depart and return to ensure no spread of the virus.

This whole argument that Ebola-infected people should be allowed to move around in the public, unrestricted, is horseshit! One accident or negligent exchange of fluids/blood and you have the potential for many more infected people.

But I enjoy responding to your ill-informed, politically-motivated posts, so please keep it up!

[bbbbmw]

Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy

The number is somewhat uncertain, but your low estimate is just fine. It doesn't change the point at all.

Number of people infected here with the flu. Millions, it's highly contagious. Number of people who die of the flu every year. 23,000.

Number of people infected here with Ebola. 2, both health care workers in close contact, who likely did not have adequate protection. No one has been infected through casual contact. It's not very contagious, at all. Number of people infected here who've died. Zero. The survival rate so far is 100%.

To say these problems are even remotely comparable is silly. Ebola fear is being whipped up by unscrupulous journalists and politicians for their own personal gain. It's beyond shameful. People should not buy into it.

Meanwhile, the irrational madness continues, with its willful ignorance of the science and the experts. Quarantines. This is like closing your eyes and saying a problem has disappeared. Clearly, the best way to protect America is to fight Ebola at its source, in Africa. Volunteers are a key tool. To discourage them via an unjustified and onerous quarantine is counter productive to keeping us safe. There could be a procedure where they monitor their temperature and report it. Or something else that's reasonable and justified.

Do you really want our defense against Ebola to be governed by that expert in medicine and infectious disease, Chris Christie?

The volunteers should be greeted as heroes on their return, not abused.

Well since you brought up Kaci Hickox... Did you know she is an employee of the CDC? Doesn't it seem odd that she comes back to the US, and immediately threatens a federal lawsuit?

http://cdczilla.com/cdc-employee/con...x-702_759_1607

[128Convertibleguy]

Originally Posted by bbbbmw

Well since you brought up Kaci Hickox... Did you know she is an employee of the CDC? Doesn't it seem odd that she comes back to the US, and immediately threatens a federal lawsuit?

http://cdczilla.com/cdc-employee/con...x-702_759_1607

Not at all. She was quarantined by Chris Christie for no good reason at all, which was the only thing she was suing about. Doctors have said that quarantine was not justified. Just the threat of the lawsuit caused Christie to retreat. Just another politician trying to fan the flames of fear.

It's interesting that right wing conservatives are happy to throw constitutional civil liberties (the right of privacy, the right to due process, the right to vote, etc.) overboard, when it suits them. And happy to have government control our bodies and our lives, when it suits them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...onstitutional/