We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Paul Krugman on healthcare - some facts, for a change!
Replies
-
The Nobel Prize is garbage, they gave it to Henry Kissinger. It is forever tainted.
However, I have yet to see the statistics cited disputed by any reliable source. So let's get back on track, shall we? Someone show me statistics that shows America does not pay more for poorer quality healthcare than the people of many European countries.
We pay more yes. but every single study in existence shows American medical care is #1 in quality. That is beyond dispute. Rephrase your question. The question isnt one of pure quality. It is of efficiency. The American system is horribly inefficient.
I agree... and while yes we may have higher mortality rates than other countries we also have higher obesity rates and rates of heart disease... mostly of people's own doing, not because of the healthcare system...0 -
But at least many of us can agree that the Nobel Prize has been tainted by some recipient somewhere in time.0
-
The statistics I have show differently. France is number 1 in quality, we rank 37. But hey, we're the number 1 spender!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems0 -
The statistics I have show differently. France is number 1 in quality, we rank 37.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
That is not a ranking of medical care. Read the criteria for ranking in that study. No one uses it anymore, it was thrown out years ago for false methodology.
75% of the weight is based on life expectancy (which has little to do with actual medical care quality) and the equality of affordability. Cost is NOT quality, as I explicitly mentioned.0 -
The statistics I have show differently. France is number 1 in quality, we rank 37. But hey, we're the number 1 spender!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
Base it on this...where do rich ppl go to have surgery....here0 -
The statistics I have show differently. France is number 1 in quality, we rank 37.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
That is not a ranking of medical care. Read the criteria for ranking in that study. No one uses it anymore, it was thrown out years ago for false methodology.
Do you have statistics with citation that show either America is #1 or at least gets equal value for its dollar with various European countries?0 -
Paul Krugman is a hack and disgrace to Economics. Besides his nobel winning work in International Trade, which has NOTHING to do with his current blogging exploits, he is a complete and utter fool. 100% partisan hack. Even the most basic logic completely escapes him.
He genuinely believes destructive warfare and ALIEN INVASION are economic boosts. He is a rabid keynesian.....
I totally dig Keynes.
yeah that theory totally brought an economic boom the last 3 years hasn't it. Supply side ftw
Keynesians are blind. They still insist that the New Deal ended the depression. Uh huh, yeah that negative gdp growth through 1939 sure looks like recovery!
Increases in GDP:
1934: +17%
1935: +11.1%
1936: +14.3%
1937: +9.7%
I mean if we just want to throw random numbers around........0 -
The statistics I have show differently. France is number 1 in quality, we rank 37.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
That is not a ranking of medical care. Read the criteria for ranking in that study. No one uses it anymore, it was thrown out years ago for false methodology.
Do you have statistics with citation that show either America is #1 or at least gets equal value for its dollar with various European countries?
Once again, stop with equal dollar statement. That IS NOT QUALITY. Did you even read my first post addressed to you? No one denies that America spends much more for marginally better quality.0 -
The statistics I have show differently. France is number 1 in quality, we rank 37.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
That is not a ranking of medical care. Read the criteria for ranking in that study. No one uses it anymore, it was thrown out years ago for false methodology.
Do you have statistics with citation that show either America is #1 or at least gets equal value for its dollar with various European countries?
Once again, stop with equal dollar statement. That IS NOT QUALITY. Did you even read my first post addressed to you? No one denies that America spends much more for marginally better quality.
I didn't ask you to change the grounds upon which we are debating, I asked you for facts to back up your position. I contend that what services cost and the quality of those services, along with the number of people those services are available to does indeed equal QUALITY.0 -
But at least many of us can agree that the Nobel Prize has been tainted by some recipient somewhere in time.
The Nobel Peace Prize process has always been different than the other disciplines. The committee is different, and they fully admit that the prize is often awarded for subjective reasons--political reasons, ideological reasons, symbolic reasons, etc.
Only the willfully ignorant insist on comparing the Peace Prize to those given for other disciplines.0 -
Paul Krugman is a hack and disgrace to Economics. Besides his nobel winning work in International Trade, which has NOTHING to do with his current blogging exploits, he is a complete and utter fool. 100% partisan hack. Even the most basic logic completely escapes him.
