RW Talking Point on why people in the UK are healthier

[NewJeffCT]

A big story in the newspapers yesterday was that middle-aged white people in the UK are generally significantly healthier than middle-aged white people in the US... obviously, the main reason being that the Brits have access to universal health care, while in the US, 45 million or so have no insurance, while millions more are underinsured.

But, I heard the RW response this morning while fipping through the radio (In the Hartford area, Air America is not easy to hear) - but, the RW reason is that American doctors are quicker to diagnose problems than doctors in the UK, so it skewed the survery.

How do I go about debunking this?

Thanks

[Cassandra]

1. Debunking what?

A reason has to make some sense before you can debunk it. If we were quicker to dignose problems here, the results of the survey would have been reversed.

[NewJeffCT]

3. Their point was...

That since we diagnose things faster, more things show up in the study.

[ThomCat]

19. We're not diagnosing anything

among the people who can't afford to see doctors. If anything, they're more likely to diagnose problems over there, because they actually have medical care.

[LaurenG]

2. First of all that makes no sense and I'd like to see the stats

stating American doctors are quicker at diagnosis.

Common sense will tell you that only a spin-meister would say something so idiotic.

Bless their little money grubbing hearts. They must be mutants, it seems they are all missing their hearts.

[On the Road]

14. Actually, It Makes Perfect Sense

Whether it's true or not is another matter. What the statistics show is that certain diagnosed diseases are are more common in the US than the UK. That can be the result of the disease or the diagnostic process.

If the RWers are going to make this argument, they should really show some evidence. But regardless of that, some people are going to believe it. If you're going to nullify a talking point, you have to do more than label it nonsense. One way is is to look at something that has a fixed criterion, like mortalities.

[LaurenG]

17. Since I'm not the op I don't have to.

The statistics are available and they can be used. I'm not in a position to be looking them up at the moment. No one should get that upset about that statement, if you think about it is illogical.

The bottom line is what 41% of all Americans have no healthcare coverage.

edit: errors

[On the Road]

25. It's Illogical Only if You Accept that

there is never a systematic difference betweeen reported and acutal numbers. It happens all the time:

For example, if statistics show that a certain country or a certain type of crime is suspiciously low, it may be because much of it is unreported. In other words, reported and actual are different.

Some medical practices are different in Europe. My cousin in Brusells, for example, claims his wife is often unable to get antibiotics even when she's flat on her back because doctors are very tight with those medications. The German system places (or used to place) limits on the number of diagnostic tests a doctor can order. Those things tend to suppress the rate of diagnosed diseases.

The US system encourages higher rates of treatment, and treatment requires a diagnosis. Pharmaceutical companies play candyman spreading free samples around, which doctors give to their patients. Patients see TV ads and run to their doctors to get diagnosed for something they wouldn't have thought about. Irritable bowel syndrome, depression, even allergies are influenced by the availability of new perscription treatments that require a diagnosis before an Rx can be issued. Doctors may even benefit financially from higher diagnostic rates. All those things tend to increase the rate of diagnosed diseases.

Yes, the RW commentators should provide facts. They probably can. Then what -- acknowledge the point? It may be a completely wrong conclusion, but the way to counter that is NOT to say it doesn't make sense. It does make sense, whether it's right or wrong.

----------------

It's also important to counter with correct facts. According to the National Coalition on Health Care:

- Approximately 46 million Americans, or 15.7 percent of the population, were without health insurance in 2004 (the latest government data available).

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

[LaurenG]

27. Here are the numbers according to the Home Page

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/AuntiePinko/9

They (republicans)are once again creating information to fit the facts. Where/who is the control group? Are they taking into consideration that British doctors prescribe sunlight, acupuncture and homeopathic remedies?

There are no statistics to prove a thing they are saying. What scientific information was studied by those making that statement? There are too many variables therefore that statement is not factual. I cannot logically say their statement is true.

I can state that British subjects are healthier because they have access to health care and health care practitioners whether or not they have to means to pay, (since they don't have to.) I can say that people in the UK are educated properly by their health care system and thus suffer lower mortality rates. I can say that due to the fact that the good people in England don't take the same type and amounts of pharmaceuticals that Americans do that they are not being poisoned therefore they live longer. Do any of those statement seem valid to you? There was a leap taken and it was unscientific, it would not be logical to say any of the above statements were fact. They are opinion, hyperbole and conjecture.

[On the Road]

29. Not Sure Where You're Coming From

On one hand, you seem to think it's "illogical" to claim that US and UK statistics on disease are not comparable because of different diagnostic practices and that there are too many variables and the methodology is not scienfitic. Which may be perfectly true, but public policy is often discussed the absence of formal scientific studies.

On the other hand, you're proposing that the statistics show that Britains are healthier and giving a number of reasons that they are healthier. However, by the standards you just applied, you can't make that claim -- we have to say it's just not determined by the evidence. The reasons you list you provide absolutely no support for at all.

Personally, I believe Europeans on the whole might be a little healthier than Americans because they have a more balanced diet, eat less, and tend to use public transportation, which requires them to walk more. (Although the British diet is famously bad.) But I cetainly can't prove it.

I see where you got the percentage of uninsured Americans from. Unfortunately, the writer of that letter (which could have been Auntie Pinko herself) wasn't being precise. Apparently the 41% refers to middle-income Americans who had an INTERRUPTION in health coverage -- or no health coverage -- in 2005. This includes people who changed jobs and had a few weeks without coverage. On the other hand, the number of lower-income Americans is much higher -- about half. The best estimate of currently uninsured Americans I found was about 16%.

