Health care victory

[Loyal Rogue]

It is almost painful to watch you twist and contort so while trying to maintain face even though you know you're as wrong as I do.

This comment is a personal assertion with no basis.

No basis, eh?

Here is your original link to the rightwing blogspot blog:
http://politicalcalculations.blogspo...in-united.html

Here is the link to The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank founded in 1943) that your rightwing blogger references which is the entire foundation of your claim:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061017_O...esentation.pdf

I will let those with eyes to see, and minds to reason, decide for themselves.

You have shown no flaw in anyones methodology or even demonstrated that you are aware of any basic facts or methodologies yourself.

Actually, I have whether you choose to admit it or not.
David understood immediately the flaw I spelled out in the methodology your study used.
Victims of violent crime and auto accidents do go to our hospitals and are part of our healthcare statistics.
Their insurance (or lack of), treatment and care does determine whether some of them live or die so for your study to say that all deaths from violence and accidents are "non-healthcare related" is obviously false.

Did their methodology take that into account?
Did they only count victims of crime and accidents that died without receiving any medical care?
Did they account for the cases of uninsured victims that died in a 15 mile ambulance ride to the county hospital because the private hospital that was 1 mile away refused to take them?
According to their footnotes, the answer is no.

Stomping your feet is not making an argument.

I couldn't agree more, so maybe you should stop doing it and start applying a little critical thinking to your source material.
I know you're capable of it considering how much you use it on any "liberal" source I may post.
You would never let me get away with using such an obviously flawed, biased, and uncorroborated source without tearing it to shreds.

The bottom line is that evaluating health care quality based on pure "Life Expectancy" is flawed because it doesn't account for factors that are not related to health care quality. Accidents and murders are only the tip of the ice-berg. An intelligent analysis should also be adjusting for involvement in wars, rates of lifestyle choices such as over-eating and smoking, etc. It doesn't take a "recognized expert" (whoever these unspecified phantoms are that you have in mind) to understand this.

So now after all that, you decide that none of this matters.
lol
Yes, I agree that in a perfect world we would be able to decipher all the metrics and factors to be able to determine exactly how our system ranks against others... but that's impossible so we use common metrics that have been agreed upon by the leading economists and experts in the field to best represent a fair comparison.

...and by "recognized experts" I mean those that have been recognized by the official bodies that compile and govern these statistics as being the most qualified to do so. (not no-name bloggers and authors for political thinktanks)
I think we can probably agree that the people who have been placed in charge of compiling the official statistics for the CIA Book of World Facts as well as official stats from other government institutions around the world could be considered "recognized experts", right?

However, it's false that we have lower quality of health care than countries with single-payer systems. Cost and quality are two different things.

Just as quality and accessibility are two different things.
I don't dispute that we have some of the best healthcare money can buy in the USA.
Unfortunately, the vast majority cannot afford it and therefor do not receive it.

Indeed. Your reaction in this case further demonstrates the comparison. "See! LR said so! LOL"

Hahaha
I seriously doubt that David's words were because of who typed them, but rather because, much like a "flat-earther", you choose to ignore the 99.9% of actual peer-reviewed data and official statistics in favor of the 0.1% of whatever unfounded political paper you can find that agrees with your preconceived notion.