earwax Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7828901.stm i don't know what to make of this article. not many facts to work with or even a discussion of the methodology used for the study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffS Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 I don't think they're arguing the privatization of health care kills. I think they're arguing the privitization of anything, or at least lots of anythings, kills. What they're actually arguing is up for debate, though: "The UK study blames rapidly rising unemployment..." Oh, okay. So, rapidly rising unemployment kills. "They conclude that as many as one million working-age men died due to the economic shock of mass privatisation policies." Oh, okay. So, economic shock kills. "Not only does stress have a direct effect on health, it is also closely associated with unhealthy lifestyles, such as alcoholism. Together this raises the risk of heart disease and strokes, as well as mental illness." Hmmm, well, okay. So, alcoholism, heart disease, strokes, and mental illness kills. I think we're getting closer to the truth. Without seeing the report, it's senseless to put any credence in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 I recommend those weasels read this, because it's exactly the opposite. It is government controls that kill. I just posted a thread on this, but it applies to this thread as well. Ron Pisaturo: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5444 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Christensen Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Right, privatization of healthcare kills.- which I guess explains why North Korea, France, and every other socialized or dictator nation has such excellent healthcare. When was the last time the BBC exercised a modicum of competence? (when they're not coddling Hamas and other nuts) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exaltron Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 I think all this really proves is that stability, i.e., knowing what to expect, is generally preferable to a sudden, massive sea change in the way that one goes about getting a vital service. Any sane person who advocates privatizing anything that has been provided by government for many years, would have to advocate the socialized system being phased out gradually. For example as much as I believe in privatizing education, I think that it would have to be phased out gradually to avoid the kind of chaos that one sees in the former Soviet Union. I think the study in the Lancet is probably timed to add critical mass to the socialized medicine movement. I predict it will contribute to sound bites, stripped of context of course.. Great article in Cap Mag by the way, that is a really innovative way of attempting to put a price tag on the "War on Poverty" and begin to estimate just how much wealth, indeed, how much life our government has flushed down the toilet. While money is still worth something, I made a contribution to CapMag so they can provide more essays like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 I thought this was going to be a story about how somebody's head explodes at the BBC every time something is privatized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tito Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 (edited) It gets worse too. The BBC produces two (I think, I haven't watched it in a while) hospital dramas which portray private medicine as intrinsically evil. Stories about how nice little old ladies are going to meet the Queen, but they can't make it because they have to wait for their operation because some evil person has chosen to pay for treatment and take up the doctors! Edited March 7, 2009 by tito Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebelconservative Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 This is a typical example of the inherent social-democratic, left-liberal bias at the BBC. The headline is totally removed from what the study (which I admit, I have not read) seems to be saying. What I get from the article, is that the study claims that sudden, dramatic economic changes can potenially have negative consequences on health. That is quite different from the "privatisation kills people" line that the BBC takes out of all context. Disgusting, though not surprising... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crizon Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Right, privatization of healthcare kills.- which I guess explains why North Korea, France, and every other socialized or dictator nation has such excellent healthcare. When was the last time the BBC exercised a modicum of competence? (when they're not coddling Hamas and other nuts) actually france has a great health care system. there was a study a while ago that compared health care system from various countries and most european countries were on the top ranks... the US was rank ~37 or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffS Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) actually france has a great health care system. there was a study a while ago that compared health care system from various countries and most european countries were on the top ranks... the US was rank ~37 or so. You need to read the actual study, because if it's the one I think you're referencing then you need to know that a major portion of the "grade" received depended upon whether the nation's healthcare was socialized. In essence, they set up a competition which the US could only lose. Here's the rundown. Edited April 15, 2009 by JeffS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crizon Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 You need to read the actual study, because if it's the one I think you're referencing then you need to know that a major portion of the "grade" received depended upon whether the nation's healthcare was socialized. In essence, they set up a competition which the US could only lose. Here's the rundown. wow i did not know that. that is outrageous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 I thought this was going to be a story about how somebody's head explodes at the BBC every time something is privatized. I think that was the plot of the movie Scanners. Oh man, am I dating myself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Oh man, am I dating myself? Won't your wife get jealous? On the other hand, no long period of getting to know each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrolicsomeQuipster Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 On the other hand, no long period of getting to know each other. On the contrary, it would take a lifetime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.