Well done. It would be worthwhile to direct ai to use your point system to look at politically motivated editorials in serious science journals, eg science.
I tried one. 2022. Science. Author=mcgee Nine points
It will be hard to find anything that can beat that scientific American obituary. It was an event. Like 9/11, everyone remembers where they were when they read it.
"But his most unforgivable act was that in Sociobiology, he pointed out that our brains are the product of evolution." I know Randians and leftists who vehemently reject that. They consider themselves naturalists but still cling to the philosophical dualist notion that mind and body are two distinct substances, and that mind is superior.
Great post. You don't even need facial recognition software to know this. And it's not just facial features, but also several behavioral features.
Concerning cancer, as shown experts have long known that "survival rate" statistics are unreliable and heavily confounded (lead-time bias, overdiagnosis bias, insurance/selection bias,...), that US data is heavily affected by these issues (more so than European data), that lobby groups try to exploit this to justify US drug prices, that real US cancer results are only average compared with other rich countries, and that chemotherapy achieves almost nothing.
I don't chide you for not having known any of this, but I must say it was a classic case of Dunning-Kruger and soldier mentality. As we have seen, even according to current statistics, northern Europe and parts of western Europe perform better than the US, which isn't surprising, really. You simply fell for some of these pharma funded PR studies, didn't know how to verify them, and then tried to defend your mistaken belief no matter what. Lots of personal attacks, too.
Oh, now from "Simon" --still quoting the same article that the other rabid EU-Nationalist keeps citing, as they literally can't read English. I'll quote it for you in full: "Why you’re more likely to die of cancer in Europe than America :Turns out the US is actually doing something right when it comes to health care — at a high cost, of course.
"Europeans are way, way more likely to die of cancer than Americans.
"It's a fact that many people find surprising. Given all the (true) stories we hear about the ranks of uninsured Americans facing bankruptcy when they get sick, and reams of stats about higher health care costs for worse results than other rich countries, how can it be possibly true? And yet, in 2018, there were an estimated 280 deaths per 100,000 in Europe, compared to 189 per 100,000 in the United States, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
"The mortality gap between the U.S. and Europe is one of the central questions we've been trying to answer in the POLITICO Global Policy Lab: Decoding Cancer, our exploration of this growing public health crisis.
"One of the difficulties: People had trouble believing the numbers. "The difference is probably based on some statistical trick," one expert at a policy brainstorming session in Rome declared.
"To some extent, the expert is right. Depending on which statistic you use, the gap can appear less dramatic.
"But there are some real ways the U.S.'s health system makes up for its many flaws. And, when it comes to cancer, that translates into saved lives." But it doesn’t tell the whole story. Even using a process called age standardization, where you imagine every country has the same distribution of ages, the mortality rate in the U.S. — 91 per 100,000 — is better than all but a few EU countries: Sweden, Luxembourg and Finland. How on earth is the U.S. performing at the same level as those relatively homogenous, rich, famously socialized health systems?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Medicare covers cancer drugs “generously — vastly more generously than Europeans do,” said Amitabh Chandra.
Socialized medicine à l'américaine
Part of the reason again comes down to age.
The reason the U.S.’s strong performance on cancer comes as a shock is because access to care in the country is notoriously unequal. But, it turns out, that's far less true of the elderly.
Age 65 is when virtually everyone in the U.S. qualifies for Medicare — America’s national, taxpayer-subsidized, government-run (dare we say socialized), comprehensive health insurance program.
The public insurance scheme, which has an extra layer of financial help for the poor, has a huge influence on how hospitals and other health care providers do their work. In contrast to another high-performing EU country, Italy — where regional administration of health systems means quality of care varies depending on where you live — the U.S. can use Medicare to enforce nationwide standards.
While it's far from perfect and can still involve some significant out-of-pocket costs, Medicare coverage makes it easier for people to actually pay for their care, boosting the likelihood that they'll go to the doctor both for preventive checkups and when something seems wrong. Free screenings for some of the most common cancers are a perk.
"Medicare also covers cancer drugs “generously — vastly more generously than Europeans do,” said Amitabh Chandra, a health economist at Harvard. "It’s fashionable to beat up on U.S. health care, and while there are many reasons to do that, we should also remember that it covers medical innovation liberally,” he added in an email. Indeed, Medicare covers things like immunotherapy and clinical trials. "This increases health care spending, but will also improve outcomes if the innovations that we’re covering are good,” Chandra said.
"High costs, first served
"And indeed, new cancer cures go to U.S. patients faster than those in the EU. The reasons why include market factors, public research funding and data-sharing (or lack thereof in Europe’s case).
"Speedy access to cutting-edge treatments cuts deep into America's national purse. One study, summarized in the New York Times, determined that the U.S. averted 265,000 more deaths of colorectal cancer compared to Western Europe between 1982 and 2010. Each year of healthy life gained cost $110,000. The costs for gains in prostate and breast cancers were even more dramatic."
You would have to read an article in a state of complete emotional-induced blindness in order to read a text that states over and over and over again that the US does better than the EU on cancer --that US saves more lives, that EU has higher death rates--and think the article is stating the opposite.
Anne writes: "So no, the US is not saving any more lives than Europe." Read slowly from the article you linked to: "Even so, the United States often outperforms Europe. From 1982 to 2010, it’s estimated that we averted almost 67,000 deaths from breast cancer compared with Western Europe. We averted almost 60,000 deaths from prostate cancer and almost 265,000 deaths from colorectal cancer."
Well done. It would be worthwhile to direct ai to use your point system to look at politically motivated editorials in serious science journals, eg science.