He genuinely believes destructive warfare and ALIEN INVASION are economic boosts. He is a rabid keynesian.....
I totally dig Keynes.
yeah that theory totally brought an economic boom the last 3 years hasn't it. Supply side ftw
Keynesians are blind. They still insist that the New Deal ended the depression. Uh huh, yeah that negative gdp growth through 1939 sure looks like recovery!
Increases in GDP:
1934: +17%
1935: +11.1%
1936: +14.3%
1937: +9.7%
I mean if we just want to throw random numbers around........
real Gdp in 1939 was lower than 1929. Notice how I phrased my claim: Through 1939. Per capita gdp in 1939 was lower than 1929. Unemployment at 20%. http://www.usstuckonstupid.com/sos_charts.php
Not to mention, GDP is a keynesian construct which is completely biased. The entire "GDP" growth was government spending. government spending is by definition non productive. There was no economic productivity growth in the 1930s0 -
But at least many of us can agree that the Nobel Prize has been tainted by some recipient somewhere in time.
The Nobel Peace Prize process has always been different than the other disciplines. The committee is different, and they fully admit that the prize is often awarded for subjective reasons--political reasons, ideological reasons, symbolic reasons, etc.
Only the willfully ignorant insist on comparing the Peace Prize to those given for other disciplines.
Correct, I misspoke. I should have said the Peace Prize is tainted, not the others.0 -
None of your arguments hold water. Quality is subjective first of all. Second, each of you would have to agree with a ratings system upon which to base your subjective arguments. There is equal statistical data that shows a correlation between Keynsian growth and Friedman growth so neither can be said to be better than the others. Each works under a given set of economic circumstances. Attacking Krugman instead of the facts he discusses is just another fallacy of logic as well.
If you are comfortable with arguing generalizations here are some. HC in America is generally good for those who have access to it. ER visits do not constitute access to HC and to imply that an ER is a viable alternative to long term HC only makes the problem worse. HC costs in America are unsustainable but expanding Medicaid will not resolve the problem because Medicaid reimbursements are terribly low thanks to budget cuts from the anti-tax lobby. There is no viable solution because American society is generally unwilling to sacrifice so that others can have a reasonable level of access to HC. People do not want to have anything taken from them so that others can live longer and healthier lives.0 -
The statistics I have show differently. France is number 1 in quality, we rank 37.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
That is not a ranking of medical care. Read the criteria for ranking in that study. No one uses it anymore, it was thrown out years ago for false methodology.
Do you have statistics with citation that show either America is #1 or at least gets equal value for its dollar with various European countries?
Once again, stop with equal dollar statement. That IS NOT QUALITY. Did you even read my first post addressed to you? No one denies that America spends much more for marginally better quality.
I didn't ask you to change the grounds upon which we are debating, I asked you for facts to back up your position. I contend that what services cost and the quality of those services, along with the number of people those services are available to does indeed equal QUALITY.
That is an incorrect contention, sorry, You cant redefine the meaning of quality. my position was always one of pure quality. Look, I stated it very simply and you switched your position. Your last statement even includes "quality" in the inputs for your output of "quality"!! That is absurd, by definition the other inputs you gave (cost) must be outside of quality.0 -
None of your arguments hold water. Quality is subjective first of all. Second, each of you would have to agree with a ratings system upon which to base your subjective arguments. There is equal statistical data that shows a correlation between Keynsian growth and Friedman growth so neither can be said to be better than the others. Each works under a given set of economic circumstances. Attacking Krugman instead of the facts he discusses is just another fallacy of logic as well.
If you are comfortable with arguing generalizations here are some. HC in America is generally good for those who have access to it. ER visits do not constitute access to HC and to imply that an ER is a viable alternative to long term HC only makes the problem worse. HC costs in America are unsustainable but expanding Medicaid will not resolve the problem because Medicaid reimbursements are terribly low thanks to budget cuts from the anti-tax lobby. There is no viable solution because American society is generally unwilling to sacrifice so that others can have a reasonable level of access to HC. People do not want to have anything taken from them so that others can live longer and healthier lives.
