The fraudulent health care metric underlying Obama Care
Bookworm on Apr 27 2011 at 7:36 am | Filed under: Medicine
ObamaCare represents an effort to bring America in line with European and other socialized health care systems. The sales pitch is now, and has always been, that “studies” show that the other, socialized, systems are “better” than the American system. The crown jewel of these “studies” is a 2000 World Health Organization analysis ranking systems. Intuitively, I knew it was wrong. I’ve lived in a socialized medicine country and I have family and friends who also live under such systems. The systems offer the bare minimum to everyone. They fiddle with their infant mortality statistics. If people have the money, they come to America for treatment.
In the recent edition of Commentary Magazine, Scott Atlas actually looks at that World Health Organization study and discovers precisely why these horrible systems got such high rankings: WHO’s people weren’t interested in medical outcomes, they were only interested in the number of people who had access to something very loosely called “medical care.” You have to read the article, which is now available for free. If you read nothing else today, this week or even this year, read this article — and then send it to everyone you know, twice.
Email This Post To A Friend
66 Responses to “The fraudulent health care metric underlying Obama Care”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I have just read the Scott Atlas article about the WHO World Health Report 2000 study. It is an excellent article, but I have one question. How can the life expectancy for a country be higher including fatal injuriess than excluding fatal injuries? For example, Japan’s life expectancy including fatal injuries is 78.7 and exluding fatal injuries 76.0. I would expect all countries to have higher life expectancies excluding fatal injuries. Of course, I would expect the improvement in life expectancy for the US to be greater than most other countries. Please do not misunderstand. I have known this WHO study was a fraud from day one. I am simply looking for an explanation and I thought someone in the Bookworm Room could help. Can anyone explain to me how this can be? Thanks in advance.
I expect anything involved with the Left to be a fraud. That’s just how it is. It gets real easy then.
The numbers to which I am referring are from Scott Atlas not the WHO report. That is why I am asking the question.
Glen Whitman demolished that study for Cato in a February 28, 2008, study called “WHO’s Fooling Who?”. The WHO study relies on attenuated proxies. The better way to measure medical care is to measure medical care (i.e., survivial rate from diagnosis).
kbterrier, the only two explanations I can think of is that the figures are wrong (maybe got transposed?) or that Japan reports deaths from injuries that later prove to be fatal but not immediately so. In other words, some guy falls off a skyscraper under construction and is massively injured, but thanks to Japan’s great medical technology lingers for several months before dying. Those extra months get tacked onto the overall life expectancy figure.
I know that’s an unlikely reason, but I guess we’d have to know what Japan’s reporting methodology is.
Charles, Thanks for the reply, but I’m not sure your explanation works. If these two tables are drawn from the same data, I don’t see any way that Japan’s life expectancy would decrease when excluding fatal injuries. For that to be the case the average age of death’s from fatal injuries in Japan would have to be higher than the average life expectancy including fatal injuries of 78.7. And I cannot see how that could be true unless there is an epidemic of reckless driving by octogenarians in Japan. Or the average age of work related deaths or murder victims is well into the 80s. My best guess is that the two tables are derived from different data sets. For example, one table is derived from data collected from 1980 to 1992 and the other is derived from data collected from 1985 to 1999. The only other explanation I can see is that the tables are erroneous.
Regardless, I believe this anomaly opens the article up to criticism and then immediate dismissal of the entire article by anyone on the left (not that they would ever read it in the first place.) I actually think the “WHO’s Fooling Who?” CATO paper to which Anonymous referred is a much better rebuttal to the WHO “study.” I sent that paper out to my email friends. I don’t think I will do the same with this Commentary article even though it has plenty of valid points and even though few if any liberals would ever pick up on this anomaly. In my experience, math is not a strong subject for most liberals.
For numbers junkies here’s a link to OECD 2010 Health Data Extract.
Number that pops out to me– the number of doctors per capita in the US vs other developed nations.
Place to start lowering health care costs– increase the number of doctors in this country, but that means eliminating the lock the AMA has on this. Seems like a simple market principal to me.
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH
kbterrier: Thanks for the reply, but I’m not sure your explanation works.
