|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Given that we are the only first world nation with a fully private healthcare system, and that cost inflation is worse for us by orders of magnitude than anyone else with a comparable economy, can't we can make a rational case for causation here? Woah woah woah, Slovakia isn't some podunk backwards eastern European slav shithold. It's a podunk backwards western-ish European slav shithole. They at least mix penicillin in with all of the vodka and pepper they give their little ones by the teaspoon to get them to stop screaming. But seriously, yea. I wonder if there are any significant outlier states where infant mortality is through the roof vs. other states like Cali where a hosed up pregnancy will result in mom+kid being CareFlighted across the state to UC Davis/UCLA Mattel Children's Hospital/Childrens Hospital Orange County/Stanford/UCSF/probably like 8 other hospitals with extremely competent Pediatric units I'm not listing. I'm guessing shitholes like Kentucky, Alaska, Nevada, Montana, Idaho, etc. significantly raise the infant mortality national average stat.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 09:31 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 19:58 |
|
Avalanche posted:But seriously, yea. I wonder if there are any significant outlier states where infant mortality is through the roof vs. other states like Cali where a hosed up pregnancy will result in mom+kid being CareFlighted across the state to UC Davis/UCLA Mattel Children's Hospital/Childrens Hospital Orange County/Stanford/UCSF/probably like 8 other hospitals with extremely competent Pediatric units I'm not listing. http://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/2015-annual-report/measure/IMR/state/ALL
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 10:07 |
"America is special which is why our children die at higher rates than a former USSR satellite and there simply isn't anything to be done because the political capital isn't there." -Serious pundits and politicians.
|
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 14:17 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Given that we are the only first world nation with a fully private healthcare system, and that cost inflation is worse for us by orders of magnitude than anyone else with a comparable economy, can't we can make a rational case for causation here? Perhaps, though keep in mind that the US effectively subsidizes the world's pharmaceutical research right now. In other words, "Yes, the US private market drives higher costs because companies are searching for higher profits," but also, "The US is the only private market, and therefore the only place to realize profits." The answer to this question may be legitimately "yes", but are we willing to dramatically slow the pace of pharmaceutical innovation in exchange for socialized healthcare? Edit: I realize I'm oversimplifying some things for the sake of a single example.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 14:31 |
|
Ynglaur posted:Perhaps, though keep in mind that the US effectively subsidizes the world's pharmaceutical research right now. In other words, "Yes, the US private market drives higher costs because companies are searching for higher profits," but also, "The US is the only private market, and therefore the only place to realize profits." The answer to this question may be legitimately "yes", but are we willing to dramatically slow the pace of pharmaceutical innovation in exchange for socialized healthcare? Lol. What a joke. Nationalize drug companies while we're at it. Most of the real pharmaceutical innovations happen in universities as pharmaceuticals are only interested in short term profits.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 14:51 |
|
Aren't pharmaceuticals more reliant on buying successful start-ups these days anyways than in-house R&D? I'm always reading about them spending more on advertising than R&D and that R&D largely going to poo poo like non-patent infringing knockoffs of competitors' existing lines
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 14:54 |
|
Big pharma uses far more money on advertising than they do on research, and much of that research goes into developing copycat drugs for the products of their competitors. All in all this doesn't exactly seem like the best possible way of running things.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 14:57 |
|
Accretionist posted:Aren't pharmaceuticals more reliant on buying successful start-ups these days anyways than in-house R&D? That and partnerships with university research labs. Publicly subsidize the costs, privatize the profits.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 15:02 |
|
What would we do without scandal ridden big pharma. Whatever would we do. Won't someone please think of big pharma.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 15:06 |
|
Ynglaur posted:Perhaps, though keep in mind that the US effectively subsidizes the world's pharmaceutical research right now. In other words, "Yes, the US private market drives higher costs because companies are searching for higher profits," but also, "The US is the only private market, and therefore the only place to realize profits." The answer to this question may be legitimately "yes", but are we willing to dramatically slow the pace of pharmaceutical innovation in exchange for socialized healthcare? There's no reason to believe that socializing our healthcare system would slow down pharma or biotech innovation. Nobody is suggesting nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry. It's entirely possible that our pharma research is successful despite our healthcare system, not because of it. In no other country does a pharmaceutical company need to spend three times the cost of researching a drug to market it.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 16:28 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:
Countries use differing definitions of live birth and viable birth. The USA uses the broadest definition. Many second and third world countries use more narrow versions. The WHO did a study on this in '06 and concluded that until everyone is using the same set of criteria it is impossible to compare across countries accurately.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 16:52 |
|
How much pharmaceutical research is done outside the US, compared to in the US? The current model is interesting. Only big pharma companies can afford to run clinical trials at the level required by the FDA, but only small start-ups take on the risk of research. The result is weird: in aggreggate the pharma industry has barely broken even in the past 20 years, but this is because the vast majority of pharma startups fail. In other words, the aggregate profit of the industry is close to $0, but the profits and losses are at opposite ends of the spectrum. This definitely creates odd incentives, especially when pharmaceutical companies are allowed to advertise direct to consumers.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 16:53 |