Sadly, that sums it up. I just wish Americans were honest about our priorities and our real morals.0 -
The statistics I have show differently. France is number 1 in quality, we rank 37.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
That is not a ranking of medical care. Read the criteria for ranking in that study. No one uses it anymore, it was thrown out years ago for false methodology.
Do you have statistics with citation that show either America is #1 or at least gets equal value for its dollar with various European countries?
Once again, stop with equal dollar statement. That IS NOT QUALITY. Did you even read my first post addressed to you? No one denies that America spends much more for marginally better quality.
I didn't ask you to change the grounds upon which we are debating, I asked you for facts to back up your position. I contend that what services cost and the quality of those services, along with the number of people those services are available to does indeed equal QUALITY.
That is an incorrect contention, sorry, You cant redefine the meaning of quality. my position was always one of pure quality. Look, I stated it very simply and you switched your position.
I never switched my position. The statistics I cited consider those factors. You claim those statistics are invalid, I asked for statistics that back up your position. But if we indeed have different definitions of QUALITY, then we can't even discuss the issue because we can't agree on a mutual definition.
:flowerforyou: That's okay. It happens.0 -
But at least many of us can agree that the Nobel Prize has been tainted by some recipient somewhere in time.
The Nobel Peace Prize process has always been different than the other disciplines. The committee is different, and they fully admit that the prize is often awarded for subjective reasons--political reasons, ideological reasons, symbolic reasons, etc.
Only the willfully ignorant insist on comparing the Peace Prize to those given for other disciplines.
Correct, I misspoke. I should have said the Peace Prize is tainted, not the others.
I believe that Al Gore recieved the Peace Prize as well... if that is the case, then I will concede this as well.0 -
The Nobel Prize is garbage, they gave it to Henry Kissinger. It is forever tainted.
However, I have yet to see the statistics cited disputed by any reliable source. So let's get back on track, shall we? Someone show me statistics that shows America does not pay more for poorer quality healthcare than the people of many European countries.
We pay more yes. but every single study in existence shows American medical care is #1 in quality. That is beyond dispute. Rephrase your question. The question isnt one of pure quality. It is of efficiency. The American system is horribly inefficient.
I agree... and while yes we may have higher mortality rates than other countries we also have higher obesity rates and rates of heart disease... mostly of people's own doing, not because of the healthcare system...
But we also have higher everything--areas like infant mortality have little to do with long-term lifestyle and much more to do with access to and affordability to health care.
As a nation we have strongly different opinions on how to deliver health care in our country. But by just about any metric imaginable, compared to other industrialized nations, our overall performance is mediocre. To me, continuing to try nitpick and deny the data just prevents us from actually doing something about it.0 -
But at least many of us can agree that the Nobel Prize has been tainted by some recipient somewhere in time.
The Nobel Peace Prize process has always been different than the other disciplines. The committee is different, and they fully admit that the prize is often awarded for subjective reasons--political reasons, ideological reasons, symbolic reasons, etc.
Only the willfully ignorant insist on comparing the Peace Prize to those given for other disciplines.
Correct, I misspoke. I should have said the Peace Prize is tainted, not the others.
I believe that Al Gore recieved the Peace Prize as well... if that is the case, then I will concede this as well.
LOL! What did he get it for, inventing the internet?0 -
The statistics I have show differently. France is number 1 in quality, we rank 37.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
That is not a ranking of medical care. Read the criteria for ranking in that study. No one uses it anymore, it was thrown out years ago for false methodology.
Do you have statistics with citation that show either America is #1 or at least gets equal value for its dollar with various European countries?
Once again, stop with equal dollar statement. That IS NOT QUALITY. Did you even read my first post addressed to you? No one denies that America spends much more for marginally better quality.
I didn't ask you to change the grounds upon which we are debating, I asked you for facts to back up your position. I contend that what services cost and the quality of those services, along with the number of people those services are available to does indeed equal QUALITY.
