MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Universal Health Care is a Bad Thing

2008· article· en· W2330918246 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEmergency Medicine News · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNothingHealth careMedicineEmergency departmentMedical emergencyBusinessLawNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Editor: In his editorial (EMN 2008;30[4]:4), Dr. Lewis Goldfrank suggests that the following theoretical question should be included in the emergency medicine board examination: Universal health care is (A.) a good thing or (B.) a bad thing. Dr. Goldfrank's answer to that question would have been A. He would have gotten that answer wrong. Dr. Goldfrank and I have vastly different perspectives on the concept and reality of universal health care. I did my emergency medicine training in Canada in the mid-1970s. I saw firsthand the disaster called universal health care. Tax dollars were paid into a general fund from which health care dollars were dispensed. When money became tight, bureaucrats rationed care. At that time, little could be done for stroke patients when bureaucrats decided that no beds would be allotted for those patients. As an emergency resident at that time, I was forced to send newly hemiplegic patients home with only family members to care for them. Women waited months for a biopsy of suspicious breast lesions. Physicians fled from this system into the U.S. This system cost a lot of money, and hurt a lot of patients and their families. The 47 million so-called uninsured people in the U.S. include a large number of young healthy folks who, understandably, choose to spend their money on things other than health insurance. Because we have hospitals that turn a blind eye to theft of service, they get away with paying little or nothing for emergency care when they finally do become sick or injured. If someone walked out of a store with a TV set and didn't pay for it, he would end up in jail. The truly needy should continue to be cared for at society's expense, but a man with $2000 worth of tattoos and piercings on his body who smokes $3000 worth of tobacco and drinks $1000 worth of alcohol yearly will have a very hard time convincing me that someone else should pay for his health care. He has chosen to spend $4000 a year on tobacco and alcohol rather than on health care. Every day a patient with rotten teeth tells me that he “can't” go to a dentist because he has no insurance. If a tire blows out on his car, though, he doesn't delay replacing it because he doesn't have insurance. He opens his wallet and pays for the tire. If he saved the $10 a day he spends on tobacco, soon he would be able to pay cash for dental service just like he paid for the tire. The last two things we need in this country are another group of dependent, entitled people and the government running a universal health care system. The answer to the board question is B. Government-sponsored universal health care is a bad thing. Kenneth J. Wright, MD Redding, CT

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it