|
Xae posted:Countries use differing definitions of live birth and viable birth. Oh I see. So, America just has a different definition of "baby" than every other country, which is why by every measure and report it only seems to have a horrifying infant mortality rate. When in fact, we have the best babies, really the most amazing number of deaths per 1,000 live births. Everyone says that, they say "America has a really incredible rate of baby death". That's what they say, it's really incredible. The best. edit: Did you know the WHO actually studies and publishes data on infant mortality rates? In fact, they have a whole page on the methodology and sources for their infant mortality data. Funny stuff to publish for an organization that "concluded" a decade ago that it's an inaccurate metric. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jan 9, 2017 |
# ? Jan 9, 2017 17:17 |
|
Ynglaur posted:In other words, the aggregate profit of the industry is close to $0, but the profits and losses are at opposite ends of the spectrum. This is a heck of an assertion that I would love to see some sources for.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 17:19 |
|
Hey Britain hows that Brexit going? Oh, pound hit another multi-week low? Full speed ahead? Good job.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 17:34 |
|
Now that we're properly into 2017 it might not be a bad idea to start a new thread that can at least act as an aggregator for whatever bad pieces of economic news is cropping up around the world.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 17:41 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Oh I see. So, America just has a different definition of "baby" than every other country, which is why by every measure and report it only seems to have a horrifying infant mortality rate. When in fact, we have the best babies, really the most amazing number of deaths per 1,000 live births. Everyone says that, they say "America has a really incredible rate of baby death". That's what they say, it's really incredible. The best. quote:The legal requirements for registration of fetal deaths and live births vary between and even http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43444 The TL;DR is that the US record almost all births, even premature births, as live births. Many countries classify premature or non viable births as either stillbirths or spontaneous abortions. While the WHO has a definition they would like everyone to follow many developing countries do not use it. Xae fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jan 9, 2017 |
# ? Jan 9, 2017 18:08 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:This is a heck of an assertion that I would love to see some sources for. Let me see if I can dig up a public source. I saw a slide from a couple years ago with the information, but I don't know if it was all publicly available given it had numbers for private companies as well.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 18:13 |
|
Now's the time of year I usually pad out my Roth IRA, but I'm thinking about keeping my money in cash for the time being. There's got to be some sort of reckoning between the economic situation the world's in now and DOW 20,000!
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 18:22 |
|
^^^^ I bet it's going to be really big. The Great Depression had a second part in 1932, why would the Great Recession be less?CommieGIR posted:Hey Britain hows that Brexit going? Oh, pound hit another multi-week low? Full speed ahead? Good job. The thing is, the pound falling is kinda good for the UK. The UK was suffering a bad case of the Dutch disease, that's when one particular industry exports so much that the currency used is very much in demand, thus raising its price. This might be good for that particular industry and it certainly looks good in the news, but every other industry that exports is hosed. Usually this happens with oil, and for instance it's one big obstacle on the way of the diversification of the Russian economy. (ONE obstacle, there are many more). In the UK it was the banking industry. So many governments and rich assholes wanted to place/launder their money in the UK, so they bought pounds, so the pound raised. Great for the banks, awful for any other industry that exports. Of course, imports become more expensive. And that gives another push to local industry. I bet we will see a lot of imports substituted in the UK in the coming years. In short, a cheaper pound is probably more in line with the economic fundamentals of the countries. That it screws over the financial types is just another added bonus. Dawncloack fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jan 9, 2017 |
# ? Jan 9, 2017 18:41 |
|
Dawncloack posted:The thing is, the pound falling is kinda good for the UK. Nearly every British "Export" is owned by a foreign business.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 18:47 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Nearly every British "Export" is owned by a foreign business. Where does it pay taxes? Where are their employees located? Edit: Let me defeat my own point here. They probably pay very little in taxes because that's EU and Tory policy for you and they probably pay their workers poverty wages.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:03 |
|
Helsing posted:Now that we're properly into 2017 it might not be a bad idea to start a new thread that can at least act as an aggregator for whatever bad pieces of economic news is cropping up around the world. 2017 Economic Crisis? Thread
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:08 |
|
Peel posted:2017 Economic Crisis? Thread Surely we can do better than that. It's really not a question of "if" at this point.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:23 |
|
Thread Title: 2017 Economic Crisis Thread - The Second Great Depression Within Our Lifetime
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:31 |
|
bird food bathtub posted:Surely we can do better than that. It's really not a question of "if" at this point. Sure it is. It could easily be 2018 or even 2019 before the other shoe drops. Something has to actually happen to push the economy into a recession and break the trend of eternal slow growth.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:32 |
|
Paradoxish posted:Sure it is. It could easily be 2018 or even 2019 before the other shoe drops. Something has to actually happen to push the economy into a recession and break the trend of eternal slow growth. The repeal of the ACA and it's ripple effect could do it.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:33 |
|
Xae posted:Child mortality != Infant mortality. Are you arguing that the ranking data from the CDC and the WHO itself is incorrect? Both data sets show the United States around 30th down the list of developed countries for infant mortality. If it is incorrect, by how much and why exactly? If the WHO knows the data is inaccurate because of a reporting discrepency, do they take that into account when they publish their rankings? If not, why not, and why isn't that mentioned in the otherwise extremely verbose and complete dataset? If the WHO does correct for it, why does their data correlate so closely with the CDC? Moreover, why do you want to dismiss this metric out of hand? Even if the data is as flawed as you claim, the countries above us on the list are not "developing" in any sense of the word. They are Finland, Japan, Portugal, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Norway, Korea, Spain, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Belgium, etc. All of which spend infinitely less than we do on healthcare, all of which inarguably let fewer babies die.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:40 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Are you arguing that the ranking data from the CDC and the WHO itself is incorrect? Both data sets show the United States around 30th down the list of developed countries for infant mortality. Most of that information is in my quote. The rest of it is in the document. I'm not your secretary. It isn't my job to do your homework. It is your job to inform yourself, preferably before spew bullshit all over the place.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:49 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Oh I see. So, America just has a different definition of "baby" than every other country, which is why by every measure and report it only seems to have a horrifying infant mortality rate. When in fact, we have the best babies, really the most amazing number of deaths per 1,000 live births. Everyone says that, they say "America has a really incredible rate of baby death". That's what they say, it's really incredible. The best.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 19:59 |
|
quote:
It's like, where do you even start.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 20:44 |
|
Covok posted:Thread Title: 2017 Economic Crisis Thread - The Second Great Depression Within Our Lifetime Thread Title: 2017 Economic Crisis Thread - Making 2016 Look Good in Retrospect Thread Title: 2017 Economic Crisis Thread - No one saw THIS coming(we did) Thread Title: 2017 Economic Crisis Thread - On a long enough timeline...
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 20:48 |
|
Xae posted:Child mortality != Infant mortality. Here's a CDC study which specifically uses standardizing measures and the US is still among the worst ranked in the OECD. International Comparisons of Infant Mortality and Related Factors: United States and Europe, 2010, pg. 2 posted:In the United States and most European countries, no gestational
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 20:50 |
|
Helsing posted:Here's a CDC study which specifically uses standardizing measures and the US is still among the worst ranked in the OECD. Well, this deepens the well. Why the gently caress does America have nearly twice as many preterm births as the UK?
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:12 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Well, this deepens the well. Why the gently caress does America have nearly twice as many preterm births as the UK? Incredibly poor pre-natal care, plus the idea that many mothers have work even harder than usual to prove they shouldn't be fired for getting pregnant.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:14 |
|
We're now at the point in the argument when the defender of America's private healthcare system will start implying that the American population is uniquely unhealthy and a lack of personal responsibility is the primary driver of the difference in health outcomes.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:18 |
|
Xae posted:Most of that information is in my quote. The rest of it is in the document. According to the document you've linked, the WHO does in fact apply their corrections to the country rankings they publish. And guess what? It tracks almost identically with the data that the CDC publishes. You're the one claiming that all the published data is wrong, and that the United States infant mortality rate is better than all the research seems to indicate. Where do you think it should rank instead, and why?
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:18 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Nobody is suggesting nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry. I am. Also all public transport, energy and insurance companies and banks, for a start. Covok posted:Thread Title: 2017 Economic Crisis Thread - The Second Great Depression Within Our Lifetime Thread Title: 2017 Economic Crisis Thread - A Second Great Depression Has Hit The Economy Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jan 9, 2017 |
# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:37 |
|
All you need to do is unskew the data a bit and the US is A #1
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:39 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 19:58 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:According to the document you've linked, the WHO does in fact apply their corrections to the country rankings they publish. And guess what? It tracks almost identically with the data that the CDC publishes. Reread it. The report corrects for missing data, aggregation mismatch and countries using different formulas. It explicitly calls out that it did not adjust for live/still born definition differences. It also says because of that not to use the data to compare different countries Dr. Fishopolis posted:Well, this deepens the well. Why the gently caress does America have nearly twice as many preterm births as the UK? Obesity is currently the largest known factor, but it doesn't account for all differences. Lack of pre-natal care is another issue, but the USA has higher premature birth rate even with people getting pre-natal care. And since this is 'murica there is also a racial discrepancy as well. The first studies aren't expected for a couple more years. Working through the differences in how countries collect stats and define terms has slowed the research. Until those come out it is anyone's guess. Or anyone's blank screen to project what they want it to be.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 22:46 |