That is an incorrect contention, sorry, You cant redefine the meaning of quality. my position was always one of pure quality. Look, I stated it very simply and you switched your position.
I never switched my position. The statistics I cited consider those factors. You claim those statistics are invalid, I asked for statistics that back up your position. But if we indeed have different definitions of QUALITY, then we can't even discuss the issue because we can't agree on a mutual definition.
:flowerforyou: That's okay. It happens.
Your last statement even includes "quality" in the inputs for your output of "quality"!! That is absurd, by definition the other inputs you gave (cost) must be outside of quality.
That is mathematically impossible or else the output of quality is a totally new number than the input of quality...in which case the formula is totally pointless0 -
The statistics I have show differently. France is number 1 in quality, we rank 37.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
That is not a ranking of medical care. Read the criteria for ranking in that study. No one uses it anymore, it was thrown out years ago for false methodology.
Do you have statistics with citation that show either America is #1 or at least gets equal value for its dollar with various European countries?
Once again, stop with equal dollar statement. That IS NOT QUALITY. Did you even read my first post addressed to you? No one denies that America spends much more for marginally better quality.
I didn't ask you to change the grounds upon which we are debating, I asked you for facts to back up your position. I contend that what services cost and the quality of those services, along with the number of people those services are available to does indeed equal QUALITY.
That is an incorrect contention, sorry, You cant redefine the meaning of quality. my position was always one of pure quality. Look, I stated it very simply and you switched your position.
I never switched my position. The statistics I cited consider those factors. You claim those statistics are invalid, I asked for statistics that back up your position. But if we indeed have different definitions of QUALITY, then we can't even discuss the issue because we can't agree on a mutual definition.
:flowerforyou: That's okay. It happens.
Your last statement even includes "quality" in the inputs for your output of "quality"!! That is absurd, by definition the other inputs you gave (cost) must be outside of quality.
That is mathematically impossible.
I knew I should have edited that in case someone got nitpicky! As I suspect you know, I meant overall quality (including value per dollar and availability) in one use of the word and quality of the actual care not considering cost in the other.0 -
I knew I should have edited that in case someone got nitpicky! As I suspect you know, I meant overall quality (including value per dollar and availability) in one use of the word and quality of the actual care not considering cost in the other.
"overall quality (including value per dollar and availability)"
Wouldnt that be called efficiency? That is the exact definition of efficiency in economics. And yes, the American system is inefficient.0 -
The statistics I have show differently. France is number 1 in quality, we rank 37.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
That is not a ranking of medical care. Read the criteria for ranking in that study. No one uses it anymore, it was thrown out years ago for false methodology.
Do you have statistics with citation that show either America is #1 or at least gets equal value for its dollar with various European countries?
Once again, stop with equal dollar statement. That IS NOT QUALITY. Did you even read my first post addressed to you? No one denies that America spends much more for marginally better quality.
I didn't ask you to change the grounds upon which we are debating, I asked you for facts to back up your position. I contend that what services cost and the quality of those services, along with the number of people those services are available to does indeed equal QUALITY.
That is an incorrect contention, sorry, You cant redefine the meaning of quality. my position was always one of pure quality. Look, I stated it very simply and you switched your position.
I never switched my position. The statistics I cited consider those factors. You claim those statistics are invalid, I asked for statistics that back up your position. But if we indeed have different definitions of QUALITY, then we can't even discuss the issue because we can't agree on a mutual definition.
:flowerforyou: That's okay. It happens.
Your last statement even includes "quality" in the inputs for your output of "quality"!! That is absurd, by definition the other inputs you gave (cost) must be outside of quality.
That is mathematically impossible.
I knew I should have edited that in case someone got nitpicky! As I suspect you know, I meant overall quality (including value per dollar and availability) in one use of the word and quality of the actual care not considering cost in the other.
"overall quality (including value per dollar and availability)"
Wouldnt that be called efficiency? That is the exact definition of efficiency in economics. And yes, the American system is inefficient.
Well then we agree on something after all.0 -
Paul Krugman & facts only belong in.a sentence if it is...
Paul krugman makes up his facts and is a troll
Gee, the Nobel Committee didn't seem to think so...
The Nobel Committee awarded Krugman his prize back when he was arguing something totally different ... that there is an inherent economic value in choice.
Stay in your lane. Krugman is a crackpot.0 -
The Nobel Prize is garbage, they gave it to Henry Kissinger. It is forever tainted.
However, I have yet to see the statistics cited disputed by any reliable source. So let's get back on track, shall we? Someone show me statistics that shows America does not pay more for poorer quality healthcare than the people of many European countries.
We pay more yes. but every single study in existence shows American medical care is #1 in quality. That is beyond dispute. Rephrase your question. The question isnt one of pure quality. It is of efficiency. The American system is horribly inefficient.
I agree... and while yes we may have higher mortality rates than other countries we also have higher obesity rates and rates of heart disease... mostly of people's own doing, not because of the healthcare system...
But we also have higher everything--areas like infant mortality have little to do with long-term lifestyle and much more to do with access to and affordability to health care.
As a nation we have strongly different opinions on how to deliver health care in our country. But by just about any metric imaginable, compared to other industrialized nations, our overall performance is mediocre. To me, continuing to try nitpick and deny the data just prevents us from actually doing something about it.
Except infant mortality has a lot to do with long-term lifestyles... infant mortality has just as much to do with social constructs as it does to access to medical care... infant mortality is simply the ratio of infant deaths to live births... Our infant mortality rate is also higher because we have a higher instances of premature births and we count them... where as, countries like France do not count them if they are under 22 weeks gestation or under 500 grams... we track our births and deaths differently than European countries.“We don’t know why the preterm rate is so much higher than in Europe,” MacDorman tells WebMD. “But teens, older mothers, smokers all have higher preterm rates.”
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20091103/preemies-raise-us-infant-mortality-rate
You have women that are obese, smoking, etc, there is going to be a higher infant mortality rate... you have parents that gave birth to a child that has no idea how to take care of one and has no support system behind them (ideally family, but not limited to) then there is going to be a higher rate of infant mortality...
So in my opinion, Infant mortality rates in this country is not a very good indicator of how good or bad our medical system is.. not when we track them differently than our European counterparts... and not when infant mortality spans further than just medical care.0 -
@Trojanbb: Since it seems like you have more training in economics than I do, how would you propose we improve efficiency of care (including cost, quality of care, and availability)?
I wouldnt. Lol, really that is one thing I am not prepared to do. I've taken a few healthcare econ specific courses and the one thing I learned is that a decent fix for efficiency is quite literally impossible...unless we bypass some basic tenets of Liberty and American law. Really, we got ourselves into a giant mess here and there is no easy extraction. The whole realm of insurance and hospital economics is too convoluted, beyond my understanding.
I think it could be fixed with a 100% purely free market. But it would take decades and the path there would be extremely difficult for most Americans. many would die, simply put. Do I wish to propose that now? No.0 -
@Trojanbb: Since it seems like you have more training in economics than I do, how would you propose we improve efficiency of care (including cost, quality of care, and availability)?
I wouldnt. Lol, really that is one thing I am not prepared to do. I've taken a few healthcare econ specific courses and the one thing I learned is that a decent fix for efficiency is quite literally impossible...unless we bypass some basic tenets of Liberty and American law. Really, we got ourselves into a giant mess here and there is no easy extraction.
I think it could be fixed with a 100% purely free market. But it would take decades and the path there would be extremely difficult for most Americans. many would die, simply put. Do I wish to propose that now? No.
Yeah, no! More people dying while the free market straightens it out is not acceptable to me, either!0 -
But at least many of us can agree that the Nobel Prize has been tainted by some recipient somewhere in time.
The Nobel Peace Prize process has always been different than the other disciplines. The committee is different, and they fully admit that the prize is often awarded for subjective reasons--political reasons, ideological reasons, symbolic reasons, etc.
Only the willfully ignorant insist on comparing the Peace Prize to those given for other disciplines.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 440 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions