# We're number 37 !!!!!!!!!!!



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2010)

*Real rockin' music!*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4[/ame]


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 3, 2010)

I liked that.  Thanks.

"We"  Seem to be pretty proud of being mediocre.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

How many times has this canard been debunked, just on this message board?  I've lost count.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2010)

You mean that we are lower than 37? Lordy, lordy!


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> How many times has this canard been debunked, just on this message board?  I've lost count.



And that has what to do with Shineola?
I would like to see the tune go to Number 1 with a bullet.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1I9xsV-g9Y&NR=1[/ame]


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 3, 2010)

Do you know that "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"  is in the official Methodist hymnals?

btw the first vid was best.  It was pretty darn good.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 3, 2010)

If I recall the CIA Factbook has the United States someplace in the mid-thirties based on life expectancy.  

Now I know that statistic is influenced by how much red meat you eat not just how good your doctors are.  

But yup, we're mid 30's!!!!!!!!


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 3, 2010)

Eat that cheeseburger!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> How many times has this canard been debunked, just on this message board?  I've lost count.



I've peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2010)

Do we really have to dig out those stats of how the US leads in life expectancy after things like heart surgery and cancers? You know all those numbers that the WHO didn't use.....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 3, 2010)

Which of the 36 countries above ours did Ted Kennedy choose for his care?

Right.

So, shut the fuck up.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 3, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Do we really have to dig out those stats of how the US leads in life expectancy after things like heart surgery and cancers? You know all those numbers that the WHO didn't use.....



Let me help dig 'em out.

 Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research and when they couldnt find data, they developed [data] through a variety of techniques. WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castros Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General

The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.
WHO, World Health Organization Assesses
theWorldsHealth Systems, press release, undated,
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre
/press_release/en/index.html.
		1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of equality!
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups. Therefore a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US.
	This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the expensive treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loanb) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate.  All are common.
	And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries. 


How to judge healthcare:
a) life expectancy: many people die for reasons that cant be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!
One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.
In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Dave Petno » Canadian Doctor Describes Canadian Socialized Medicine

b) How about the result of having food? With so much food, so many choices (tell me about it), we Americans are eating ourselves to death: obesity.  Is this the fault of poor healthcare?
From a NYTimes article about Sicko, and Cuba:
Because they dont have up-to-date cars, they tend to have to exercise more by walking, he said. And they may not have a surfeit of food, which keeps them from problems like obesity, but theyre not starving, either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/weekinreview/27depalma.html

c) Infant mortality. So, Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate? On January 2, 2009 they announced 4.7 out of every 1,000 for 2008. Seem believable? Well, maybe the number, but calculated in 48 hours? It takes the US about two years to get all the data for our. One reason that Cuba has a low infant mortality, and the corresponding high life expectancy, is because they induce abortion at the first sign of possible trouble with a fetus. Cuba's annual induced abortion rate persistently ranks among the highest in the world, and abortion plays a prominent role in Cuban fertility regulation.
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

And, of course, there are a variety of ways that infant mortality statistics are measured. While 40% of Americas infant mortality rate is due to reporting of infants who die on the day of their birth, many countries dont register such deaths at all. Other countries require specific size (Switzerland, 30 cm) and weights (Austria and Germany, 500 gms) to be listed as having been born.
Bernadine Healy, M.D.: Behind the baby count - US News and World Report

Rarely reported in comparing infant mortality rates it the negative effect of very pre-term babies, whose death rate is far higher than full term.  When comparing the US infant mortality rate to such category-stars as in this NYTimes report of 11/4/09:
If the United States could match Swedens prematurity rate, the new report said, nearly 8,000 infant deaths would be averted each year, and the U.S. infant mortality rate would be one-third lower.

We find the usual anti-US slant of the Times, in not mentioning that race is the reason:

The use of this example highlights to disingenuousness of the authors. In their supposedly detailed report on infant mortality, they fail to analyze the most important detail: race. Unfortunately, African descent is a major risk factor for prematurity, and prematurity is a major cause of infant mortality. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than Sweden. The US has the highest proportion of women of African descent of any first world country. Sweden, of course, has virtually none. So our higher rate of infant mortality does not reflect poor medical care. It reflects factors beyond the control of doctors. Race is an uncontrollable factor; obstetricians and pediatricians have no control over assisted reproductive techniques. In fact, the data actually show obstetricians and pediatricians do a remarkable job of ensuring infant health.

Infant mortality report neglects the most important detail - AmyTuteurMD - Open Salon

One factor contributing to the U.S.'s infant mortality rate is that blacks have intractably high infant mortality rates -- irrespective of age, education, socioeconomic status and so on. No one knows why. 

Neither medical care nor discrimination can explain it: Hispanics in the U.S. have lower infant mortality rates than either blacks or whites. Give Switzerland or Japan our ethnically diverse population and see how they stack up on infant mortality rates.
A Statistical Analysis of Maritime Unemployment Rates, 1946-1948. Just Kidding, More Liberal Lies About National Healthcare! - HUMAN EVENTS


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2010)

LOL. Love it when the truth is delivered in music. Really sets off the wingnut fringe. 

This guy is damned near as good as the Chad Mitchell Trio.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > How many times has this canard been debunked, just on this message board?  I've lost count.
> ...



It's important for two reasons. The first is that policy decisions should not be based on lies.  The second is that I have no desire for our nation's healthcare to do better on a scale so badly weighted in favor of factors that are bad for our nation.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 3, 2010)

Health Care and Man Made Global Warming seem to use the same metrics, maybe East Angelia can get into the Health Care measurement business?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I see. The CIA is also lying to us? There data says the same.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Produce it.


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 3, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Isn't "produced" evidence the issue we are discussing here?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



*Easy enough for someone with the average Liberal intellect. Pretty difficult for a Conservative, however. *

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Infant mortality rate:    
total: 6.26 deaths/1,000 live births
country comparison to the world: 180 
male: 6.94 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.55 deaths/1,000 live births (2009 est.) 

Life expectancy at birth:    
total population: 78.11 years
country comparison to the world: 50 
male: 75.65 years
female: 80.69 years (2009 est.)


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jan 3, 2010)

I look for that number to go down once Health Care Reform become a reality.


----------



## Munin (Jan 4, 2010)

Big Black Dog said:


> I look for that number to go down once Health Care Reform become a reality.



If you ve noticed that most (almost all of them) of those other countries spend proportionally less on healthcare than the US does and all the countries ranked above the US have "socialized healthcare", so your reasoning is when the US start socializing it: the rating will go down?


----------



## California Girl (Jan 4, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Do we really have to dig out those stats of how the US leads in life expectancy after things like heart surgery and cancers? You know all those numbers that the WHO didn't use.....



That, when combined with the 'self reporting' methodology leaves much room for skepticism when it comes to WHO stats. Governments reporting their own figures.... nope, no reason to doubt those.


----------



## Alvin (Jan 4, 2010)

California Girl said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Do we really have to dig out those stats of how the US leads in life expectancy after things like heart surgery and cancers? You know all those numbers that the WHO didn't use.....
> ...



I love this debate tactic. "<insert Country/Organization/Political Party> hates America"

I have the same question every time:

Why?

Please can someone for the love of...tell me _why_ the WHO would find statistics which dilibratly make the US look bad?

Anyone?


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 4, 2010)

This is all a failure of Americans to accept reality.
The USA is not tops in all things.  Actually we are tops in very few things.

but my dog just has to be bigger than your dog and my daddy can whip your daddy!


----------



## California Girl (Jan 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



  That's because the CIA use the WHO for the stats.   That doesn't make the stats themselves any more accurate. Idiot.


----------



## Alvin (Jan 4, 2010)

California Girl said:


> That's because the CIA use the WHO for the stats.   That doesn't make the stats themselves any more accurate. Idiot.



You'ld think they'd "sex" that one up too wouldn't you.....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



With the usual childlike liberal attention to details, your post- unlike mine, does not indicate what goes into those statistics.

Have someone with above average liberal intellect explain how those stats have a different

 import once you understand what goes into the summary that you produce.


Review: when considering only those aspects which pertain to health care, and can be

controlled by healthcare, the United States has the longest life expectancy, and the best

 healthcare in the world.

Consider the following as an indictment:

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)


----------



## California Girl (Jan 4, 2010)

Alvin said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > That's because the CIA use the WHO for the stats.   That doesn't make the stats themselves any more accurate. Idiot.
> ...



Nope. They are meaningless stats. Any stats that are self reported cannot be taken as legitimate. It doesn't take much intellect to work out why governments might 'exaggerate' their figures.


----------



## Alvin (Jan 4, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Mistake lies right there.

If that was true you would have to set your criteria with regards to what is and isn't healthcare very strictly to ensure that the US didn't come out on top. And then apply it to the entire group to produce the desired result.


----------



## Alvin (Jan 4, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Alvin said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Then why didn't the US?


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 4, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Alvin said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



true, so how much do we exaggerate our figures?
Are we lower than 37?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jan 4, 2010)

1. america is #1.
2. if somehow america is not #1 the stats are lying and #1 remains valid.
3. if the list lists undesirable traits, america is #1 as seen from the other side of the list.
4. america is #1


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 4, 2010)

There is a no fact zone that requires the denial of any study, field of science, court documents, statistics or diocumentation that doesnt support what htey already believe.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 4, 2010)

Political Chic, I would have spread some rep to you for the 1st reply about the accuracy of the statistics.  It was the well thought out and worded challenge and made a similar point to mine about our miserable diet 

(I swear I ate a whole Imos Pizza the other night.  Thank god I'm 6'+ or this 220 lbs would be difficult to carry)

Another good point I believe from another was the "well Ted Kennedy didn't go to xxxx country for his treatment".

On a side note, I'm looking for statistics on infant mortality of African Americans compared to Caucasians of the same income level. I'd love to compare it based on age and other life choice factors but I'll settle.  This ranking of us as 14th if you remove Americans of African heritage was interesting.  Genetic or social/economic?  I dunno.

Infant mortality report neglects the most important detail - AmyTuteurMD - Open Salon


> The authors mention the impact of race on prematurity, but they never adjust for it. The CDC Wonder website gives us access to the same database that MacDorman used in the study. Therefore, we can adjust for race. Doing so, would put the US 14th in the rankings.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 4, 2010)

Why would ANY study remove part of the population and think that number reflects the country as a whole?


----------



## Joe Steel (Jan 4, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Do we really have to dig out those stats of how the US leads in life expectancy after things like heart surgery and cancers? You know all those numbers that the WHO didn't use.....
> ...



Just spin.

The imagined short-comings of the WHO report affect everyone.  The net effect is a wash.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 4, 2010)

Toronado3800 said:


> Political Chic, I would have spread some rep to you for the 1st reply about the accuracy of the statistics.  It was the well thought out and worded challenge and made a similar point to mine about our miserable diet
> 
> (I swear I ate a whole Imos Pizza the other night.  Thank god I'm 6'+ or this 220 lbs would be difficult to carry)
> 
> ...



"I would have spread some rep to you for the 1st reply about the accuracy of the statistics.  It was the well thought out and worded challenge and made a similar point to mine about our miserable diet"

Yes, I tried to give you a rep as well, and it was denied.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 4, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



You must read more carefully.

The point is that the criteria used by WHO hardly rate healthcare, and, thus are more along the lines of a polemic, than a conclusion.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 4, 2010)

Alvin said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



The WHO don't deliberately try to make the US look bad. The WHO don't 'find' the statistics, they send out the questionnaires to individual countries and gather the statistics.  They don't give a shit. However, individual countries lie about their responses. Why do they want to make us look bad?  They don't. They just don't want their own citizens to know the truth about their own statistics. It has absolutely nothing to do with the US, it has to do with individual governments wanting their own statistics to look better than they actually are.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jan 4, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Alvin said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



so the US government is #37 in pimping their numbers?

or do you think that the US government is the one government that does not want their own statistics to look better than they actually are.

or the USA is #1 in playing by international rules, hahahahaha, and reports the true numbers, whereas 36 devious nations totally play unfair ,hahahaha


hahahahahahahahhaha


----------



## California Girl (Jan 4, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Alvin said:
> ...



I have no idea whether the US 'exaggerates' their stats or not. I do know that researchers are skeptical of the WHO data because it is self-reported. Shooting the messenger is kinda dumb, don'tcha think?  But, if you feel so desperate to make me look stupid, please do continue trying... eventually you may succeed.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jan 4, 2010)

California Girl said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



you don't need help in that department.


----------



## Joe Steel (Jan 4, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > You must read more carefully.
> ...


----------



## California Girl (Jan 4, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



So, you have nothing of substance about the stats. Color me Surprised Pink! You ASSUmed facts not in evidence, I made you look a fool and all you have left is a whine.   An honest poster would have recognized the validity of the actual point instead of a whiny comeback. Again, you try and fail to make me look stupid... but succeeded making yourself look a fool without any effort on my part. What a loser you are.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 4, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jan 4, 2010)

California Girl said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...




i am an honest poster and i recognize your whiny comeback. i also recognize your constant prancing around, and i also recognize the numerous times where you're hitting your enormous gasbag of an airhead on the sharp edges of consistency, modesty and decency. 

but i also recognize your enormous, seemingly endless supply of hot air and that is why you still cannot recognize the myriad of holes in said gasbag and i certainly recognize that those holes emit a foul swamp-gas which has polluted this forum for months now.

did this post contain enough "recognize"? i think so.


----------



## Christopher (Jan 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The lower life expectancy in the US is not caused by our health care system.  Look at this study:  http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

There are many other factors as well that affect a certain population's overall health that health care systems have little control of.  Which is why we should not put so much weight on the WHO ranking as a reason for more health care reform.


----------



## Christopher (Jan 4, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



PoliticalChic provided plenty of credible sources to support her position on the subject in post #13.  I have not seen one person in this thread dispute the evidence she presented.


----------



## Alvin (Jan 4, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Those factors effect every country.


----------



## Joe Steel (Jan 4, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Now I understand.  You're a wingnut.

That explains the ranting.

Nevermind.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 4, 2010)

Alvin said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Either you haven't read the thread carefully, of you suffer from ADD.

Allow me to reprise this aspect: Sweden and the United States have very different populations, as below, so this blows your comment out of the water.

Rarely reported in comparing infant mortality rates it the negative effect of very pre-term babies, whose death rate is far higher than full term.  When comparing the US infant mortality rate to such category-stars as in this NYTimes report of 11/4/09:
If the United States could match Swedens prematurity rate, the new report said, nearly 8,000 infant deaths would be averted each year, and the U.S. infant mortality rate would be one-third lower.

We find the usual anti-US slant of the Times, in not mentioning that race is the reason:

The use of this example highlights to disingenuousness of the authors. In their supposedly detailed report on infant mortality, they fail to analyze the most important detail: race. Unfortunately, African descent is a major risk factor for prematurity, and prematurity is a major cause of infant mortality. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than Sweden. The US has the highest proportion of women of African descent of any first world country. Sweden, of course, has virtually none. So our higher rate of infant mortality does not reflect poor medical care. It reflects factors beyond the control of doctors. Race is an uncontrollable factor; obstetricians and pediatricians have no control over assisted reproductive techniques. In fact, the data actually show obstetricians and pediatricians do a remarkable job of ensuring infant health.

Infant mortality report neglects the most important detail - AmyTuteurMD - Open Salon

One factor contributing to the U.S.'s infant mortality rate is that blacks have intractably high infant mortality rates -- irrespective of age, education, socioeconomic status and so on. No one knows why. 

Neither medical care nor discrimination can explain it: Hispanics in the U.S. have lower infant mortality rates than either blacks or whites. Give Switzerland or Japan our ethnically diverse population and see how they stack up on infant mortality rates.
A Statistical Analysis of Maritime Unemployment Rates, 1946-1948. Just Kidding, More Liberal Lies About National Healthcare! - HUMAN EVENTS


----------



## Joe Steel (Jan 4, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Alvin said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



So  your entire argument is, when we cherry-pick the data, we can make the US look pretty good?


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 4, 2010)

With the recently enacted watered down healthcare bill we should climb to 36!


