| April 29, 2007
A recent study comparing American and Canadian health care systems is tainted by the bias of its authors.
< Previous post Going over the tapes
Next post > Google yourself: Tips for your search engine reputation
Define your online reputation. Grow your platform. Be a dynamic speaker.
Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.
I went to the link. The methodology does seem suspect in some regards. It’s interesting though that he believes that “no one is claiming that patients in the US live longer.”
If no one is claiming that, what are people claiming? What exactly are the measurable standards by which our system is better? Where is the data supporting that measurement?
Also, the NCEP is biased. The JNC reports are biased. The FDA is friggin’ biased. The way we overcome bias is to be aware of it, and then to factor it into our analysis of the data. If there is data showing the US system to be superior, how come people criticizing this study don’t just refute it with that, rather than an attack on the political beliefs of the authors? How come I never seem to see mention of the bias of studies unless someone disagrees with them?
The short answer to your question is that people are unable to see a bias in their own opinions, which they believe are carefully reasoned. Objective, evidence-based claims are hard to make, and harder to defend, as past trends are not necessarily indicative of future trends. All policy papers are, ultimately, opinion papers, no matter how carefully disguised. It is instructive to know about those who advocate a given position, and when such information is not provided by the authors, thanks should be expressed to those who provide that information.
“Oh what a gift the gi’tie gi’e us; to see ourselves as other see us.”
How far we have fallen that we need “evidence” to value freedom over tyranny, and are open to considering tyranny if only someone can show us that it is more efficient.
Past 6 Months
site by Out:think Group