- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 62,606
- Reaction score
- 19,348
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
There are lots of comparisons between relative COVID-19 numbers (you can find a bunch of them at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19), but one other way of looking at relative success is by tying it to the amount of potentially available resources.
The amount of money that is potentially available to fight COVID-19 is one of those potentially available resources.
This table
shows the percentage chance of a randomly selected person dying from COVID-19 using the US data as a base line. The first colour-coded column gives the raw rate and the second colour-coded column gives the raw rate as adjusted by "relative ability to pay" (again using the US rate as a base line.
One would expect that the figures would favour the US much more than they do - based on the relative wealth of the US.
My reading of the figures is that the US:
- DOES have the "financial resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
*- DOES NOT have the "leadership resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
*
and
*- HAS NOT mobilized the "societal resources" available sufficiently to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas.
NOTE - This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "The American Dream", "The American Ideal", "hating America", "hating Trump" or anything else but exactly what it says "The US could afford to be doing a whole lot better in fighting COVID-19 than it is actually doing.".
There are lots of comparisons between relative COVID-19 numbers (you can find a bunch of them at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19), but one other way of looking at relative success is by tying it to the amount of potentially available resources.
The amount of money that is potentially available to fight COVID-19 is one of those potentially available resources.
This table
shows the percentage chance of a randomly selected person dying from COVID-19 using the US data as a base line. The first colour-coded column gives the raw rate and the second colour-coded column gives the raw rate as adjusted by "relative ability to pay" (again using the US rate as a base line.
One would expect that the figures would favour the US much more than they do - based on the relative wealth of the US.
My reading of the figures is that the US:
- DOES have the "financial resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
*- DOES NOT have the "leadership resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
*
and
*- HAS NOT mobilized the "societal resources" available sufficiently to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas.
NOTE - This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "The American Dream", "The American Ideal", "hating America", "hating Trump" or anything else but exactly what it says "The US could afford to be doing a whole lot better in fighting COVID-19 than it is actually doing.".
There are lots of comparisons between relative COVID-19 numbers (you can find a bunch of them at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19), but one other way of looking at relative success is by tying it to the amount of potentially available resources.
The amount of money that is potentially available to fight COVID-19 is one of those potentially available resources.
This table
shows the percentage chance of a randomly selected person dying from COVID-19 using the US data as a base line. The first colour-coded column gives the raw rate and the second colour-coded column gives the raw rate as adjusted by "relative ability to pay" (again using the US rate as a base line.
One would expect that the figures would favour the US much more than they do - based on the relative wealth of the US.
My reading of the figures is that the US:
- DOES have the "financial resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
*- DOES NOT have the "leadership resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
*
and
*- HAS NOT mobilized the "societal resources" available sufficiently to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas.
NOTE - This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "The American Dream", "The American Ideal", "hating America", "hating Trump" or anything else but exactly what it says "The US could afford to be doing a whole lot better in fighting COVID-19 than it is actually doing.".
Great analysis and a great way to show how our medical system does kill people, just through billing and cost.
There are lots of comparisons between relative COVID-19 numbers (you can find a bunch of them at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19), but one other way of looking at relative success is by tying it to the amount of potentially available resources.
The amount of money that is potentially available to fight COVID-19 is one of those potentially available resources.
This table
shows the percentage chance of a randomly selected person dying from COVID-19 using the US data as a base line. The first colour-coded column gives the raw rate and the second colour-coded column gives the raw rate as adjusted by "relative ability to pay" (again using the US rate as a base line.
One would expect that the figures would favour the US much more than they do - based on the relative wealth of the US.
My reading of the figures is that the US:
- DOES have the "financial resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
*- DOES NOT have the "leadership resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
*
and
*- HAS NOT mobilized the "societal resources" available sufficiently to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas.
NOTE - This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "The American Dream", "The American Ideal", "hating America", "hating Trump" or anything else but exactly what it says "The US could afford to be doing a whole lot better in fighting COVID-19 than it is actually doing.".
I seriously dispute world numbers
Isn't our medical system Obamacare?Great analysis and a great way to show how our medical system does kill people, just through billing and cost.
Isn't our medical system Obamacare?
Some times one can crunch numbers and do all kinds of pretty tables and still produce nothing useful. This is probably one of those cases.There are lots of comparisons between relative COVID-19 numbers (you can find a bunch of them at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19), but one other way of looking at relative success is by tying it to the amount of potentially available resources.
The amount of money that is potentially available to fight COVID-19 is one of those potentially available resources.
This table
shows the percentage chance of a randomly selected person dying from COVID-19 using the US data as a base line. The first colour-coded column gives the raw rate and the second colour-coded column gives the raw rate as adjusted by "relative ability to pay" (again using the US rate as a base line.
One would expect that the figures would favour the US much more than they do - based on the relative wealth of the US.
My reading of the figures is that the US:
- DOES have the "financial resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
*- DOES NOT have the "leadership resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
*
and
*- HAS NOT mobilized the "societal resources" available sufficiently to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas.
NOTE - This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "The American Dream", "The American Ideal", "hating America", "hating Trump" or anything else but exactly what it says "The US could afford to be doing a whole lot better in fighting COVID-19 than it is actually doing.".
But it's one of the left's prime articles of faith. Single payer may be the one system that is worse than ACA.The ACA was a piss poor piece of overly compromised legislation that should have been single payer in a just world. However, in this case you are wrong, the issue of health care being too expensive for people to afford it predates the Obama term.
But it's one of the left's prime articles of faith. Single payer may be the one system that is worse than ACA.
No, it's notIsn't our medical system Obamacare?
I don't really care about the "successful track record" bull**** spiel. This isn't the thread to get into that discussion.It has a successful track record in many countries, so the evidence is quite clear that it works.
Does Obama know that? :lamoNo, it's not
Sent from my U683CL using Tapatalk
I don't really care about the "successful track record" bull**** spiel. This isn't the thread to get into that discussion.
I seriously dispute world numbers, which include China and Russia.
This makes the whole thing questionable at best.
The thing about dealing with all of these numbers is that anyone can use the data to cherry pick whatever conclusions they want to prove.
Isn't our medical system Obamacare?
Some times one can crunch numbers and do all kinds of pretty tables and still produce nothing useful. This is probably one of those cases.
Sorry, no. IT'S FRIGGIN' "Obamacare" it's been call that since it passed, Obama embraces it as part of his legacy.Nope.
The ACA was the best level of improvement in the availability that could be passed without damaging the profits of the for-profit medical care, medical insurance, and pharmaceutical industries to the point where re-election became excessively problematic.
What?Did you know that you can starve to death in a warehouse full of canned food if you refuse to admit that the thing at your feet is a can opener?
But it's one of the left's prime articles of faith. Single payer may be the one system that is worse than ACA.
Sorry, no. IT'S FRIGGIN' "Obamacare" it's been call that since it passed, Obama embraces it as part of his legacy.
What?
Who said O'care was "single payer"? Employers are mandated to provide HC by ACA. The choices they provide have to meet minimum coverage specified by ACA. Individual policies have to be ACA compliant.The ACA is a PART of the US healthcare system - it is NOT ALL of the US healthcare system.
The MAJORITY of the US healthcare system is NOT "single payer".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?