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jan 4, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Alvin said:
> ...




exactly.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 4, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



What I recognize is that you fail to address the points I make. You consistently attack me personally. That's absolutely fine and dandy but it is also glaringly obvious to anyone who reads both our posts that you cannot dispute what I say, only that you whine about me. 

I feel sorry for your OCD behavior towards me. Makes me laugh that you complain about my language, yet when your little friends call me a c*nt, you find no issue with that. How many standards do you have, cuz by my calculations its not just double.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 4, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Alvin said:
> ...



You really are dense, aren't you- or at the very least, tortuous in your logic.

There is no 'argument', I have simply established that when one considers all factors that actually relate to the efficacy of a nations' healthcare, the United States is number one in the world.

The proof is that none of the blockheads who attempt the perpetual downgrade of the United States, healthcare or any other aspect, have claimed that street crime, obesity, automobile accidents, and that there is a segment of the population has an "intractably high infant mortality rate" are due to healthcare insurance, or healthcare availability, or the fault of healthcare professionals.


Now, I have always premised that the left is peopled by many folks childlike in their outlook, and I wonder if the inability to consider the multiple factors that go into healthcare outcomes, and the factors that do not, is another indication of said immaturity. Don't you agree?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 4, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Unless you are still in grade school, you must be eternally obtuse to miss the overarching* leftward tilt of the UN, of which the WHO is a part, the Nobel Committee, and most Social-Democrat governments of the EU.*
> 
> Either that, or you have imbibed, and accepted, the public school indocrination that denies American exceptionalism, and does all it can to find fault with the finest country in the world.
> 
> Did you know that Stalin means 'steel one,' or did you choose it for that reason?



I know whole threads get moved to the conspiracy theory folder, but on occasion a post should, too. This is one of those times..

Your pathological denial of anything bad about America - and if proven, it is a liberal/'the world hates America' conspiracy - boarders on the hysterical.

Get over yourself. Like a lot of other countries, America has a tonne of problems, and it not as great as you would like it to be. My evidence? Go to any thread on this board and look at the whining and whinging that goes on EVERY day about your country - no matter who's in power.

Get over yourself PC...A lot of good about America, a lot of bad. Who's to blame for the bad is the contentious point...libs say Bush/Cheney cabal, righties Obama/Pelosi faction - truth probably lies somewhere in between.

And if you think that your health stats put you at No. 37 because your guys told the 'truth' and the other 36 'fudged' their stats, I got a beach front property in the Yukon to sell ya....


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jan 4, 2010)

California Girl said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



do i hear a whining sound about my consistently attacking you personally? hahaha, idiot. i am hyper-intelligent, and your are stupid. idiot. idiot. ADDRESS my points. idiot. ha, idiot!
isn't it sad that posters are so indecent to each other. IDIOT. liberals are scum. only idiots make sweeping generalizations. i am fed up with the way the evil liberals treat me, they should be fucked with a rusty shovel. idiot. HEY look at me, i am cute! give me attention, Chocolate. IDIOT. stop whining, OHHHH i so totally hate whining. idiot. oxford, oxford, blonde, IDIOT. please like me, i don't care about rep, iDIOT. fucking fucking fucking idiot!1!

and where the fuck did i complain about your language, whiny little sniveling brat? 

i made it clear several times that i am highlighting your inconsistencies.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 4, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you are still in grade school, you must be eternally obtuse to miss the overarching leftward tilt of the UN, of which the WHO is a part, the Nobel Committee, and most Social-Democrat governments of the EU.
> ...




"A lot of good about America, a lot of bad..."   Fair enough.

As far as America's position in the world, I like to use the 'gates test.'

When the gates are lifted, folks run in here, not out.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 4, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



They run into Australia, NZ, Canada and Europe, too....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 4, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



So, what's keeping you?


----------



## Alvin (Jan 4, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Alvin said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 4, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



From what?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 4, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Australia, NZ, Canada and Europe,


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 4, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Nothing...for 40 years I lived in NZ, and for the past two in Aust...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 4, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...





And don't forget- you've got friends here in the best country in the world.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 4, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I also have friends in the US....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 4, 2010)

Alvin said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Oh, please.  It has to be "dilibratly" trying to make the US look bad, as opposed to just propagandizing for a general worldview?  Get over your persecution complex.

You twerps really don't deserve this.  I ought to make you take your lazy butts out to go through the umpteen threads that have ALREADY been done on this to find the answers.

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&#8212;some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares.  The analysts behind the WHO rankings express the hope that their framework &#8220;will lay the basis for a shift from ideological discourse on health policy to a more empirical one.&#8221; Yet the WHO rankings themselves have a strong ideological component. They include factors that are arguably unrelated to actual health performance, some of which could even improve in response to worse health performance. Even setting those concerns aside, the rankings are still highly sensitive to both measurement error and assumptions about the relative importance of the components.  And finally, the WHO rankings reflect implicit value judgments and lifestyle preferences that differ among individuals and across countries.  - _The Cato Institute_ (They said it better than I could, and it was faster.)

The first thing to realize about the WHO health care ranking system is that there is more than one. One ranking claims to measure &#8220;overall attainment&#8221; (OA) while another claims to measure &#8220;overall performance&#8221; (OP) . . . When using the WHO rankings, one should specify which ranking is being used:  OA or OP.

Many popular reports, however, do not specify the ranking used and some appear to have drawn from both. CNN.com, for example, reported that both Canada and France rank in the top 10, while the United States ranks 37th. There is no ranking for which both claims are true. Using OP, the United States does rank 37th. But while France is number 1 on OP, Canada is 30.  Using OA, the United States ranks 15th, while France and Canada rank 6th and 7th, respectively.


----------



## jillian (Jan 4, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 4, 2010)

Alvin said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Alvin said:
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 4, 2010)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Yeah, I gave him a rep.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 4, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Alvin said:
> ...



It seems YOUR entire argument is, "When I cherrypick the quotes, I can continue to believe the US sucks." God forbid you read with an open mind, where you MIGHT have to actually hear something that contradicts your chosen worldview.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 4, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Move along folks, no irony in the above post..

.no threads on this board from righties saying how socialised medicine sucks..

...move along, nothing to read here.....


----------



## Joe Steel (Jan 4, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I wish I had that kind of nerve.


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 4, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



Pure unmitigated gall.  Most Psycopaths have it in abundance.


----------



## Joe Steel (Jan 4, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Even setting those concerns aside, the rankings are still highly sensitive to both measurement error and assumptions about the relative importance of the components.



As does every attempt to dismiss them.  The difference is the standards for the assumptions.  The WHO ranking reflects standards observed by most of the industrialized world.  The CATO attempt to dismiss the WHO ranking represent those of special interests.  Given a choice between the reasonable standards of the WHO and CATO's spin, the WHO ranking is better.


----------



## Joe Steel (Jan 4, 2010)

Alvin said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Alvin said:
> ...


----------



## Alvin (Jan 4, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Alvin said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...




Standards which are applied to _all_ countries in the study. Thats sort of the point. If you are allowed to cut out the bits you don't like then _every_ country shares the #1 position.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 4, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Even setting those concerns aside, the rankings are still highly sensitive to both measurement error and assumptions about the relative importance of the components.
> ...



I'm curious.  Do you actually imagine that choosing one sentence out of a rather long post to respond to impresses anyone or makes us think you're anything but a partisan hack?

When you grow a pair and can answer the entire post honestly and thoughtfully, come back and see me.  Until then, don't even bother, because you're just a cowardly waste of pixels.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



LOL. So what you are saying is that our own CIA is aiding and abetting these "*Socialistic!!!!!!'*nations. 

Nobody to trust but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee


----------



## elvis (Jan 4, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> How many times has this canard been debunked, just on this message board?  I've lost count.



Old Rocks?  He's been debunked many, many times.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



OK. So let's check that out. 30 years ago the life expectancy in Canada was almost exactly the same as ours. And their infant mortality rate was about the same. Then they instituted National Health Care. Now they live on the average 3 years longer than we do, and their infant mortality and early childhood mortality is far lower than ours.

Hmm...........


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Even setting those concerns aside, the rankings are still highly sensitive to both measurement error and assumptions about the relative importance of the components.
> ...



Would that be the OA or the OP?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 4, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> [
> 
> I'm curious.  Do you actually imagine that choosing one sentence out of a rather long post to respond to impresses anyone or makes us think you're anything but a partisan hack?
> 
> When you grow a pair and can answer the entire post honestly and thoughtfully, come back and see me.  Until then, don't even bother, because you're just a cowardly waste of pixels.



In that case, pot meet kettle..

maybe the rest of your post was just a partisan rant. He made a good point, yet you ignore it. Go figure....


----------



## elvis (Jan 4, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Your system is probably better than Canada's.  Canada's is terrible.  People wait for months for things they should be able to get the same day.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 4, 2010)

elvis3577 said:


> Your system is probably better than Canada's.  Canada's is terrible.  People wait for months for things they should be able to get the same day.



We have both private and public. Public offers waiting lists, but private you get seen more or less straight away.

however, if EVERYBODY had private, there are not enough doctors and facilities to cater for everybody's needs. I'm betting it's the same in the US. If every single person in the US had private, would they ALL get seen to when they are needed to?


----------



## elvis (Jan 4, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Your system is probably better than Canada's.  Canada's is terrible.  People wait for months for things they should be able to get the same day.
> ...



the US ranks first in response time.  Implement canada's system, and that ranking will plummet.


----------



## jillian (Jan 4, 2010)

elvis3577 said:


> the US ranks first in response time.  Implement canada's system, and that ranking will plummet.



if that were the case, why would Canadians have picked the man who developed their health care system as the most respected Canadian?

if someone has no health insurance and can't afford doctors, do you really think their world ends if they have to wait a little?

for people who CAN afford to pay, they'll still get the most immediate care.


----------



## elvis (Jan 4, 2010)

jillian said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > the US ranks first in response time.  Implement canada's system, and that ranking will plummet.
> ...



you call waiting for months for an X-ray a little?  and what was Bush's approval rating?  90 percent?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 4, 2010)

Alvin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Alvin said:
> ...



Way to totally miss the fucking point, Brain Trust.


----------



## jillian (Jan 4, 2010)

elvis3577 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...




i have never heard of anyone waiting months for x-rays. but do you think even if that were the case, that someone who couldn't have had the x-ray at all would care?

it was 90% after 9.11. why?

reagan's was the same as obama's at this point.

what was bush's approval rating when he left office? 28%?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2010)

jillian said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



If they live long enough.........


----------



## elvis (Jan 4, 2010)

jillian said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



there is no "I can't afford it" in Canada.  because it's socialized.  If socialism works so well in medicine, why don't they implement it in other sectors?   Doesn't Medicaid cover X-rays?  I'll be back in a while.


----------



## Christopher (Jan 4, 2010)

Alvin said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You are right, they do.  The problem with the US is that we have a higher percentage of people living unhealthy lifestyles.  As an example, we have had the highest level of cigarette/tobacco use per capita during a fifty year period up until the 1980s (according to the study I gave).  We are now seeing the effects of that use in our population.  This same study found quoted from another study:



> One recent study estimated that, if deaths attributable to smoking were eliminated, the ranking of US men in life expectancy at age 50 among 20 OECD countries would improve from 14th to 9th, while US women would move from 18th to 7th (Preston, Glei, and Wilmoth 2009).



That is a big jump just because of how many more smokers we have had over the years.  Here is another item they mentioned in the study, which shows that the US also has higher obesity rates:



> Recent trends in obesity are also more adverse in the United States
> than in other developed countries (OECD 2008; Cutler, Glaeser, and Shapiro 2003).



And another fact from the study:



> The United States has a higher prevalence than
> Europe of the major adult diseases, including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes (Thorpe et al. 2007a; Avendano et al. 2009).



We have actually made great strides in educating people about the effects of tobacco, and will likely see the results of this in the next few decades as fewer people die of lung cancer.  All of these facts need to considered and taken into context with the WHO ranking if we are to really understand why we are ranked 37th.  The fact remains that from this study there is not much we can do to reform our health care system that will affect our ranking.  How about we start caring about the root causes of the problem and work through ways of educating and providing incentives to live healthier?  Lets just stop pretending that being ranked 37th by the World Health Organization means we need to drastically reform our health care system, when all we really need to do is change our lifestyles.


----------



## Christopher (Jan 4, 2010)

Alvin said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Alvin said:
> ...


----------



## Christopher (Jan 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So, your attempt at tying mortality statistics together with Canadas health care system changes with absolutely no basis for the correlation disproves the study I provided?  Try again.


----------



## manu1959 (Jan 4, 2010)

yep...america is awful.....people should move to the other 36 nations which are better.....and california...it is the worst...stay away at all costs.....


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 4, 2010)

Don't take it personally when I say "America isn't #1" in something.  When all is combined I think we do pretty darn well.  Even if we do eat too many cheeseburgers for our already socialized healthcare system to keep us alive lol.

No really.  We already have socialized medicine.  This is just an attempt to bring it all above the table.

Think about it.  Even w/o Medicare or Medicade if I crawl into the hospital with a broken leg they'll fix it even if I'm broke and uninsured.  They'll even begin long term care for cancer or HIV for me.  Not as good as for Magic Johnson but hey, I'll rack up tens of thousands in bills everyone else pays for.


----------



## Munin (Jan 5, 2010)

elvis3577 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



You re missing the whole point of a healthcare system: it is supposed to take care of all the people that live in a nation. It s like the US army that is supposed to protect all americans, healthcare should be seen in the same category. A government should protect its people from harm and give them the means to protect themselves, a private healthcare industry does not do this: just like a private army wouldn't do it either. 

And if you ve noticed: it is implemented in other sectors (the police, the fire department, justice system, the government itself: politicians have healthcare payed for by the taxpayers, ...)


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 5, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *Real rockin' music!*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4



Unbelievable. We seem to go through this outright lie every few months.

It is a simple concept. There are NO uniform reporting procedures, each Country is free to report what it wants based on what it determines is appropriate.

Example...

Live births. The US reports every birth that occurs that the infant is alive ON BIRTH. No matter the viability of keeping said infant alive. Other Countries do not. Some have a waiting period during which if the infant dies, it is NOT considered to have been a live birth. Each individual Country determines how it will determine what it reports and there are NO uniform procedures.

This means trying to compare countries across the world is a waste of time.


----------



## Alvin (Jan 5, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> What an absurd post.
> 
> And absurd is the kindest that I could be.
> 
> ...



Nice to see you are keeping it classy as ever.......

The point still remains that _all_ countries in the study were graded impartially on the criteria set forth by the WHO.
If the result is not to your liking, then tough. No participant gets to cut out the ugly bits because it makes them look bad.

Check out these few gems....
NationMaster - Health Statistics
Deaths from cancer, the US ranks #9. I'm sure that the 8 above it would like to cut out those statistics because obviously its a cultural thing...
Or how about Suicide rates? The US is #30. Obviously the 29 above have cultural issues...best if they could cut those numbers out...
Heart disease? The US is joint #5 with the UK. I wish my country could cut out that particular statistic, but we don't get to.
The US is #68 in HIV AIDS and 143 in child malnutrition. But if you take those cultural statistics out, then all of those poor African countries start to look mighty sweet.....


----------



## Joe Steel (Jan 5, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Are you saying the sentence I quoted doesn't reflect your opinion?  In what way?

Frankly, I agree with it.  Every ranking based on multiple attributes certainly will reflect value judgements.  Isn't that what you were trying to say?


----------



## Joe Steel (Jan 5, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



What is "OA?"


----------



## California Girl (Jan 5, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Real rockin' music!*
> ...



When even the WHO itself is skeptical of its own stats, I think that tells us a significant amount. You cannot take self reported figures as accurate, therefore the US could be 37, it could be 1, it could be 137. There is no legitimate way to be sure. Add in the discrepancies on the way the figures are reported and basically the WHO stats are meaningless as evidence for or against a single payer system.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 5, 2010)

I'll settle with figuring the U.S. is someplace around #37.  When I first read it I figured 27 to 47 was a probable range.  Our docs are sure to lie about something as well.  Sure as a country on the whole we're overweight.  I'm sure the Irish drink too much beer.  The Mexicans eat too many beans.  The Somali's are malnourished.  None of any of that is their doctor's fault.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 5, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...





