7/27    ilyas, if healthcare has no positive effects, to what then do we
        attribute the huge increase in expected human lifespan in rich
        industrialized countries over the last 100 years?  Of course improved
        sanitation is one obvious cause, but it can't account for everything.
        \_
        \_ Have you actually read the study?  They weren't comparing 'medicine'
           to 'no medicine,' but 'free medicine' to 'medicine you pay for
           yourself.'  They found almost no positive effect except in I think
           two cases.  One was optometry, and I forget the other one, but
           essentially the statistics would expect one positive result like
           that just from the noise.  The 'causal explanation' is that if you
           perceive the healthcare as 'free' you go in for more procedures and
           this becomes counterproductive, whereas if you pay for everything
           yourself, you tend to go see a doctor when you think you really
           need it, and in that case medical intervention is far far more likely
           to actually be beneficial.  (They adjusted for things like income
           and initial health of course). -- ilyas
           \_ Did you read the study yourself?  They were comparing
              free medical care to cost-sharing--not to "medicine you pay
              for yourself".  They found positive effects including 10%
              reduced morbitity due to hypertension in the population that
              got free medical care.  They found the population that
              cost-shared went to doctors less often for *all kinds* of
              procedures, including highly effective ones.  And the positive
              effects were more pronounced among the poorest of the population.
              The study simply doesn't say what you says it does.  Also, it
              was done in 1982 and health care has changed enormously since
              then, particularly in the U.S.  And, you're a moron.  -tom
              \_ From the actual study pdf results section (not the glitzy 2006
                 html summary you read): "For the 'average' person enrolled in
                 the experiment, we observed two significant positive effects of
                 free care relative to cost-sharing: corrected far vision
                 (i.e., when the enrolle was wearing his or her usual glasses
                 or contact lenses) was better by 0.1 Snellen lines
                 (p = 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure was lower by 0.8 mm
                 Hg (p = 0.03).  For the remaining measures, confidence limits
                 for the differences between the free and cost-sharing plans
                 were sufficiently narrow to conclude that, for the average
                 participant, any true differences would be clinically and
                 socially negligible."  Yes, clearly the subjects didn't
                 pay for the entire care themselves (although in one regime
                 it was 95% of the cost I think), nor did I imply they did --
                 I used the same 'summary language' the study authors did
                 themselves.  I won't call you a moron, I ll let history
                 be the judge. -- ilyas
                 \_ ilyas is a moron  -history
                    \_ But... but... but he'e my FRIEND!! *sob*
                       --the invisible hand
           \_ Ilyas, would you please re-post your link?  Either someone
              keeps deleting it or I've just missed it.  Thanks.
              \_ Search for 'jrleek.' -- ilyas