I tried one. 2022. Science. Author=mcgee Nine points
It will be hard to find anything that can beat that scientific American obituary. It was an event. Like 9/11, everyone remembers where they were when they read it.
"But his most unforgivable act was that in Sociobiology, he pointed out that our brains are the product of evolution." I know Randians and leftists who vehemently reject that. They consider themselves naturalists but still cling to the philosophical dualist notion that mind and body are two distinct substances, and that mind is superior.
Great post. You don't even need facial recognition software to know this. And it's not just facial features, but also several behavioral features.
Concerning cancer, as shown experts have long known that "survival rate" statistics are unreliable and heavily confounded (lead-time bias, overdiagnosis bias, insurance/selection bias,...), that US data is heavily affected by these issues (more so than European data), that lobby groups try to exploit this to justify US drug prices, that real US cancer results are only average compared with other rich countries, and that chemotherapy achieves almost nothing.
I don't chide you for not having known any of this, but I must say it was a classic case of Dunning-Kruger and soldier mentality. As we have seen, even according to current statistics, northern Europe and parts of western Europe perform better than the US, which isn't surprising, really. You simply fell for some of these pharma funded PR studies, didn't know how to verify them, and then tried to defend your mistaken belief no matter what. Lots of personal attacks, too.
https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/09/us-cancercare-idUSBRE8380SA20120409/
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/cancer-care-in-the-u-s-versus-europe/
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/how-do-we-rate-the-quality-of-the-us-health-care-system-disease-care/
https://www.scientificfreedom.dk/2023/02/04/should-i-get-chemotherapy-for-cancer-probably-not/
https://www.politico.eu/article/cancer-europe-america-comparison/
Oh, now from "Simon" --still quoting the same article that the other rabid EU-Nationalist keeps citing, as they literally can't read English. I'll quote it for you in full: "Why you’re more likely to die of cancer in Europe than America :Turns out the US is actually doing something right when it comes to health care — at a high cost, of course.
"Europeans are way, way more likely to die of cancer than Americans.
"It's a fact that many people find surprising. Given all the (true) stories we hear about the ranks of uninsured Americans facing bankruptcy when they get sick, and reams of stats about higher health care costs for worse results than other rich countries, how can it be possibly true? And yet, in 2018, there were an estimated 280 deaths per 100,000 in Europe, compared to 189 per 100,000 in the United States, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
"The mortality gap between the U.S. and Europe is one of the central questions we've been trying to answer in the POLITICO Global Policy Lab: Decoding Cancer, our exploration of this growing public health crisis.
"One of the difficulties: People had trouble believing the numbers. "The difference is probably based on some statistical trick," one expert at a policy brainstorming session in Rome declared.
"To some extent, the expert is right. Depending on which statistic you use, the gap can appear less dramatic.
"But there are some real ways the U.S.'s health system makes up for its many flaws. And, when it comes to cancer, that translates into saved lives." But it doesn’t tell the whole story. Even using a process called age standardization, where you imagine every country has the same distribution of ages, the mortality rate in the U.S. — 91 per 100,000 — is better than all but a few EU countries: Sweden, Luxembourg and Finland. How on earth is the U.S. performing at the same level as those relatively homogenous, rich, famously socialized health systems?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Medicare covers cancer drugs “generously — vastly more generously than Europeans do,” said Amitabh Chandra.
Socialized medicine à l'américaine
Part of the reason again comes down to age.
The reason the U.S.’s strong performance on cancer comes as a shock is because access to care in the country is notoriously unequal. But, it turns out, that's far less true of the elderly.
Age 65 is when virtually everyone in the U.S. qualifies for Medicare — America’s national, taxpayer-subsidized, government-run (dare we say socialized), comprehensive health insurance program.
The public insurance scheme, which has an extra layer of financial help for the poor, has a huge influence on how hospitals and other health care providers do their work. In contrast to another high-performing EU country, Italy — where regional administration of health systems means quality of care varies depending on where you live — the U.S. can use Medicare to enforce nationwide standards.
While it's far from perfect and can still involve some significant out-of-pocket costs, Medicare coverage makes it easier for people to actually pay for their care, boosting the likelihood that they'll go to the doctor both for preventive checkups and when something seems wrong. Free screenings for some of the most common cancers are a perk.
"Medicare also covers cancer drugs “generously — vastly more generously than Europeans do,” said Amitabh Chandra, a health economist at Harvard. "It’s fashionable to beat up on U.S. health care, and while there are many reasons to do that, we should also remember that it covers medical innovation liberally,” he added in an email. Indeed, Medicare covers things like immunotherapy and clinical trials. "This increases health care spending, but will also improve outcomes if the innovations that we’re covering are good,” Chandra said.
"High costs, first served
"And indeed, new cancer cures go to U.S. patients faster than those in the EU. The reasons why include market factors, public research funding and data-sharing (or lack thereof in Europe’s case).
"Speedy access to cutting-edge treatments cuts deep into America's national purse. One study, summarized in the New York Times, determined that the U.S. averted 265,000 more deaths of colorectal cancer compared to Western Europe between 1982 and 2010. Each year of healthy life gained cost $110,000. The costs for gains in prostate and breast cancers were even more dramatic."
You would have to read an article in a state of complete emotional-induced blindness in order to read a text that states over and over and over again that the US does better than the EU on cancer --that US saves more lives, that EU has higher death rates--and think the article is stating the opposite.
Anne writes: "So no, the US is not saving any more lives than Europe." Read slowly from the article you linked to: "Even so, the United States often outperforms Europe. From 1982 to 2010, it’s estimated that we averted almost 67,000 deaths from breast cancer compared with Western Europe. We averted almost 60,000 deaths from prostate cancer and almost 265,000 deaths from colorectal cancer."