> The first thing to realize about the WHO health care ranking system is that there is more than one. One ranking claims to measure overall attainment (OA) while another claims to measure overall performance (OP) . . . When using the WHO rankings, one should specify which ranking is being used: OA or OP.


Cecilie1200


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 5, 2010)

Munin said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Why do I always get cold chills every time one of you adolescents blithely trots out the phrase "should be"?

Demonstrate for me, please, the "should be" in healthcare being viewed as similar to the army, as opposed to a commodity similar to, say, food.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 5, 2010)

Alvin said:


> Nice to see you are keeping it classy as ever.......
> 
> The point still remains that _all_ countries in the study were graded impartially on the criteria set forth by the WHO.
> If the result is not to your liking, then tough. No participant gets to cut out the ugly bits because it makes them look bad.
> ...



Oh, for God's sake.  The point, Brain Trust, since you can't seem to find it unless someone smacks you across the face with it, is that it doesn't matter how "impartially" you apply your criteria when the fucking criteria themselves are biased.

Now would you like me to explain that the sky is blue and water is wet, or can you manage those tricky permutations yourself?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 5, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, for God's sake.  The point, Brain Trust, since you can't seem to find it unless someone smacks you across the face with it, is that it doesn't matter how "impartially" you apply your criteria when the fucking criteria themselves are biased.
> 
> Now would you like me to explain that the sky is blue and water is wet, or can you manage those tricky permutations yourself?



You do realise that you come across as an arrogant tosspot in every post, which is why most people ignore your blather.

Your self-aggrandizing, self-promotion as the be-all and end-all of any subject might work in the trailer park, but on here you seem nothing but a vacuous, busy-body who knows fuck-all, while trying to come across as the Grand Mufti of all subjects.

Pull your head and start posting to people with respect you loser....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 5, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> You do realise that you come across as an arrogant tosspot in every post, which is why most people ignore your blather.
> 
> Your self-aggrandizing, self-promotion as the be-all and end-all of any subject might work in the trailer park, but on here you seem nothing but a vacuous, busy-body who knows fuck-all, while trying to come across as the Grand Mufti of all subjects.
> 
> Pull your head and start posting to people with respect you loser....



If you are stating that that post is my language, my post, you are either in error or outright lying.

While I try to avoid the term 'lie,' this post is you are attributing it to me, is a fabricated slander.

You should apologize. 
__________________


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 5, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> You do realise that you come across as an arrogant tosspot in every post, which is why most people ignore your blather.
> 
> Your self-aggrandizing, self-promotion as the be-all and end-all of any subject might work in the trailer park, but on here you seem nothing but a vacuous, busy-body who knows fuck-all, while trying to come across as the Grand Mufti of all subjects.
> 
> Pull your head and start posting to people with respect you loser....



Sir, the post originally said 'PoliticalChic' as writer of the post.

Am I to understand that you now changed the quote to 'Alvin'?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 5, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> You do realise that you come across as an arrogant tosspot in every post, which is why most people ignore your blather.
> 
> Your self-aggrandizing, self-promotion as the be-all and end-all of any subject might work in the trailer park, but on here you seem nothing but a vacuous, busy-body who knows fuck-all, while trying to come across as the Grand Mufti of all subjects.
> 
> Pull your head and start posting to people with respect you loser....



I see, you have taken post #109 and erroneously attributed same to me.

You do owe me an apology.


----------



## Article 15 (Jan 5, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> I see, you have taken post #109 and erroneously attributed same to me.
> 
> You do owe me an apology.



He doesn't owe you anything.  Anyone with any sense can just look up a couple of posts and see that Cecille wrote that and that the quotes are all fucked up.


----------



## Article 15 (Jan 5, 2010)

*I'm in the process of trying to correct the quotes in this thread.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 5, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I see, you have taken post #109 and erroneously attributed same to me.
> ...



Anyone with a sense of honor would know that an apology is owed...but that lets you out.


----------



## Article 15 (Jan 5, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Fuck off, ****.  How's that for some potty mouth?


----------



## Article 15 (Jan 5, 2010)

*The quotes have been fixed.  Please, ignore the few posts from PC.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 5, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



And in some way you think that is clever?

Some upbringing.


----------



## Article 15 (Jan 5, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Clever?  No. 

I wasn't aiming for that.  

I was calling you a **** because you were acting like a ****.  So how about you go **** it up elsewhere?  This situation has been resolved.

You're welcome BTW.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 5, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



No, the poster who erred might be obliged to thank you.

An apology, not the correction would have been appropriate...but appropriate isn't something you are regularly in contact with.

But be sure, your use of vile language won't lower my opinion of you. Any further.


----------



## Article 15 (Jan 5, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Your'e the one who made an ass of herself making 3 straight posts accusing another poster of erroniously attributing a quote to you when it was obvious that all the quotes on the page were fucked up.

You were the one cunting about it.  Noboby else.  I fixed your problem.

Now piss off.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 5, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> I see, you have taken post #109 and erroneously attributed same to me.
> 
> You do owe me an apology.



Between me posting it and Article 15 fixing it, it didn't change for me...so I have no idea what you are talking about...


----------



## Article 15 (Jan 5, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I see, you have taken post #109 and erroneously attributed same to me.
> ...



To be fair, the post you directed at Cecille actually does a damn good job of describing PC, too.  It's a wonder she couldn't figure out it wasn't directed at her ....


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 5, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Hmmm...I actually find PC not as acerbic, and does have a sense of humour and is intelligent, although sometimes too condescending.

Cecile is condescending all the time, and somehow believes she is the final word on any subject. She's not a debater, she's a totalitarian fucktard...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Real rockin' music!*
> ...



Sarge, as a person with socialized medicine, it is very safe for you to wish that others not have it.

No, when France and Japan have a much higher longevity, that means that they are doing something right.

When a country like Canada has almost exactly the same health statics as we do, then switchs to socialized medicine, and within 30 years, has far better stats than we do in longevity and early childhood mortality, I would say that that is proof that they did the smart thing in adapting their system. Especially when their system costs less per capita, and they cover everybody.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 6, 2010)

I'm condescending too!

It is amazing how upset folks get.  These types of discussions would start fights on the street corner.  And that would be good because even the biggest baddest dudes get whacked upside the head with a stick every soo often and then learn how to discuss things with others.

There, I was condescending!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 6, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > You do realise that you come across as an arrogant tosspot in every post, which is why most people ignore your blather.
> ...



I believe he was talking to me.  The problem is that HE is self-aggrandizing when he imagines that I consider him intelligent enough to not have on ignore.  He is mistaken on that score.

I always find it amusing, though, when someone I consider beneath contempt imagines that he's going to intimidate me with the threat that I might not have HIS admiration.  Oh, noes!  Whatever shall I do?!


----------



## rdean (Jan 6, 2010)

#37?  Republicans feel thatis way too high.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 6, 2010)

Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada.
Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog

Death from cancer by country. Definition, graph and map.

Heart disease deaths statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

I don't think with real numbers reported instead of whatever WHo wants to use that the USA could be #37 when the 2 biggest death risks we are at 9 and 13.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 6, 2010)

Very nice. But we still lag most industrial nations in longevity. And Cancer and Heart Disease are not the only killers.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 6, 2010)

Libruls say the us health care system sucks, right up to the time they get sick, then they're pushing old ladies and illegals out of the way to be seen by a US doctor


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 6, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I believe he was talking to me.  The problem is that HE is self-aggrandizing when he imagines that I consider him intelligent enough to not have on ignore.  He is mistaken on that score.
> 
> I always find it amusing, though, when someone I consider beneath contempt imagines that he's going to intimidate me with the threat that I might not have HIS admiration.  Oh, noes!  Whatever shall I do?!



Oh, I know you have me on ignore...this was more for the other folk on the board 

Yeah, I'm really self-aggrandizing (rolls eyes)...get your own lines, Fraud....

I rarely post to you, but when you start polluting threads I'm on, I dunno, just have to say something I guess...

....I was not trying to threaten you at all, and why the fuck would I want a piece of trailer trash like yourself to have my admiration? There is no sense of admiration in what I posted to you, therefore I don't covet yours. Just letting you know vicariously how full of shit you are...

As for being beneath contempt...well, at least you and I have ONE thing in common....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Very nice. But we still lag most industrial nations in longevity. And Cancer and Heart Disease are not the only killers.



No but they are the biggest killers. And with the 9 and 13 ratings there.................Think about it.


----------



## jillian (Jan 6, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe he was talking to me.  The problem is that HE is self-aggrandizing when he imagines that I consider him intelligent enough to not have on ignore.  He is mistaken on that score.
> ...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 6, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada.
> Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog
> 
> Death from cancer by country. Definition, graph and map.
> ...



Interesting that on the Death From Cancer by country six of the countries, that have better rates are European, and are heavily socialised....just sayin'....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 6, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada.
> ...



Which of those countries did Ted Kennedy pick for his cancer treatment...just saying.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 6, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada.
> Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog
> 
> Death from cancer by country. Definition, graph and map.
> ...



That heart disease graph is an interesting one. NZers are high on the list (I think) because we have a very heavy dairy diet - lotsa cheese, milk etc. The Japanese have a very much a seafood based diet. Also, the Czech's and Hungarians smoke a lot, but so do the Japanese and French. Also the French eat a lot of cheese, but drink quite a bit of red wine too...

...would love to look into it more at some stage. Makes interesting reading...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 6, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Like 99 percent of people in the Western World, probably his own. That unusual? Do I need to look up a French, Swedish or British politician who did the same?

IOW, what's your point? People in the Western world use their country's health system? This is surprising to you?


----------



## Munin (Jan 6, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Munin said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



because healthcare belongs in the same "primitive human need category" as safety, as far as food is concerned: farmers in the US are being subsidized on a large scale by the government. Why? because it is not so safe to depend to much on foreign sources of food, imagine the price of food being as voilitale as the price of oil or another raw material that is being speculated on. By making sure the US has a large supply, it can prevent that from happening. The same could be done with healthcare, prices go down or up because of the suppy/demand equation => create a large supply side and prices will go down (that is why some liberals fancy state healthcare). Personally I do not believe in government healthcare on its own (because full government control is not the most efficient way to get results), but rather a mixed system that allows "decent" healthcare service (for the whole population) by letting the government pressure the private industry.

In the end healthcare, food (+ water) and the military are the most basic human needs, that is the reason that any civilized country has to take these issues seriously.

And btw I m not an adolescant (and neither are you I guess), maybe my english isn't so good as I wish it to be but that is because it is a foreign language to me (I m a european)).


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 6, 2010)

So, Ted Kennedy, dying of cancer, choose the USA only because he was too lazy to fly where they could give him life saving care...gotcha


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 6, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So, Ted Kennedy, dying of cancer, choose the USA only because he was too lazy to fly where they could give him life saving care...gotcha



????
What does one person's choice have to do with the argument? As I said, do I trot out a European example? Your point is frivolous at best....


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 6, 2010)

Munin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Munin said:
> ...




Interesting you put military as part of a basic human need. Never thought of that before. I thought food, shelter and clothing were the three basics.

As for Cesspit's insult, don't let it worry you. ALL her posts are littered with such. She's on a higher mental plain than the rest of us mere plebs dontcha know?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 6, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada.
> Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog
> 
> Death from cancer by country. Definition, graph and map.
> ...



I think it's interesting that the leftists never mention that in the category of responsiveness - which includes things like speed of service, protection of privacy, choice
of doctors, and quality of amenities - the US does extremely well even by the WHO standards.  Is that because they don't think those things matter, or because they don't want to say anything good about the US healthcare system?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 6, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada.
> ...




Say anything good about the US health care system when we have a fearsome leader who says the entire system is broke and apologizes to the world for the entire country, for everything? You must be joking.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 6, 2010)

Munin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Munin said:
> ...



Healthcare is a "primitive human need"?  Then how come it only became available AFTER humans stopped being primitive?

And by the way, food ISN'T a "primitive human need"?  Yet it's still a commodity, not a government-provided "right".  Hmmm.  More on this later.



Munin said:


> as far as food is concerned: farmers in the US are being subsidized on a large scale by the government. Why? because it is not so safe to depend to much on foreign sources of food, imagine the price of food being as voilitale as the price of oil or another raw material that is being speculated on. By making sure the US has a large supply, it can prevent that from happening.



Wrong on all counts.  First, none of this has anything to do with why the government interferes in food production in the US.  Quite simply, the government interferes because it can, and because once a government program starts, there is always a politician somewhere who refuses to let it die.  Simple as that.

The US is in no danger of being dependent on foreign sources of food to stave off starvation.  We import food for the simple reason that we're rich and we can, but we still produce plenty of food for ourselves AND other countries, and would actually produce MORE if the government didn't interfere for its own purposes.

And none of this answers the question of why food is a more basic human need than healthcare - than anything other than water, in fact - and yet is still a commodity which people are expected to purchase for themselves.



Munin said:


> The same could be done with healthcare, prices go down or up because of the suppy/demand equation => create a large supply side and prices will go down (that is why some liberals fancy state healthcare). Personally I do not believe in government healthcare on its own (because full government control is not the most efficient way to get results), but rather a mixed system that allows "decent" healthcare service (for the whole population) by letting the government pressure the private industry.



The government already interferes in and subsidizes healthcare more than it should, and the result has NOT been a drop in costs.  The government does not bring costs down.  It can't.  The most it can do is transfer the costs to someone else and attempt to hide it.  Sleight-of-hand and diversion might be good in a stage magician's show, but they're not helpful in healthcare debates.



Munin said:


> In the end healthcare, food (+ water) and the military are the most basic human needs, that is the reason that any civilized country has to take these issues seriously.
> 
> And btw I m not an adolescant (and neither are you I guess), maybe my english isn't so good as I wish it to be but that is because it is a foreign language to me (I m a european)).



I wasn't referring to your physical age or your English mastery.  I was referring to your mental and emotional development as evidenced by your posts.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 6, 2010)

Oh, yeah, I promised more on the idea of "human needs = provided by government", and then forgot.

The government doesn't provide things based on how important they are or how badly they're needed.  That is not the standard of measurement used (or, at least, it isn't supposed to be).  The government provides things which must be provided by the community as a whole, because they cannot be effectively provided by the individuals for themselves.  This is why the military (or, on smaller levels, law enforcement) is provided by the government:  they are things which must be done by the community at large.

Frankly, the more important something is, the more reason I would have to want to provide it for myself if at all possible, rather than looking to the government.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 6, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada.
> Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog
> 
> Death from cancer by country. Definition, graph and map.
> ...



I'll bite that death rates by any one item are an odd statistic.  For example, if the U.S. is #1 in preventing deaths by cancer then more folks are likely to die from heart disease and it will look like we're bad on hearts.  Also living past 50 greatly increases your chances of dying of old folks diseases.

So the argument of those who think our healthcare system is better than our life expectancy rate is two fold.  1. the stats are more skewed by different reporting techniques in other countries 2. our diets are so poor in the U.S. even very good doctors can't keep our big behinds alive.

I can't disagree with #2 at all.  #1 I'll even give some credit to.  I thus accept on the whole our medical care is better than #37.  Folks with money do come here for treatment more than we go to other countries.  Do I believe our medical care is #1?  No.  While our current system of socialized medicine does allow me life saving medical treatment even if I'm destitute it slacks a bit on quasi necessary treatment.


----------



## rdean (Jan 6, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Libruls say the us health care system sucks, right up to the time they get sick, then they're pushing old ladies and illegals out of the way to be seen by a US doctor



If the system were good, you wouldn't have to push "SF".

Gawd, Republicans are dumb.  You know that Republicans supported Iraq to include a "public option" in their constitution (Article 31 and 32).


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 6, 2010)

rdean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Libruls say the us health care system sucks, right up to the time they get sick, then they're pushing old ladies and illegals out of the way to be seen by a US doctor
> ...



Gawd you're dumb, it's their constitution not ours.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 6, 2010)

No way.  Any documentation anyone helped include that in the Iraqi Constitution?

You'd think if folks supported socialized healthcare in Iraq it would be supported here.

No one is that dumb to say "it's good for you but not us" with our battle over publicly recognized socialized medicine coming up.


----------



## Munin (Jan 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Munin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



maybe military isn't the right word: I should have used the word safety, but that wouldn't be as clear (it would be less obvious what I mean by "safety" in reality, because that would also include the CIA, the police and many other institutions). for example: If I were to survive on my own and just have food, shelter and clothing then I sure would like to have something that would allow me to keep those 3 things


----------



## Munin (Jan 7, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> > because healthcare belongs in the same "primitive human need category" as safety,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I never stated that food wasn't a "primitive human need", as far as healthcare is concerned: even the most primitive humans have used healthcare. This is not what we today have in the form of doctors and advanced medicines, but rather in the form of plants that were used for healing purposes. (And note that "primitive" does not mean that they were monkeys.)

In this age food is a commodity because there is so much provided to us (this is also because of government intervention, because normally the supply and demand curve fluctuate much more.), but it has never known the huge price increases that oil and other raw materials have endured during the last years. And when the food prices did get the incentive to rise (like during war or economic depression) the government has always acted to ensure that people got food.


"the government interferes because it can" That is a ridiculously weak argument, the government has been interfering in the food industry from the beginning of human history. And if that doesn't indicate to you how important it is then I m afraid nothing will.

I also never stated that the US is in danger of starvation (I even indicated the reasons why the opposite is true).We import because we are rich, because we can afford to diversify in food (like you said).
The US does not import because it is depending too much on food from foreign countries (as would be the case if we applied the rules of the free market on the US food industry: it would not be able to compete properly with the low wages in asia & africa) This is why only countries that can not produce enough food for themselfes are the ones who are technically not capable of doing so (and the ones living in a different century). 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/QUOTE]







> Munin said:
> 
> 
> > The same could be done with healthcare, prices go down or up because of the suppy/demand equation => create a large supply side and prices will go down (that is why some liberals fancy state healthcare). Personally I do not believe in government healthcare on its own (because full government control is not the most efficient way to get results), but rather a mixed system that allows "decent" healthcare service (for the whole population) by letting the government pressure the private industry.
> ...



Already your argument is proved wrong by the existence of this very thread we are posting in, "we re number 37". All countries that re ranked above the US don't seem to have had a problem with making less costs (in general) than what the private healthcare system of the US has been doing for decades. What the US government has been doing for the last decades by "interfering" was subsidizing the private healthcare industry, as such they have never really interfered with the private healthcare system (until now). And no this has nothing to do with a magician show, unless you are in a constant state of illusion and denial to accept reality.



Dr Grump said:


> As for Cesspit's insult, don't let it worry you. ALL her posts are littered with such. She's on a higher mental plain than the rest of us mere plebs dontcha know?


 maybe it is as he said? 








> Munin said:
> 
> 
> > In the end healthcare, food (+ water) and the military are the most basic human needs, that is the reason that any civilized country has to take these issues seriously.
> ...



Maybe you should elaborate on what specifically made you jump to that conclusion (sentences and words)? Everyone can "insult" others, there are only a few who can argue that it isn't an insult but reality


----------



## Alvin (Jan 7, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada.
> ...


Responsivness and effectivness are two different things?


----------



## Alvin (Jan 7, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Which of those countries did Ted Kennedy pick for his cancer treatment...just saying.



What country didn't cure him? - Just saying.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 7, 2010)

Alvin said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Which of those countries did Ted Kennedy pick for his cancer treatment...just saying.
> ...



Oh for goodness sake. Kennedy had terminal cancer. File it under 'death happens'. No country can save everyone. 

This stupid fucking whining gets no one anywhere. Just sayin'.


----------



## Alvin (Jan 7, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Alvin said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Which was my point pretty much. In the meantime he was still a sitting US Senitor and ellected to remain so until he was either cured or died.
- You can't do that from anywhere else but the US effectivly.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 7, 2010)

Alvin said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Alvin said:
> ...



I'm pretty confident that we are all aware of the way our government works. I suspect we don't need to be told by you.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 7, 2010)

Alvin said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Which of those countries did Ted Kennedy pick for his cancer treatment...just saying.
> ...



Cancer is a terminal illness in most cases...
Everyone will succumb to death

Just sayin'


----------



## Alvin (Jan 7, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Alvin said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty confident that we are all aware of the way our government works. I suspect we don't need to be told by you.
> ...


----------



## Alvin (Jan 7, 2010)

DiamondDave said:


> Alvin said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



As I said above


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 7, 2010)

> Already your argument is proved wrong by the existence of this very thread we are posting in, "we re number 37". All countries that re ranked above the US don't seem to have had a problem with making less costs (in general) than what the private healthcare system of the US has been doing for decades. What the US government has been doing for the last decades by "interfering" was subsidizing the private healthcare industry, as such they have never really interfered with the private healthcare system (until now). And no this has nothing to do with a magician show, unless you are in a constant state of illusion and denial to accept reality.


Are you saying the government hasn't been involved in medical care since now and healthcare in other countries is more cost effective?

I contend we already have a form of universal healthcare.  In general: If you get shot and show up at a hospital they give you a level of life saving treatment.  Maybe a 1990's level of tech gets used on ya, you won't get the best rehab, and VIP 70 year old Presidents are more likely to live through a few bullets to the chest, but you still get treated even if you're broke or not a citizen.

In specific I know a broke person with this rare Alpha1 disease.  Thanks to substandard insurance (her "fault" for not holding a decent job) She has to doctor shop a lot.  She gets treatments, pays some minimum payments for 6 months, then has to move on to a doctor she doesn't owe $xxxx to.  Who flips the bill?  We do.  Almost directly through higher costs for our treatment just like shoplifters drive up cost at the grocery store.  Indirectly because I suspect doctors get big government "welfare" like deductions or tax credits for services not paid for.


----------



## Alvin (Jan 8, 2010)

Toronado3800 said:


> I contend we already have a form of universal healthcare.  In general: If you get shot and show up at a hospital they give you a level of life saving treatment.  Maybe a 1990's level of tech gets used on ya, you won't get the best rehab, and VIP 70 year old Presidents are more likely to live through a few bullets to the chest, but you still get treated even if you're broke or not a citizen..



Just a point, - You do get the same level of trauma care as everyone else in that instance. Trauma care is pretty much standard. It's what happens after that makes the difference AFIK.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 8, 2010)

Mark B. Constantian: Where U.S. Health Care Ranks Number One - WSJ.com


> Last August the cover of Time pictured President Obama in white coat and stethoscope. The story opened: "The U.S. spends more to get less [health care] than just about every other industrialized country." This trope has dominated media coverage of health-care reform. Yet a majority of Americans opposes Congress's health-care bills. Why?
> _
> The comparative ranking system that most critics cite comes from the U.N.'s World Health Organization (WHO). The ranking most often quoted is Overall Performance, where the U.S. is rated No. 37_. _*The Overall Performance Index, however, is adjusted to reflect how well WHO officials believe that a country could have done in relation to its resources.*_
> 
> ...


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jan 8, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> Mark B. Constantian: Where U.S. Health Care Ranks Number One - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> > Last August the cover of Time pictured President Obama in white coat and stethoscope. The story opened: "The U.S. spends more to get less [health care] than just about every other industrialized country." This trope has dominated media coverage of health-care reform. Yet a majority of Americans opposes Congress's health-care bills. Why?
> ...



cool the nosejob-expert does the typical cherry-picking. let's see where is the USA #1? ah responsiveness! ergo, isn't health care essentially responsiveness: #1,#1,#1.
the second trick is even better, hahahah. US is #1 in spending, because the others fail to spend more. haha. nice.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 8, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Mark B. Constantian: Where U.S. Health Care Ranks Number One - WSJ.com
> ...



So the subjective nature of the WHO opinions or excuse me "unbiased study" is OK with you?

And tell me when did spending less on research development and implementation ever give anyone better service.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jan 8, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



the WHO is quite open in where the weak aspects of the study lie. the say so in their introduction to the report, and in the explanatory notes. what is not believable is this conspiratorial crap that they are out to get the USA and that that is the reason why the USA is ranking where they do. to me it is also very transparent how certain people argue to discredit this study by finding a way to throw out data that does not agree with their preconceived notion, in this case the notion that the USA is #1.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 8, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Then tell me why did a country like Greece whose survival rates from heart transplants was 50% got a higher rank than the US? tell me would you rather go to a hospital in Greece or one in the US?