It’s a regression analysis. It adjusts the life expectancy assuming the same rate of death by homicide, suicide and accident. If Japan had the same rate of such deaths as the U.S., it would have a lower life expectancy. The study does *not* recalculate actual life expectancy absent these factors. It does give some indication of the *relative* differences due to these factors.
The authors specifically say the numbers are not meant to be accurate life expectancy. Their point is that there are a number of factors that can affect *ranking* by life expectancy when the numbers are so close. A better interpretation is to simply say that they are generally comparable in developed countries.
As for fairness in health distribution, that is certainly a factor. To exaggerate the case, a system which provides the best possible health coverage for the royal family, but next to nothing for everyone else, is not reasonably considered a good health care system, regardless of how good that care may be.
When compared to other advanced countries, the U.S. is paying significantly more for only marginal differences in health benefits, while leaving millions without access to primary care.
Let’s say it is a regression analysis used to adjust the life expectancies from the actual average including fatal injuries to an average excluding fatal injuries. Every one of those adjustments would push that average up and that is not what happened with Japan and several other countries. I agree that Japan’s life expectancy would be adjusted down if homicide and vehicular death rates in the US were applied to Japan’s life expectancy, but that is not what was done. Adjustments were made to remove the impact of those events entirely from all populations not to adjust all populations to the rates experienced in the US or some other country. If that were done, then one of the countries (the one to which all others are adjusted) would have identical life expectancies in both tables. That is not the case.
Of course, they could be adjusting all countries to average rate of the fatal injuries across all countries instead of to rates from one specific country which I think would explain it. Of course, if that is true then they mislabeled the second table. OK. I’m done. Sorry for wasting the comment space and thanks for the help.
You haven’t wasted space, kbterrier. Your observation was a good one. Since I’m not a numbers person, I didn’t see a problem there, nor would I know how to explain it. I will note regarding longevity, though, that, thinking intuitively, it’s easier to have longevity in a 1st world country with a homogeneous population. Physicians and researchers can focus on more common diseases and treatment, and it’s easier to steer the entire population away from bad habits, since they all observe the same social norms. America’s heterogeneous population is always going to result in a lower life expectancy, simply by virtue of the fact that we have people of various races and cultural habits.
Any argument based on government statistics–from infant mortality rates to the success of five-year plans–isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Look at our infant mortality rate! our health system is wonderful. Look at how many cars our state-owned plant produces–true socialism is almost here! Look how many confessions we get, our justice system must be the envy of the world!
Never mind the preemies and the babies who don’t survive more than 24 hours, they never really existed. Just like the cars that are never more than a number on a spreadsheet, and the confessions that come as a result of interrogation tactics that would appall civilized people . . .
Meh. We really need an objective measure of health outcomes.
How about, what percentage of income it takes to pay for some common test or treatment, eg, how much do people pay, both out of pocket and in taxes, for a course of antibiotics?
Or how about mortality rates of hospital patients?
Our infant mortality rate is adjusted by Obama’s policy of killing those who survive partial birth and post birth abortions.
Ymarsakar: Our infant mortality rate is adjusted by Obama’s policy of killing those who survive partial birth and post birth abortions.
The President doesn’t make law in the U.S. Moreover, abortion tends to raise life expectancy by not counting the early death of babies who might have been born with a congenital problem or under less than ideal circumstances.
Now Obama is raising life expectancy for infants by funding abortion. It never stops with them and their self-justifications.
Ymarsakar: Now Obama is raising life expectancy for infants by funding abortion.
The president doesn’t make law in the U.S. Life expectancy in the U.S. is somewhat *less* than in most other advanced countries.
And why is “life expectancy in the U.S. somewhat *less* than in most advanced countries”, Z?
Tell us all about it!
Danny Lemieux: And why is “life expectancy in the U.S. somewhat *less* than in most advanced countries”, Z?
Life expectancy is relatively comparable in most advanced countries, and a number of factors may be involved, including diet, differences in the distribution of medical services, ethnic and racial characteristics, rates of violent crime and accidental death, etc.
That’s a generality, Z….how about some specifics? Why is U.S. life expectancy lower that those other advanced countries?
Danny Lemieux: That’s a generality, Z….how about some specifics? Why is U.S. life expectancy lower that those other advanced countries?
You missed the point. A number of independent variables contribute to and swamp the relatively small differences. But relatively high levels of violence and poor distribution of primary health services may be the most important factors.
What you mentioned reminds me of a quote in Alternative, Danny.
Let me see if I can get it.
“Moreover, abortion tends to raise life expectancy. . .”
Folks, there you have it, the total vacuity of the leftist mindset. Zach, you are now beyond parody.
Ok, then, let me help you Z: how does American life expectancy compare to that of other advanced countries (Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand) when you correct for violent crime (which you mentioned, to your credit) and automobile accidents?
So Z are you saying that the U.S. has a better distribution of primary health services? Because if you correct for all other independent variables except distribution of primary health services such as diet, homicides, vehicular deaths, etc. the U.S. has a higher life expectancy than the rest of the industrialized world.
Right, kbterrier. This is where I was trying to lead Z. I am sure they are doing the math as we communicate with each other. Diet isn’t a factor but drug abuse is.
Of course, drug abuse, vehicular deaths and homicide have nothing to do with quality of health care services and more to do with culture and geographic factors.
I find it amazing how so many Americans who really have very little first-hand knowledge with other countries need to believe that other people in other countries live in Shangri-La. It is only we in the U.S. that are supposed to have everything wrong with our society. I once had a kid tell me that Thailand was an example of a country that did everything right. Sheesh!
They are taught that patriotism is evil, Danny. It’s no less an evil then feeding infants crack cocaine through their milk.
Danny, I did find the quote I mentioned.
To be honest I do not think whether they live or die is the matter at hand. Life is not always better than death. It is not that simple. Living and being made to live are very different things. What matters is what the person chooses of their own free will. Whether or not it can be achieved or how difficult it is.
I want you to think about this… imagine if what matters most to you was taken away against your will.
People seem to be very obsessed with abnormally high levels of life expectancy. It’s as if they think they can produce something good with just that. Is that the limit of their understanding of human life, Danny? Is that the limit of their understanding of what it takes to produce human happiness?
Danny, I thought you were trying to lead him there. I simply wanted to speed up the process. However, I would argue that diet is certainly a factor, but only because our standard of living is so high. Name for me one other country that has as one its primary health concerns obesity amongst the poor.
I have a good friend who lives in Thailand and that kid to whom you spoke is beyond delusional. Ask this kid if he believes David Carradine was strung up in the closet of his Bangkok hotel by aristocratic debutantes or one of the thousands of affluent streetwalkers in Bangkok?
You can lead the donkey to grass, but you can’t make the donkey eat only the top grass.
Good quote, Ymarsaker…from whom?
Charles Martel: Folks, there you have it, the total vacuity of the leftist mindset.
Handwaving doesn’t constitute an argument.
kbterrier: Because if you correct for all other independent variables except distribution of primary health services such as diet, homicides, vehicular deaths, etc. the U.S. has a higher life expectancy than the rest of the industrialized world.
Do you know of any such study, other than the regression analysis previously discussed (which does not accurately re-calculate life expectancy)?
Danny Lemieux: I find it amazing how so many Americans who really have very little first-hand knowledge with other countries need to believe that other people in other countries live in Shangri-La.
Our position, as previously expressed, is that life expectancy is reasonably comparable in advanced countries. The numbers are close enough that any number of variables can affect the relative ranking.
Zach, hon, as usual, you misunderstood my comment. There was no need for me to present an argument: You refuted yourself in your own statement. Nobody here knows how taking human life adds to life expectancy. Apparently, in whatever world you dream in, it’s possible to increase the longevity of one set of people by killing another.
Z, Are you saying that the analysis by Scott Atlas that Bookworm linked to is incorrect? How do you know this fact? Because of our previous discussions? In fact, you cannot say that the calculations in the study are incorrect. There is not enough information. I would love to see his data and methodology so I could check it based on my previous observation, but I can’t say whether his calculations are erroneous or not without seeing his data.
If you want to see another study, Dr. Gratzer refers to one in the following article.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
And here is the book to which he refers.
http://www.amazon.com/Business-Health-Robert-Ohsfeldt/dp/0844742406
Z, I have done some research and found where Mr. Atlas obtained his life expectancy numbers. See the table below. This table is much more clearly labeled and I believe confirms my last explantion for the anomaly I noticed. In short, all countries’ life expectancies are being corrected to the overall averages for fatal injuries which explains how the anomaly I noticed earlier is explainable and makes sense. Using this method will cause the life expectancy of some countries to fall and others to rise. It looks like Mr. Atlas got his figures from Drs. Ohsfeldt and Schneider (their book is linked in my previous post) and he got it right. He simply did not label his table very clearly. A link to the source of this table is below.
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061017_OhsfeldtSchneiderPresentation.pdf
I’m not sure why the table I pasted in didn’t make it through, but you can find it on page 18 of the link in my previous post.
Danny, which comment of mine are you referring to?
Ymarsaker – the source of the quote you posted that you found (#26).
Have all of you noticed how, the more that we drill down upon Z to come up with specifics, the likely they are to spin out into vague generalities with their citations and proclamations (e.g., “Our position, as previously expressed, is that life expectancy is reasonably comparable in advanced countries. The numbers are close enough that any number of variables can affect the relative ranking.” Oh, come on!)? Interesting, that.
I believe this is a physical manifestation not all that different from what noted physicist Werner Heisenberg discovered about electrons: the more you zero in on an electron, the more uncertain its nature and location.
Let’s call it the Zachriel Uncertainty Principle.
Danny, It just struck me that you were saying that diet was not a variable corrected for in this study as it is only fatal injuries that were corrected for and thus you are correct. My apologies.
The Zriel Principle? Like the Real Principle?
By Mitsurugi, Meiya
The actual author is under a Japanese name and there’s no English record of his works, so I can’t attribute it correctly. You could call Meiya, which can be read as Night in Darkness, as something of a confidante (is that French) of the main eiyuu or protagonist of the story.
The protagonist in Alternative goes through some harsh trials and tribulations in order to accomplish a goal and obtain personal redemption. In that sense, it’s much akin to the themes used in Identity Man by Andrew Klavan (it’s a good thriller).
She helps the protagonist work through issues like being unable to accept the necessary sacrifice of lives to accomplish a goal or mission. Much like anti-Iraq proponents in 2005, they always talk about there being a better way, violence being the last resort, and stuff about how it’s useless to throw more lives into the field. Their real issue is their cowardice or inability to withstand responsibility and dirtying their hands in doing what is necessary.
It is translated directly from Japanese, so I reworded a few lines of the translation.
No apologies necessary, kbterrier.
Your point was on the mark and well taken.
In my own mind, though, I don’t really know how much our Western diet affects our longevity, given that we are living longer than ever before. Nutrition is a pretty inexact science, subject to enormous individual variabilities, and for which conventional wisdom (dietary cholesterol is bad, people who are obese die younger, etc.) is a highly fungible concept.
Petraeus, instead of arguing about it, went to work and in 2006 through 2008, demonstrated that the lives spent were not in vain. He went to work, while other people went to the mall or Green day mutual fund trading and sushi dining while flying in their private jets.
I think it is a most accurate translation, however, given the tone of voice used and the advanced concepts being discussed in the story. I only edited the parts concerning will to differentiate it simply from a want or desire.
“‘He either fears his fate too much,
Or his desert is small,
Who fears to put it to the touch,
And win or lose it all.’
-montesque…. forgot the spelling.
Captain Mal Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) Serenity
Yea, I’m like Dave. I like certain quotes.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1896
I don’t remember why I have this link in my permanent clipboard, but it was an interesting thing to read or reread.
Many people think or believe that torture doesn’t work. Well, if torture doesn’t work, how come so many people can become brainwashed in supporting their kidnappers. Their kidnappers didn’t do 5% of the things a torturer would be able to do. Right? Right, if the kidnappers had told the hostages to tell the truth and the hostages were under Stockholm Syndrome, they would easily have done so.
People don’t get it. Sure, there are individual variances and some people are more resistant to interrogation and brainwashing then others. But nobody is immune. Nobody.
Well, that was an outlier and off topic lead in.
Torture doesn’t work since most torturers are sadists and incompetent to boot. They know little of the psychological torture tools available and use crude and often lethal physical methods such as electrical shock, dismemberment, beheading, and things like that. Pulling off fingernails and toenails might be clever, for an average jihadi, but what happens after all 20 of them are gone? Psychological torture takes time. You kind need something else as a backup. In psychological torture, conditioning, and brainwashing, it is not the severity of the trauma inflicted but the length of the trauma and to what extent the trauma can be coped or resisted using mental or physical means. Thus even a harmless TSA patdown can be traumatic if the victim believes herself to be helpless.
Charles Martel: Nobody here knows how taking human life adds to life expectancy.
Life expectancy is measured from *birth*. If a fetus with a congenital defect is aborted, then it is not figured into life expectancy measures.
kbterrier: Are you saying that the analysis by Scott Atlas that Bookworm linked to is incorrect?
It’s not Scott Atlas’s study, but a simple regression by Ohsfeldt & Schneider. Ohsfeldt said “We’re not trying to say that these are the precisely correct life-expectancy estimates. We’re just trying to show that there are other factors that affect life-expectancy-at-birth estimates that people quote all the time.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/08/25/violence-traffic-accidents-and-us-life-expectancy/
In other words, Ohsfeldt & Schneider’s “little book project” is not meant to be taken quantitatively.
kbterrier: In short, all countries’ life expectancies are being corrected to the overall averages for fatal injuries which explains how the anomaly I noticed earlier is explainable and makes sense.
Yes, it’s a regression. They also include GDP (percent of GDP per capita) in the regression. Removing GDP puts the U.S. at #17.
Danny Lemieux: Have all of you noticed how, the more that we drill down upon Z to come up with specifics, the likely they are to spin out into vague generalities with their citations and proclamations (e.g., “Our position, as previously expressed, is that life expectancy is reasonably comparable in advanced countries. The numbers are close enough that any number of variables can affect the relative ranking.”
The rankings among advanced countries can vary considerably by changing the base assumptions. It is reasonable to say that advanced countries have reasonably comparable life expectancies.
Charles Martel: Nobody here knows how taking human life adds to life expectancy.
Z responds with, “Life expectancy is measured from *birth*. If a fetus with a congenital defect is aborted, then it is not figured into life expectancy measures. “
True! And I am sure the same applies to children born and killed through infanticide in such advanced countries like the Netherlands, because such children were deemed to be defective. Or, for that matter, I am sure the same applied to young Jewish, Gypsy and other children killed in Germany, circa 1930 and 1940s, because they, too, were deemed defective. If it’s not in the records, it never happened.
The abortions Obama supported, paid for using other people’s money, and voted for in Chicago were the ones called post-birth abortions. Meaning, partial birth abortion failed or abortion failed and the baby was born alive. Then Obama aborted that born alive baby, which is why it is called post-birth abortion.
Why is Z ignorant of so many convenient things when he backs Obama like a tool of the Regime?
When Obama puts his health care, also known as Stockholm Syndrome, plan in action, will people then say that healthcare, like torture, won’t get the truth out of people?
Z, I see you read the moron’s review on Amazon for Ohsfeldt and Schneider’s book. I read it too and I knew you would be going here. I hate to break it to you, but taking into consideration per capita GDP lowers the US’s life expectancy relative to other countries. It doesn’t raise it. Since America has among the highest GDP per capita (behind Norway with gobs of North Sea oil and the European tax haven of Luxembourg) in the world to correct to the average for the US lowers its life expectancy relative to most other countries, because the US must be brought down to most other countries. In fact, the authors deliberately included GDP per capita in their calculation to head off the predictable objections from the Left. Please try again.
Danny, it is chilling how lacking in morality (not to mention a sense of irony) Zach’s pronouncements are. Abortion means nothing to him because it doesn’t fit into one of his tidy actuarial columns. The “fetus” does not count, therefore its premature death does not exist. Everything is in its proper place in Zacky Land.
Zach will never argue from a moral basis. He is deathly afraid to because he does not know how.
I suspect that you are right, Charles M. A selective morality, perhaps?
Will they mourn Osama’s passing, citing /siting international law?
Danny Lemieux: True! And I am sure the same applies to children born and killed through infanticide in such advanced countries like the Netherlands, because such children were deemed to be defective.
That is incorrect. Infant euthanasia lowers the average life expectancy.
Charles Martel: Abortion means nothing to him because it doesn’t fit into one of his tidy actuarial columns. The “fetus” does not count, therefore its premature death does not exist.
We never said that. However, this discussion concerns an allegedly fraudulent health care metric. Someone suggested that abortion was worsening the average U.S. life expectancy, when it actually tends to improve it. It was a false claim that was relevant to the topic.
kbterrier: I see you read the moron’s review on Amazon for Ohsfeldt and Schneider’s book. I read it too and I knew you would be going here.
Never saw it.
kbterrier: I hate to break it to you, but taking into consideration per capita GDP lowers the US’s life expectancy relative to other countries.
OECD used the same regression, minus GDP, and the U.S. ranked seventeenth. Ohsfeldt and Schneider didn’t submit their results to peer review for the obvious reason that its methodology was flawed (flawed by using a figure for the correlation of life expectancy and GDP, instead of independent variables based on data). If you view the results qualitatively, then perhaps, perhaps, you can sustain their contention that rankings are inherently flawed when the life expectancies are relatively close, but you can’t reach any quantitative conclusions. They have admitted as much.
First of all, to take Ohsfeldt and Schneider’s numbers and simply remove GDP from the equation it would be impossible for the US to fall in rank unless Norway or Luxembourg surpassed the US. Unless you are assuming that lower GDP per capita contributes to shorter life expectancy. If that were the case Cuba and North Korea would have wonderfully high life expectancies. And they are correct to adjust for GDP as there is a positive correlation between GDP and life expectancy. For your assertion that excluding GDP drops the US to 17th to be true there would have to be a negative correlation. Can you provide links to your study showing the US ranked 17th when adjusted as you say above? Can you provide a link to support your assertion that Ohsfeldt and Schneider did not allow peer review?
Z, Nevermind on the link. I found it. But again it is impossible to take out the impact of GDP and have the US rank fall unless you assume a negative correlation between GDP and life expectancy. I’m not sure how the OECD came up with their calculation. And if your assertion that Ohsfeldt and Schneider would not release their data for peer review were true, they couldn’t even if they wanted to. So both of your statements cannot both be true. Either their data was made available for peer review or the OECD did not adjust Ohsfeldt and Schneider’s calculation as purported.
kbterrier: First of all, to take Ohsfeldt and Schneider’s numbers and simply remove GDP from the equation it would be impossible for the US to fall in rank unless Norway or Luxembourg surpassed the US.
Sigh. It’s actually hard to tell exactly what they are doing as they didn’t publish their results in detail. But they appear to use a variable that is not independent, but dependent on GDP, so it skews their numbers by circular reasoning.
kbterrier: Can you provide links to your study showing the US ranked 17th when adjusted as you say above?
OECD economic surveys: United States 2008, pg 137.
“The adjustment for the gap in injury death rates between the United States and the OECD average alone only increases life expectancy at birth marginally, from 19th among 29 countries on average over 1980-99 to 17th. Hence, the high ranking of adjusted life expectancy at birth mainly reflects high US GDP per capita, not the effects of unusually high death rates from accident [or] injury.”
http://www.oecd.org/document/32/0,3343,en_2649_33733_41803296_1_1_1_1,00.html
kbterrier: Can you provide a link to support your assertion that Ohsfeldt and Schneider did not allow peer review?
Did not allow? They have to submit to peer review, and that would probably require including much more detail on their methodology.
Z said, “Ohsfeldt and Schneider didn’t submit their results to peer review…”
Then
Z said, “Did not allow? They have to submit to peer review, and that would probably require including much more detail on their methodology.”
Which one is it?
You then make this statement about the OECD’s calculation. “It’s actually hard to tell exactly what they are doing as they didn’t publish their results in detail.”
So, you are going to accept the OECD study that does not provide a calculation or methodology over Ohsfeldt and Schneider who did publish their calculation and methodology? An OECD calculation that is absolutely impossible to have done what they say it did. They had to have used a different calculation that they did not publish according to you. It is absolutely impossible for the OECD to have simply used the Ohsfeldt and Schneider calculation minus the GDP correction and gotten the results they claim unless you assume a negative correlation between GDP and life expectancy.
kbterrier: Which one is it?
Not sure your question. They didn’t submit it to peer-review.
kbterrier: You then make this statement about the OECD’s calculation. “It’s actually hard to tell exactly what they are doing as they didn’t publish their results in detail.” So, you are going to accept the OECD study that does not provide a calculation or methodology over Ohsfeldt and Schneider who did publish their calculation and methodology?
Quite the contrary. We were referring to Ohsfeldt and Schneider’s calculation. The GDP term wasn’t that well-defined in their book, but it’s possible it was defined elsewhere. In any case, the OECD removed the GDP term.
kbterrier: It is absolutely impossible for the OECD to have simply used the Ohsfeldt and Schneider calculation minus the GDP correction and gotten the results they claim unless you assume a negative correlation between GDP and life expectancy.
You have it backwards. If they assume a positive corelation between GDP and life expectancy, and build that correlation into their equation, then it’s not unexpected that their result tracked GDP. It looks that way from the equation.
We could certainly be wrong on this point, as we are relying on secondary sources. If you can carefully define each of the figures, in particular GDPPCit, and show the calculations, we would be happy to take a look.
Consider this: Why the heck would they even include GDP? It’s irrelevant to calculating life expectancy. And it’s irrelevant for showing that removing instant deaths due to accidents and homicides change the ranking. It’s almost as if they want to find a particular result, and then work the regression until they have the result they want. They’ve admitted their calculation doesn’t actually re-calculate life expectancy, or that it was meant to be a precise analysis. They were just trying to show that a change in a few assumptions can change the rankings when the actual life expectancies are very close.
Not sure your question. They didn’t submit it to peer-review.
I misunderstood your second statement as being an assertion that they did submit it for peer review. My apologies.
You have it backwards. If they assume a positive corelation between GDP and life expectancy, and build that correlation into their equation, then it’s not unexpected that their result tracked GDP. It looks that way from the equation.
We could certainly be wrong on this point, as we are relying on secondary sources. If you can carefully define each of the figures, in particular GDPPCit, and show the calculations, we would be happy to take a look.
I can assure I do not have it backwards. If there is a positive correlation between GDP and life expectancy and the US is adjusted to the standardized mean of all countries (which is what their calculation did) then it results in an adjustment down for the US. If it is a country at the low end of GDP among the countries, then the adjustment would be up to the standardized mean. Thus removing GDP per capita from the calculation results in an adjustment up for the US. And since the US is in the top 3 or 4 of every GDP per capita calculation (behind Norway and Luxembourg in most and Kuwait (which is not in this data population) in some) it really doesn’t matter which listing of GDP per capita they used.
Consider this: Why the heck would they even include GDP? It’s irrelevant to calculating life expectancy. And it’s irrelevant for showing that removing instant deaths due to accidents and homicides change the ranking. It’s almost as if they want to find a particular result, and then work the regression until they have the result they want. They’ve admitted their calculation doesn’t actually re-calculate life expectancy, or that it was meant to be a precise analysis. They were just trying to show that a change in a few assumptions can change the rankings when the actual life expectancies are very close.
They adjust for GDP per capita because they are trying to calculate a life expectancy that meaningfully reflects healthcare results. GDP per capita has an impact on life expectancy that is not a reflection of healthcare outcomes. They correctly adjust for it. WHO took the unadulterated life expectancies as proof of the superiority of socialized medicine. Ohsfeldt and Schneider were simply trying to adjust for factors that affect life expectancy that have nothing to do with healthcare quality. If they were trying simply to manufacture a number that looked good for the US then they hurt themselves by correcting for GDP per capita. Had they not corrected for GDP per capita, then the US life expectancy would look even better relative to the other countries except Norway.
However, they do concede that life expectancies even when adjusted for variables independent of healthcare quality are not the best measure of healthcare quality. They were simply forced to address life expectancy, because the Left had been so dishonestly portraying it as definitive proof of how horrible the US healthcare system is and how wonderful socialized medicine is for years. Survival and cure rates for specific diseases and ailments are much better measures of healthcare quality and the US leads the world (by large margins in many cases) in cure and survival rates for the vast majority of diseases and ailments.
kbterrier: If there is a positive correlation between GDP and life expectancy and the US is adjusted to the standardized mean of all countries (which is what their calculation did) then it results in an adjustment down for the US.
Yes, your point is clear, but not if they embedded the results in the GDPPCit variable. In effect, they assumed their conclusion.
kbterrier: Thus removing GDP per capita from the calculation results in an adjustment up for the US.
As we mentioned, there is no reason for Ohsfeldt and Schneider to have even included GDPPCit in their calculations. It’s a poorly defined fudge factor, and according to OECD, removing it drops the U.S. to seventeenth. Ohsfeldt and Schneider have admitted it was just a “little book project.” Unless you have some more detailed analysis, you’re reading far more into Ohsfeldt and Schneider’s calculation than they themselves claim. “We’re not trying to say that these are the precisely correct life-expectancy estimates. We’re just trying to show that there are other factors that affect life-expectancy-at-birth estimates that people quote all the time.” Even with that qualifier, the results are considered flawed by other researchers.
kbterrier: They adjust for GDP per capita because they are trying to calculate a life expectancy that meaningfully reflects healthcare results.
We’re not getting anywhere with this. Even the authors admit it’s not an accurate calculation. If you want to press the point, you would have to clearly define the calculation and data, starting with GDPPCit. Otherwise, it’s just fudge.
There is good reason to include a GDP correction as I explained in my last post. And if the OECD removed the GDP factor from their calculation it is mathematically impossible for them to achieve the results they claim. The OECD had to have used another calculation altogether.
Now I’m done arguing with a wall.
Ok. I’m not done yet.
Z said, “We’re not getting anywhere with this. Even the authors admit it’s not an accurate calculation. If you want to press the point, you would have to clearly define the calculation and data, starting with GDPPCit. Otherwise, it’s just fudge.”
Your repeated quote of the authors is by no means an admission of inaccuracy. It is more an admission that there are so many variables to correct for that no one could possibly included all of them. They took the most obvious and impactful ones and corrected for them.
And you quickly declare GDP a fudge and at the same time accept without question the OECD calculation without having even seen it. GDPPCit is GDP per capita and I have said before there is no legitimate GDP per capita listing that I am aware of that doesn’t have the US right up at the top. Whether it is a listing that ranks the US in the top 3 or top 5 has very little if any impact on the calculation. Any GDP per capita listing would result in having to bring the US down to the standardized mean. You simply want an excuse to dismiss their findings so you can accept without question the findings from the OECD that you haven’t even seen.
kbterrier: GDPPCit is GDP per capita and I have said before there is no legitimate GDP per capita listing that I am aware of that doesn’t have the US right up at the top.
Is this the formula to which you are referring?
LifeExpit = 50.78 + 3.020 * log(GDPPCit) – 0.077 * [mean(Trans)]
- 0.137 * [mean(Falls)] – 0.133 * [mean(Homicide)]
- 0.0326 * [mean(Suicide)] + year-effectsit
And in the end life expectancy is not even a good measure of healthcare quality anyway. However, I do not expect you or any other Leftist to stop dishonestly using life expectancy as definitive proof of the superiority of socialized medicine.
LOL. You lied earlier when you said you hadn’t seen the review on Amazon. You copied and pasted that formula from that review. Maybe you should buy the book, check out the formula(s) and get back to me.
kbterrier: However, I do not expect you or any other Leftist to stop dishonestly using life expectancy as definitive proof of the superiority of socialized medicine.
That is precisely contrary to our position, which is that life expectancies are “reasonably comparable” in advanced countries. We’ve said that more than once on this thread.
kbterrier: You lied earlier when you said you hadn’t seen the review on Amazon. You copied and pasted that formula from that review.
We looked at it after you pointed it out, of course. Isn’t that what you wanted us to do?
Is this the formula to which you are referring, or isn’t it?
LifeExpit = 50.78 + 3.020 * log(GDPPCit) – 0.077 * [mean(Trans)]
- 0.137 * [mean(Falls)] – 0.133 * [mean(Homicide)]
- 0.0326 * [mean(Suicide)] + year-effectsit
We’ve already said we are unable to verify the calculations as we are relying on secondary sources. If you don’t know, then why would you expect anyone to accept what the authors admit are not “precisely correct life-expectancy estimates” at face value, without being able to double-check the calculations or some sort of scholarly review?