17 replies »

  1. “…loaded with […] assertions such as life expectancy and infant mortality rates vs. health care spending analysis”
    Mr. Browning, how is this assertion loaded, exactly? (Especially when YOUR loaded assertion about genetics/lifestyle, i.e. Japanese life expectancy, has been discredited?) This study provides evidence that our health care system is less cost effective than those of Europe.
    Not a big surprise, really. When insurance is publically traded, much of the money is milked into the pockets of shareholders, who provide absolutely no service to the paying customer. Kinda like robbing a bank. Hmmm. How many shares do you own, Mr. Browning? (I’d be willing to bet that at least some of them were “gifts” in exchange for your propaganda films…)

  2. So Mr. Stuart Browing – how much is the US Healthcare industry paying for your propaganda?
    I bet you’re well insured – what HMO?

  3. Frankly, my bets are on Michael Moore and “Sicko”. He got it right with Fahrenheit 911, as we’re finding out. Even the Dixie Chics were ahead of the curve. So who has more credibility, Stuart Browning, Michael Moore or the OECD? Thanks for your email Stuart promoting your web site, but I declined to to even give it a browse.

  4. “What she apparently doesn’t know -or mention – is that Japanese have longer lives no matter where they live – even in the U.S under our present health care system.”
    Actually, this is not quite true. In general, the life expectancy rates of Asian-Americans who are second-generation immigrants more closely resembles that of Americans in general. As immigrants become more hegemonized to American soceity and begin to eat/live more like Americans, the differences in life expectancy rates generally begin to blur when you control for other cofounders (e.g., age, educational status, income).

  5. I’m with b.! Let’s get down to reality. Our health care system is the most expensive in the world, employer funding of benefits has become an economic burden, our government is underfunded for the huge health care liability that the baby boomers will bring when they hit 65 years of age, so we better stop arguing and get down to business.

  6. Mr. Browning;
    I read your link; thanks. Frankly these sorts of studies or assertions are like most epidemiologic studies or speculations; one can never control for all variables and association does not prove causality (or is it causation?) I think arguing over what position the U.S. occupies in the world regarding the health of our population is pretty irrelevant; the fact is we’re spending too much money on health and that’s gotta change, no matter who pays for it. As one who has worked in the health care system, I am more concerned with the incredible waste and fragmentation of the delivery system instead of how to pay for it. Unless we get that under control, NO system will be able to afford it.
    But I’ve said that before on this blog, and don’t make a dent in the single payer vs. free market combatants, so feel free to have at it!

  7. Gentlemen, gentlemen! I have never heard of Stuart Browning (don’t worry, I googled you), but why all the hostility? And what do you mean by “culture and genetics”? Is that because we’re all fat, or what? As to genetics, since we are a nation of immigrants many of whom hail from the other countries we are compared to, I don’t get that one either. Please elaborate.

  8. I have to chuckle when I read Mr. Holt’s rant about reliance on studies as opposed to mere anecdotal accounts. Of course, objective studies interpreted correctly are a more reliable guide. But, there’s the rub: government health care advocates consistently draw absurd conclusions from the data. Just as the author of this article does.
    After comparing US life expectancy averages to other OECD countries, she pontificates about Japanese life expectancy rates. What she apparently doesn’t know -or mention – is that Japanese have longer lives no matter where they live – even in the U.S under our present health care system.
    And then there’s her cherry-picking from “stacks of reports” to report lost years of life due to diabetes – one of Mr. Holt’s favorite tropes. Why wouldn’t she also mention cancer outcomes where the health care system really does have more direct impact compared with diabetes outcomes which are much more determined by lifestyle? Well, we know why – don’t we?

  9. She merely brings the WHO study up in order to contrast it with an OECD study equally loaded with the same Michael Moore-like assertions such as life expectancy and infant mortality rates vs. health care spending analysis. Time and time again the assertion is made that our numbers are the result of our health care system as opposed to culture and genetics. And Mr. Holt passes this stuff on uncritically as a “good summary article”.
    Who’s bogus?

  10. If Mr Browning had bothered reading the article, he’d have noticed that it referred to the controversy around the WHO study.
    Unlike the LA Times, if Mr Browning had ever done anything other than spout his own anecdotal propaganda–with nary a study of any kind to back him up–then maybe the rest of us wouldn’t consider him to be bogus.

  11. Mr. Johnson, This page is labeled as a place for “Comments”.
    If you have a specific argument vis-a-vis the credibility of commentators who continue to spout discredited propaganda about the U.S. health care system, them please make it. Otherwise, I’ll ignore your provocative question.

  12. It’s interesting that Mr. Holt would pass this along with absolutely no comment re: the bogus WHO study which ranked the US 37th based on political considerations having nothing to do with health care.
    Interesting – but not surprising.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.