amenable


                    
                    
                

                

                

            

        
    







            

            
            

                

                    
                

                

                    

                        


	

	
    

        🔥 | Latest
    

    
    

        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            







    amenable: An oddly amenable cat playing with a squirrel.
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                amenable: An oddly amenable cat playing with a squirrel.
                
            

            
            
An oddly amenable cat playing with a squirrel.

            
            
        

    



        

        
        

            







    amenable: An oddly amenable cat playing with a squirrel. via /r/funny https://ift.tt/2NqwWPi
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                amenable: An oddly amenable cat playing with a squirrel. via /r/funny https://ift.tt/2NqwWPi
                
            

            
            
An oddly amenable cat playing with a squirrel. via /r/funny https://ift.tt/2NqwWPi

            
            
        

    



        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            







    amenable: ITS EASY TO FORGET THAT
 FOR DECADES THE U.S. HAD A
 HEALTHCARE SYSTEM THAT WAS THE
 ENVY OF THE WORLD. WE HAD THE
 FINEST DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS,
 PATIENTS RECEIVED HIGH QUALITY,
 AFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE, AND
 THOUSANDS OF PRIVATELY FUNDED
 CHARITIES PROVIDED HEALTH
 SERVICES FOR THE PO0
 RON PAUL
 TURNING
 POINT USA
<p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/165630900777/bushmeat-said-when-they-tell-you-how-ghastly" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://bushmeat.tumblr.com/" title="bushmeat">bushmeat</a> said:</p><blockquote><p>When they tell you how ghastly socialised healthcare is, remember what they are saying is absolute bullshit

<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253</a></p></blockquote><p>If I had a nickel every time some leftist moron linked to a World Healthcare Organization or Commonwealth Fund study, well, I would have a shitload of nickels.</p><p>Since my previous source’s website is currently down–<a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/142352613032/that-red-guy-montypla-weaselwonderworld">which I’ve used in the past</a> to slap this idiotic notion that other countries’ healthcare systems are somehow superior the US’s private system–I’ll instead point to this <a href="https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa654.pdf">other great explanation</a> by the folks over at CATO on why this pathetic claim is always made by these left-wing think-tanks:</p><blockquote><p><i>

The debate over how to reform America’s
health care sector often involves comparisons
between the United States and other countries,
and with good reason. Looking at other
countries can help us learn which policies, if
any, to emulate, and which to avoid. </i></p><p><i>There have been many attempts at international
health care system comparisons.Among
the most influential are the World Health Report
2000 published by the World Health Organization, several studies published by the
Commonwealth Fund, and individual measures
such as infant mortality and “mortality
amenable to health care.” Generally in these
studies, the United States performs poorly in
comparison to Europe, Australia, and Japan.
Therefore, scholars often use the studies to
argue for adding even more government regulations
to our already highly regulated health
care system. </i></p><p><i>However, these studies suffer from several
problems. First, they often rely on unadjusted
aggregate data—such as life expectancy, or
mortality from heart disease—that can be
affected by many non–health care factors,
including nutrition, exercise, and even crime
rates. Second,they often use process measures,
such as how many patients have received a pap
smear or mammogram in the past three years.
Process measures tell us what doctors do, but
provide only an indirect measure of doctors’
productivity. Third, some of these studies
inappropriately incorporate their own biases
about financing in their statistics, which
makes market-driven health systems appear
worse even if their outcomes are similar or better. </i></p><p><i>An additional limitation of these studies
is the omission of any measure of innovation.
None of the best-known studies factor in the
contribution of various countries to the
advances that have come to characterize the
current practice of health care in the developed
world. </i></p><p><i>Every single health care test or treatment
must be invented at some point. We would be
living in a different world today were it not
for the remarkable genius and hard work of
health care inventors in the past, as well as
investments from government health agencies
and pharmaceutical and medical device
companies. The health care issues commonly
considered most important today—controlling
costs and covering the uninsured—
arguably should be regarded as secondary to
innovation, inasmuch as a treatment must
first be invented before its costs can be
reduced and its use extended to everyone.

</i><br/></p></blockquote><p>Furthermore, from another Glen Whitman <a href="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp101.pdf">article</a>:</p><blockquote><p><i>

Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems. They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions- some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares.

<br/></i></p><p><i>

The WHO health care rankings result
from an index of health-related statistics. As
with any index, it is important to consider
how it was constructed, as the construction
affects the results.

</i><br/></p><p><i>

There is good reason to account for the
quality of care received by a country’s worst-off
or poorest citizens. Yet the Health Distribution
and Responsiveness Distribution factors
do not do that.Instead, they measure relative
differences in quality, without regard to the
absolute level of quality. To account for the
quality of care received by the worst-off, the
index could include a factor that measures
health among the poor, or a health care system’s
responsiveness to the poor. This would,
in essence, give greater weight to the well-being
of the worst off.  Alternatively, a separate health
performance index could be constructed for
poor households or members of disadvantaged
minorities. These approaches would
surely have problems of their own, but they
would at least be focused on the absolute level
of health care quality, which should be the
paramount concern.

<br/></i></p><p><i>

The WHO rankings, by purporting to
measure the efficacy of health care systems,
implicitly take all differences in health outcomes
not explained by spending or literacy
and attribute them entirely to health care system
performance. Nothing else, from tobacco
use to nutrition to sheer luck, is taken into
account. </i></p><p><i>To some extent, the exclusion of other
variables is simply the result of inadequacies
in the data. It is difficult to get information
on all relevant factors, and even more difficult
to account for their expected effects on
health. But some factors are deliberately
excluded by the WHO analysis on the basis of
paternalistic assumptions about the proper
role of health systems. An earlier paper laying
out the WHO methodological framework
asserts, “Problems such as tobacco consumption,
diet, and unsafe sexual activity must be
included in an assessment of health system
performance.” </i></p><p><i>In other words, the WHO approach holds
health systems responsible not just for treating
lung cancer, but for preventing smoking
in the first place; not just for treating heart
disease, but for getting people to exercise and
lay off the fatty foods.

<br/></i></p><p><i>

Second, the WHO approach fails to consider
people’s willingness to trade off health
against other values. Some people are happy
to give up a few potential months or even
years of life in exchange for the pleasures of
smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports,
and so on. The WHO approach, rather than
taking the public’s preferences as given,
deems some preferences better than others
(and then praises or blames the health system
for them). </i></p><p><i>A superior (though still imperfect) approach
would take people’s health-related
behavior as given, and then ask which health
systems do the best job of dealing with whatever
health conditions arise.<br/></i></p></blockquote><p>In other words, its a bunch of meaningless cherry-picked measurements framed in a way to make the private system appear terrible in order to push for more socialized medicine.  </p><p>Despite all of it’s flaws, which are usually thanks to government market intervention, the United States still has the best health care system on the entire goddamn planet per capita.  It’s most likely that the life-saving equipment and procedures that are used in other hellholes using slave healthcare to save lives are thanks to us.  </p><p>You’re welcome.</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/b97a460c917c68f3900de0bc46e50c59/tumblr_inline_owpcxquafE1r1jtxd_540.gif" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"/></figure></blockquote>
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                amenable: ITS EASY TO FORGET THAT
 FOR DECADES THE U.S. HAD A
 HEALTHCARE SYSTEM THAT WAS THE
 ENVY OF THE WORLD. WE HAD THE
 FINEST DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS,
 PATIENTS RECEIVED HIGH QUALITY,
 AFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE, AND
 THOUSANDS OF PRIVATELY FUNDED
 CHARITIES PROVIDED HEALTH
 SERVICES FOR THE PO0
 RON PAUL
 TURNING
 POINT USA
<p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/165630900777/bushmeat-said-when-they-tell-you-how-ghastly" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://bushmeat.tumblr.com/" title="bushmeat">bushmeat</a> said:</p><blockquote><p>When they tell you how ghastly socialised healthcare is, remember what they are saying is absolute bullshit

<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253</a></p></blockquote><p>If I had a nickel every time some leftist moron linked to a World Healthcare Organization or Commonwealth Fund study, well, I would have a shitload of nickels.</p><p>Since my previous source’s website is currently down–<a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/142352613032/that-red-guy-montypla-weaselwonderworld">which I’ve used in the past</a> to slap this idiotic notion that other countries’ healthcare systems are somehow superior the US’s private system–I’ll instead point to this <a href="https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa654.pdf">other great explanation</a> by the folks over at CATO on why this pathetic claim is always made by these left-wing think-tanks:</p><blockquote><p><i>

The debate over how to reform America’s
health care sector often involves comparisons
between the United States and other countries,
and with good reason. Looking at other
countries can help us learn which policies, if
any, to emulate, and which to avoid. </i></p><p><i>There have been many attempts at international
health care system comparisons.Among
the most influential are the World Health Report
2000 published by the World Health Organization, several studies published by the
Commonwealth Fund, and individual measures
such as infant mortality and “mortality
amenable to health care.” Generally in these
studies, the United States performs poorly in
comparison to Europe, Australia, and Japan.
Therefore, scholars often use the studies to
argue for adding even more government regulations
to our already highly regulated health
care system. </i></p><p><i>However, these studies suffer from several
problems. First, they often rely on unadjusted
aggregate data—such as life expectancy, or
mortality from heart disease—that can be
affected by many non–health care factors,
including nutrition, exercise, and even crime
rates. Second,they often use process measures,
such as how many patients have received a pap
smear or mammogram in the past three years.
Process measures tell us what doctors do, but
provide only an indirect measure of doctors’
productivity. Third, some of these studies
inappropriately incorporate their own biases
about financing in their statistics, which
makes market-driven health systems appear
worse even if their outcomes are similar or better. </i></p><p><i>An additional limitation of these studies
is the omission of any measure of innovation.
None of the best-known studies factor in the
contribution of various countries to the
advances that have come to characterize the
current practice of health care in the developed
world. </i></p><p><i>Every single health care test or treatment
must be invented at some point. We would be
living in a different world today were it not
for the remarkable genius and hard work of
health care inventors in the past, as well as
investments from government health agencies
and pharmaceutical and medical device
companies. The health care issues commonly
considered most important today—controlling
costs and covering the uninsured—
arguably should be regarded as secondary to
innovation, inasmuch as a treatment must
first be invented before its costs can be
reduced and its use extended to everyone.

</i><br/></p></blockquote><p>Furthermore, from another Glen Whitman <a href="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp101.pdf">article</a>:</p><blockquote><p><i>

Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems. They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions- some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares.

<br/></i></p><p><i>

The WHO health care rankings result
from an index of health-related statistics. As
with any index, it is important to consider
how it was constructed, as the construction
affects the results.

</i><br/></p><p><i>

There is good reason to account for the
quality of care received by a country’s worst-off
or poorest citizens. Yet the Health Distribution
and Responsiveness Distribution factors
do not do that.Instead, they measure relative
differences in quality, without regard to the
absolute level of quality. To account for the
quality of care received by the worst-off, the
index could include a factor that measures
health among the poor, or a health care system’s
responsiveness to the poor. This would,
in essence, give greater weight to the well-being
of the worst off.  Alternatively, a separate health
performance index could be constructed for
poor households or members of disadvantaged
minorities. These approaches would
surely have problems of their own, but they
would at least be focused on the absolute level
of health care quality, which should be the
paramount concern.

<br/></i></p><p><i>

The WHO rankings, by purporting to
measure the efficacy of health care systems,
implicitly take all differences in health outcomes
not explained by spending or literacy
and attribute them entirely to health care system
performance. Nothing else, from tobacco
use to nutrition to sheer luck, is taken into
account. </i></p><p><i>To some extent, the exclusion of other
variables is simply the result of inadequacies
in the data. It is difficult to get information
on all relevant factors, and even more difficult
to account for their expected effects on
health. But some factors are deliberately
excluded by the WHO analysis on the basis of
paternalistic assumptions about the proper
role of health systems. An earlier paper laying
out the WHO methodological framework
asserts, “Problems such as tobacco consumption,
diet, and unsafe sexual activity must be
included in an assessment of health system
performance.” </i></p><p><i>In other words, the WHO approach holds
health systems responsible not just for treating
lung cancer, but for preventing smoking
in the first place; not just for treating heart
disease, but for getting people to exercise and
lay off the fatty foods.

<br/></i></p><p><i>

Second, the WHO approach fails to consider
people’s willingness to trade off health
against other values. Some people are happy
to give up a few potential months or even
years of life in exchange for the pleasures of
smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports,
and so on. The WHO approach, rather than
taking the public’s preferences as given,
deems some preferences better than others
(and then praises or blames the health system
for them). </i></p><p><i>A superior (though still imperfect) approach
would take people’s health-related
behavior as given, and then ask which health
systems do the best job of dealing with whatever
health conditions arise.<br/></i></p></blockquote><p>In other words, its a bunch of meaningless cherry-picked measurements framed in a way to make the private system appear terrible in order to push for more socialized medicine.  </p><p>Despite all of it’s flaws, which are usually thanks to government market intervention, the United States still has the best health care system on the entire goddamn planet per capita.  It’s most likely that the life-saving equipment and procedures that are used in other hellholes using slave healthcare to save lives are thanks to us.  </p><p>You’re welcome.</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/b97a460c917c68f3900de0bc46e50c59/tumblr_inline_owpcxquafE1r1jtxd_540.gif" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"/></figure></blockquote>
                
            

            
            
<p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/165630900777/bushmeat-said-when-they-tell-you-how-ghastly" class="tumblr_blog">redbl...

            
            
        

    



        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            







    amenable: Dear whoever is reading this, I hope you know that you're never alone, you are loved, valued & you matter. God has great things for you. AMEN
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                amenable: Dear whoever is reading this, I hope you know that you're never alone, you are loved, valued & you matter. God has great things for you. AMEN
                
            

            
            
Dear whoever is reading this, I hope you know that you're never alone, you are loved, valued & you matter. God has great things for you....

            
            
        

    



        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            






        

        
        

            







    amenable: Fuiste visitado por San Fabio de la abundancia comenta AMEN y tendras un dichozo resto de año 💫
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                amenable: Fuiste visitado por San Fabio de la abundancia comenta AMEN y tendras un dichozo resto de año 💫
                
            

            
            
Fuiste visitado por San Fabio de la abundancia comenta AMEN y tendras un dichozo resto de año 💫

            
            
        

    



        

        
        

            







    amenable: One thing I know...... them prayers work!!! AMEN
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                amenable: One thing I know...... them prayers work!!! AMEN
                
            

            
            
One thing I know...... them prayers work!!! AMEN