Mikey wrote:Lie much?
No.
I never said that your measures were not valid. I did say that they are very incomplete as overall indicators of the outcomes of any healthcare system. Additionally, you never presented any actual data.
1) You certainly implied they were not valid...
2) They were never presented as overall health care system indicators of outcomes.
3) I stated that generally our halth outcomes are better.
4) You cited infant mortality and life expectancy as comparable measures and I explained that they are not valid measures nor are they good for comparison purposes.
5) You demanded I provide alternative measures and I did. You sniveling response was they didn't cover the entire health care system. They were never intended to as they were presented as more valid measures of health care outcomes given that they all assumed a relationship to the health care system and were affected by the health care system.
You are the one who will not admit any validity to the measures that I proposed. They are just as valid, if not moreso, than anthing you cited. And at least I had numbers.
Just having numbers doesn't make the measures valid. I already clearly explained why the two popular measures of infant mortality and life expectancy are not valid measures of health care efficacy or valid for comparative purposes. You refuse to acknowledge the very obvious shortcomings inherent to both,
I'm not sure why you think a life expectancy measure, a stat that include deaths not at all in any way connected to health care and a stat not at all consistently compiled acorss nations is better than a cancer survivability stat which is directly related to health care and consistently collected across nations. In fact, that you think so necessarily demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty and bad faith in this discussion.
Your article is very nice but still says nothing of the US vs. Canada or Great Britain. Oh, you forgot what your original claim was? Not too surprising. Or are you just deflecting because you know you're completely full of shit?
Dickhead, my original claim was not related specifically to Canada and Britain. It was, "Yeah, dipshit, and their health outcomes are worse than ours." That was in response to some idiot here suggesting that every nation has a nationalized health care system (wrong) and that those work better than our. Were you an honest person you wouldn't be lying about what I posted.
If you actually read the citation you will find that it also says that survival rates in Western and Northern Europe are a lot higher than in Eastern Europe.
BFD, asshole. The point remains that in a valid comparative measure of health care outcomes, the US fares significantly better than Europe.
Still, what does this say about either Canada or Great Britain?
Nothing.
Not to mention the fact that the data are more than two years old.
You see, you're simply not interested in good faith debate, I cited a specific measure of health care outcome. I cited a specific data set. You refuse to acknowledge either.
Quite simply - life expectancy and infant mortality are poor measures of health care outcomes and poor measures of comparative health care quality for reasons already stated. Just deal with it. I know you and other halfwits rely on these measures to slam the US system and call for a single-payer system, but it doesn't fly.
Typical lefty tard,
You have nothing.
TRANSLATION: I'm a halfwit fucktard.