[TahitiNut]

21. No, it doesn't make sense.

It would make (logical, not factual) 'sense' to claim that that the US is 'catching up' in making earlier diagnoses but, early or late, as long as the same health conditions are being diagnosed then the comparable frequency is valid.

Think of it as a Doppler effect. What's being claimed is the frequency (of diagnosis) is higher in the US than in the UK. A person standing close to a stationary siren hears it 'earlier' than a person standing far away. But they hear it at the same frequency. If, however, the person standing further away is moving rapidly toward the siren, that person will hear a higher frequency.

Thus, the specious, unsubstantiated claim that such diagnoses are made earlier in the US and then attributing the higher frequency to that is total and complete nonsense. It is neither factual nor logical.

[TheFarseer]

4. some people in the US are never diagnosed

because they don't go to the doctor, because they don't have health insurance.

[Arkansas Granny]

12. Also, those who don't have health insurance often don't see a

doctor until an illness has reached a serious state. The effects of the illness may have been diminished with earlier treatment and secondary illnesses could have been prevented.

[On the Road]

26. That is Correct, and it Means That

a American dignosed with, say, diabetes, is likely to be sicker than an English person diagnosed with diabetes. If THAT could be shown (by blood sugar levels or something), it could show the beneficial effects of universal health care.

Some of this comes to the definition of what is a good measure of health. It's difficult to support any argument which is undefined.

[Vinca]

5. Well, for starters, it sounds like pretty obscure data they've got

to substantiate such a claim. They probably just made it up. Secondly, ask them why, according to the CIA World Facts publication, the U.S. is number 48 on the longevity list (behind Bosnia) while Great Britain is 38.

[SmokingJacket]

6. I don't see how quickness of diagnosis explains why

rich Americans are about as healthy as poor British people. It's a silly excuse -- and it's hard to debunk pure nonsense.

But you can point out that there's other evidence the British are healthier -- they live about a year longer, and have a lower infant mortality rate. (you can get the stats on Wikipedia!)

(Having British relatives, though, I believe that they might also LIE about illness -- note this study is self-reported illness. My grandfather wouldn't admit that he was sick -- ever!!!)

[Deja Q]

7. American docs are quick to diagnose... they mean MISdiagnose.

Of course, RW doctors also blame those little things like lawsuits on those doing the suing than the quacks.

Why the flip-flop?

[tanyev]

8. It's the tea they drink. We're still paying for that Boston Tea Party.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. How does that explain the difference in life expectancy?

People failing to report that they're dead? Honestly, I don't see why the wingnuts feel the need to attack this article anyway, as it makes clear that the NHS isn't the reason for the better figures.

[NewJeffCT]

10. I thought that was the reason?

The article in my local newspaper omitted any mention of national health care - pro or con. However, it tap-danced around the subject and basically debunked every other possible reason out there.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. The study itself debunks national health care as a reason.

Because the discrepancies exist across all economic and social strata. If lack of healthcare were the issue, you would expect rich Americans to fare about the same as your average brit - they don't.

[NewJeffCT]

22. However

You could also make the argument that because of our system where 45 million or so are uninsured & millions more are underinsured, the care of those millions strains the system and affects quality across the board. In the UK, where everybody, including the poor, has better access to a primary care doctor, many problems that are more common in the US are nipped in the bud in the UK.

[Toots]

13. How do I go about debunking this?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: any questions?

[treestar]

15. Trouble is, your argument may be over simple

Maybe they get more exercise - they aren't as likely to have cars

Maybe they are not as stressed out. The A type personality in America could make us in worse health by that alone.

So your side of the argument is over simple also.

Arguing for a national health care system it might be better to focus on something like children's health, which is more likely to be plainly affected by access to vaccinations and treatment.

[MikeNearMcChord]

16. Don't forget fast food, also.

I had a RWer on the radio, admitted that also. Americans just can't pull themselves from the mega meals, and I will admit here that I was one of them.

[warrens]

18. Total nonsense

The study examined middle-aged white people in both countries. They weren't even looking for a comparison, they were studying something else entirely. But what popped up was that people in this age group in the UK had far fewer cases of diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

These aren't exactly obscure, symptomless diseases.

Republicans will say anything. Just anything.

[RedEarth]

20. I would ask them to prove it.........

I was involved in a discussion with some wingers and told them I would prove what I said(and I did), but my first response should have been "prove it". After I proved my point, I did ask them to prove theirs and now three weeks later they still haven't. Wingers lie, twist the facts, distort the truth....it's their nature, it's what rush, fox and the rest of the right wing spin machine does all day, every day.

[Avalux]

23. Their argument is backwards.

If docs in the US are quicker to diagnose, it would mean chronic problems would be treated earlier and faster, therefore making Americans healthier.

[One_Life_To_Give]

24. Why Universal Healthcare when study said it wasn't

This constant drone of Universal Health Care reminds me of the Hammer. For which it assumes everything is a nail.

As you say the RW point is crap. There are many reasons why americans a less healthy than brits.
Healthcare is one reason, but the scope of the problem goes far beyond the ability of national healthcare to fix. As a group we eat too much, work too much, worry too much and are too uptight, just for starters.

How many McMansions are in the UK?
How many have to drive Hummers?
And have to vacation in DisneyWorld cause that what the Jones's just did.

[BurtWorm]

28. So their point is that Americans and Brits are just as unhealthy

but American doctors are better at disgnosing disease than British doctors?

Sounds like they pulled that statistic out of a study conducted by the University of Wingeranus.

:eyes: