From: Thomas McCabe (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Apr 20 2008 - 15:13:26 MDT
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 3:00 PM, J. Andrew Rogers
> It is kind of hard to have large sections of the population being
> inadequately treated in fact while still maintaining the best outcome
> statistics in the world and among the very highest medical life expectancies
> (i.e. after removing homicide, accidents, and similar). If the aggregate
> statistics across the population are as good as they are *and* you have
> large populations being inadequately treated in substantial ways, then the
> US must have a large population that is enjoying nearly perfect medical
> outcomes across all diseases to produce the statistical results we are
> seeing. Unfortunately, I do not think anyone is making the assertion that a
> large population is getting medical outcomes that radically outperform the
> average for the United States, which is already the best, though as a
> consequence it is hard to square the assertion that a large population is
> receiving material substandard medical results by, say, European standards.
> All of which assumes that the measure of "adequate treatment" is positive
> medical outcomes. Perhaps you have some other criteria for what constitutes
> adequate healthcare.
> Of course, the United States has socialized medicine, it just is not a
> Federal function. One of the great lies of the universal healthcare debate
> is that there is not a public healthcare system now; what does not exist now
> is a public *Federal* system. I grew up using the public healthcare system,
> so it sure is funny to hear about its non-existence. Using the same
> reasoning, universal public education did not exist until the mid-20th
> century in the United States.
> J. Andrew Rogers
I am not a Duly Appointed List Sniper, but discussion of modern-day
health care and political systems obviously doesn't qualify as SL4.
-- - Tom http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/tom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT