US military budget and how to pay for health care

[mawilson 2,133]

If you'd cut the defense budget by 100bn and pump that into this existing system of ours, roughly 33bn of that would then go straight to waste.

That's ok - the DoD would probably waste 50bn of it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you'd cut the defense budget by 100bn and pump that into this existing system of ours, roughly 33bn of that would then go straight to waste.

That's ok - the DoD would probably waste 50bn of it.

You're probably right on that. However, it just strikes me as odd - to say the least - that the same folks that get all worked up about that measely 100bn/year expense which would afford access to essential and preventive care to millions of Americans are the same folks who fight tooth and nail for the continued waste of 700bn/year. Makes no sense to me at all.

[HAL 9000 96]

If you'd cut the defense budget by 100bn and pump that into this existing system of ours, roughly 33bn of that would then go straight to waste.

That's ok - the DoD would probably waste 50bn of it.

You're probably right on that. However, it just strikes me as odd - to say the least - that the same folks that get all worked up about that measely 100bn/year expense which would afford access to essential and preventive care to millions of Americans are the same folks who fight tooth and nail for the continued waste of 700bn/year. Makes no sense to me at all.

To them it makes perfect sense to be nonsensical.

[mawilson 2,133]

If you'd cut the defense budget by 100bn and pump that into this existing system of ours, roughly 33bn of that would then go straight to waste.

That's ok - the DoD would probably waste 50bn of it.

You're probably right on that. However, it just strikes me as odd - to say the least - that the same folks that get all worked up about that measely 100bn/year expense which would afford access to essential and preventive care to millions of Americans are the same folks who fight tooth and nail for the continued waste of 700bn/year. Makes no sense to me at all.

If you "eliminate" this so-called waste that costs us $700bn/year, who's going to lose?

Insurance companies? Doctors? Hospitals? All of the above?

There's a reason, you know, why the US system is considered "the best in the world".

It may not be the best in the world for the average Joe, but it is the best if you're rich.

Why is it than when world leaders and the super-rich get sick, they come to the US

for treatment?

If the US system is so crappy, why does the US rank first in the world in cancer survivor

rates?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Who is going to lose? Mainly the insurance companies - this is where most of the waste goes and / or originates.

As for the cancer survivor rates, other countries with universal health care schemes such as France or Canada - which the Telegraph interestingly excluded from it's statistics even though both are developed countries and located in Europe or North America where the remaining countries can be found - are actually not faring worse than the US.

The survival rates of some common cancers are better in France or Canada than in the US. Canada is doing better on lung cancer survival rates than the US, for example, France is doing better on colon and rectal cancers in women while Japan leads in colon and rectal survival rates in males. Yeah, yeah, I hear you, this just proves that the French and Japanese know how to treat azzholes.

The claim that the waste of vast resources leads to quality care simply doesn't hold water.

[HAL 9000 96]

Who is going to lose? Mainly the insurance companies - this is where most of the waste goes and / or originates.

As for the cancer survivor rates, other countries with universal health care schemes such as France or Canada - which the Telegraph interestingly excluded from it's statistics even though both are developed countries and located in Europe or North America where the remaining countries can be found - are actually not faring worse than the US.

The survival rates of some common cancers are better in France or Canada than in the US. Canada is doing better on lung cancer survival rates than the US, for example, France is doing better on colon and rectal cancers in women while Japan leads in colon and rectal survival rates in males. Yeah, yeah, I hear you, this just proves that the French and Japanese know how to treat azzholes.

The claim that the waste of vast resources leads to quality care simply doesn't hold water.

Which means that the statistical argument to make the US seem like cancer survivability is top notch compared to the rest of the listed nations (and those excluded) is misleading.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Who is going to lose? Mainly the insurance companies - this is where most of the waste goes and / or originates.

As for the cancer survivor rates, other countries with universal health care schemes such as France or Canada - which the Telegraph interestingly excluded from it's statistics even though both are developed countries and located in Europe or North America where the remaining countries can be found - are actually not faring worse than the US.

The survival rates of some common cancers are better in France or Canada than in the US. Canada is doing better on lung cancer survival rates than the US, for example, France is doing better on colon and rectal cancers in women while Japan leads in colon and rectal survival rates in males. Yeah, yeah, I hear you, this just proves that the French and Japanese know how to treat azzholes.

The claim that the waste of vast resources leads to quality care simply doesn't hold water.

Which means that the statistical argument to make the US seem like cancer survivability is top notch compared to the rest of the listed nations (and those excluded) is misleading.

At the very least, it's an incomplete picture that's being offered.

[HAL 9000 96]

Who is going to lose? Mainly the insurance companies - this is where most of the waste goes and / or originates.

As for the cancer survivor rates, other countries with universal health care schemes such as France or Canada - which the Telegraph interestingly excluded from it's statistics even though both are developed countries and located in Europe or North America where the remaining countries can be found - are actually not faring worse than the US.

The survival rates of some common cancers are better in France or Canada than in the US. Canada is doing better on lung cancer survival rates than the US, for example, France is doing better on colon and rectal cancers in women while Japan leads in colon and rectal survival rates in males. Yeah, yeah, I hear you, this just proves that the French and Japanese know how to treat azzholes.

The claim that the waste of vast resources leads to quality care simply doesn't hold water.

Which means that the statistical argument to make the US seem like cancer survivability is top notch compared to the rest of the listed nations (and those excluded) is misleading.

At the very least, it's an incomplete picture that's being offered.

Yep.

[mawilson 2,133]

Which means that the statistical argument to make the US seem like cancer survivability is top notch compared to the rest of the listed nations (and those excluded) is misleading.

Why would The Telegraph, a UK paper, fudge statistics to make the US look better than everyone else?

[HAL 9000 96]

Which means that the statistical argument to make the US seem like cancer survivability is top notch compared to the rest of the listed nations (and those excluded) is misleading.

Why would The Telegraph, a UK paper, fudge statistics to make the US look better than everyone else?

You can't expect everyone to understand the difference between a Simpson's Paradox and how causal factors may differ with something as complicated as cancer. You should know that as a numbers person.

Lumping everything into non-representative groups is a good way to muddle up the numbers.

[mawilson 2,133]

Which means that the statistical argument to make the US seem like cancer survivability is top notch compared to the rest of the listed nations (and those excluded) is misleading.

Why would The Telegraph, a UK paper, fudge statistics to make the US look better than everyone else?

You can't expect everyone to understand the difference between a Simpson's Paradox and how causal factors may differ with something as complicated as cancer. You should know that as a numbers person.

Lumping everything into non-representative groups is a good way to muddle up the numbers.

So the numbers are wrong because they don't agree with your prejudged conclusion?

By all means, please show us the "correct" numbers.

[HAL 9000 96]

Which means that the statistical argument to make the US seem like cancer survivability is top notch compared to the rest of the listed nations (and those excluded) is misleading.

Why would The Telegraph, a UK paper, fudge statistics to make the US look better than everyone else?

You can't expect everyone to understand the difference between a Simpson's Paradox and how causal factors may differ with something as complicated as cancer. You should know that as a numbers person.

Lumping everything into non-representative groups is a good way to muddle up the numbers.

So the numbers are wrong because they don't agree with your prejudged conclusion?

By all means, please show us the "correct" numbers.

No. They don't agree with the statistics of how these factors influence the outcomes.

(What WOULD be my prejudged conclusion?)

- didn't say anything about wrong numbers. I said something about misleading numbers. Two different concepts you should check into... as a numbers guy.

[mawilson 2,133]

No. They don't agree with the statistics of how these factors influence the outcomes.

(What WOULD be my prejudged conclusion?)

- didn't say anything about wrong numbers. I said something about misleading numbers. Two different concepts you should check into... as a numbers guy.

Saying that US health care ranks #37 in the world is just as misleading.

[HAL 9000 96]

No. They don't agree with the statistics of how these factors influence the outcomes.

(What WOULD be my prejudged conclusion?)

- didn't say anything about wrong numbers. I said something about misleading numbers. Two different concepts you should check into... as a numbers guy.

Saying that US health care ranks #37 in the world is just as misleading.

I did not make that claim.