WHO will assume any country without universal care has worse care than a country with universal care.


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 8, 2010)

All thses experts on the WHO on here.  It is simply amazing.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jan 8, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



maybe the heart transplantation survival rate is not the most important parameter when you try to measure the whole system, level AND distribution.  

you can always cherry pick one parameter and ask why, why, why? 

what about the liposuction survival rate? or how long is the waiting list for a correctional surgery for a botched nosejob (ask constantian)?

as for where i would like to go into a hospital, this is a great time to ask me that. lol
anecdotal, of course, but i certainly would not go to deliver a child in a certain midtown manhattan hospital. haha


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 8, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> All thses experts on the WHO on here.  It is simply amazing.



Ya' think maybe the WHO is a good enough expert on the WHO?

 WHO/UN states that their data &#8220;is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research&#8221; and when they couldn&#8217;t find data, they &#8220;developed [data] through a variety of techniques.&#8221; WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro&#8217;s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General


----------



## JimH52 (Jan 8, 2010)

Excellent!  Tea Baggers should love that video!


----------



## JimH52 (Jan 8, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > All thses experts on the WHO on here.  It is simply amazing.
> ...



So Chic, can you spin this into a Tea Bagger rational also.  You guys amaze me!

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Yup, we are number 50 in life expectancy.  Maybe we can make another video named "We are Number 50!"


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 8, 2010)

JimH52 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Clearly you are easily amazed.

My post quoted the WHO. 

Please attempt to explain why the statement about WHO/UN made in public announcement by WHO/UN is not dispositive about WHO/UN.

If you can.

Further, what is the "Tea Bagger rational" reference?

It it meant to be some sort of insult? If so, what is the reason?

Are you not capable of a raional, civil discussion?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 8, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> All thses experts on the WHO on here.  It is simply amazing.



Doesn't take an expert.  Just someone who can and will read.  It isn't as though anyone's been keeping WHO's criteria a secret.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 8, 2010)

> Ya' think maybe the WHO is a good enough expert on the WHO?
> 
> WHO/UN states that their data &#8220;is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research&#8221; and when they couldn&#8217;t find data, they &#8220;developed [data] through a variety of techniques.&#8221; WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro&#8217;s Cuba.
> WHO | Message from the Director-General


I was just looking at a general map.  Looks like Cuba and most of the world's least reputable countries score lower than us in life expectancy.  

Columbia, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Costa Rica come to mind as countries above the U.S. as sources of internal data I would question though.

Would you figure the data is good with an accuracy of +/- 10 or +/-5?  Rankings are somewhat subjective.  After all, if fuel economy is very important to you that 92 Geo Metro is one heck of a car, a top 10 on your list.

************
Good god.  Tea bagging is a semi-pornographic 1st person shooter gaming term among the younger folks I know.  Are we using it in them terms?


----------



## JimH52 (Jan 8, 2010)

If we have the best health care system in the world, as has been stated, on this board, shouldn't our life expectancy be higher than 50.  Is that *rational*?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 9, 2010)

JimH52 said:


> If we have the best health care system in the world, as has been stated, on this board, shouldn't our life expectancy be higher than 50.  Is that *rational*?



the best health care in the world does not reduce deaths from risky behavior.

Americans higher lower life expectancy can be explained by behavioral causes.

Accidents, Murders, Preemies, Fat, and U.S. Life Expectancy - Reason Magazine


----------



## Munin (Jan 9, 2010)

Toronado3800 said:


> > Already your argument is proved wrong by the existence of this very thread we are posting in, "we re number 37". All countries that re ranked above the US don't seem to have had a problem with making less costs (in general) than what the private healthcare system of the US has been doing for decades. What the US government has been doing for the last decades by "interfering" was subsidizing the private healthcare industry, as such they have never really interfered with the private healthcare system (until now). And no this has nothing to do with a magician show, unless you are in a constant state of illusion and denial to accept reality.
> 
> 
> Are you saying the government hasn't been involved in medical care since now and healthcare in other countries is more cost effective?
> ...



yes I m saying that "healthcare that has to be provided for a whole population" (also the sick and the poor) is more cost effective in those other countries ranked above the US. I m also saying that the government has almost never been as invovelved in the US healthcare system as governments of those higher ranked countries (up untill now).

If a healthcare system is providing only healthcare for the rich and the healthy, then the healthcare system will be very cost effective and profitable and in the US it doesn't even seem to do that. Private healthcare is heavely subsidised by the government, I would even see it as a form of corruption (since it is getting money for services it didn't provide, other countries with proportionally much less money available do seem to be able to provide healthcare for more people). A healthcare system is not supposed to be profitable (it is supposed to provide qualitative healthcare to the whole population of a country: which means quantity and quality), would your approach be similar when talking about the military: should the military be profitable?  I agree that it should be cost-effective, but not at the cost of losing too much safety. 

You get treated if you re poor/broke, yes: but you get a bill that you can not afford to pay. This person will be digging his own financial grave with healthcarebills, I also suspect that doctors will have an unofficial list with all the "defaulters" on it so they can avoid treating those people and be more cost-effective and profitable as a result.

Another thing, ever heard of the oath that doctors re supposed to take?

here is the modern version of it (Hippocratic Oath):



> I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
> 
> I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
> 
> ...



Maybe doctors in the US should change the name of it to the "hippocritic oath" for US doctors, since a lot of doctors working for private hospitals seem to have replaced the "helping patients" part of it with "making more profits"/"being more cost effective"


----------



## midcan5 (Jan 9, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzuvpZwFyUs[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0qPYkfNMPg&NR=1[/ame]


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 9, 2010)

Talk about your arse handed to you on a plate........


----------



## JimH52 (Jan 9, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > If we have the best health care system in the world, as has been stated, on this board, shouldn't our life expectancy be higher than 50.  Is that *rational*?
> ...



Interesting Spin, but accidental dealths in the US account for about 18% of all deaths.

CAUSES OF DEATH


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 9, 2010)

JimH52 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



More than just accidental deaths were taken into account

Nice try


----------



## JimH52 (Jan 9, 2010)

Made my point...BYE!


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 9, 2010)

JimH52 said:


> Made my point...BYE!



You didn't make your point Bye


----------



## JimH52 (Jan 9, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Made my point...BYE!
> ...



You attributed our ranking of 50 in life espectancy to accidents, crime, and taking risky chances.  The truth is, those categories only 18-19% of the total deaths each year.  The rest of the deaths are the results of aging and health issues.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2010)

Yes, risky behavior has a very definate affect on longevity. Risky behavior like not having a health care system to catch early childhood diseases before they have a permenantly dibilitating affect on the child.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 9, 2010)

JimH52 said:


> If we have the best health care system in the world, as has been stated, on this board, shouldn't our life expectancy be higher than 50.  Is that *rational*?



Maybe YOU can prove a cause/effect link between health care systems and life expectancy.  God knows, none of your compatriots have ever managed it.  I'm not really holding my breath that you will, either, but I expect the attempt to be incredibly funny.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 9, 2010)

JimH52 said:


> Made my point...BYE!



If your point was that you're a microbe-brain who regurgitates the same warmed-over canards we've argued to death already as though they're brilliant, heretofore-unrevealed wisdom from on high, and then runs for the tall timber when he gets torn apart, then yes.  You've made your point.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 9, 2010)

JimH52 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



I thought you were leaving.  God, you lie about EVERYTHING, don't you?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jan 9, 2010)

i am convinced, USA is No#1, just kick out the negros, the sick and the poor et voila!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2010)

OK, easily done. Canada and the US had almost identical health stats 30 years ago. Then Canada switched to socialized medicine. Today their average life expectancy exceeds ours by 3 years. The have a far better score on infant mortality than we do. And we have a number on early childhood mortality due to respitory disease that is over 40 times that of Canada.

Canadian Single-Payer Health Care Program: Is it Better than US Health Care?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 10, 2010)

> Maybe YOU can prove a cause/effect link between health care systems and life expectancy. God knows, none of your compatriots have ever managed it. I'm not really holding my breath that you will, either, but I expect the attempt to be incredibly funny.



I'd bet there is a margin of error.  Something like the #1 system in the world could only make the #1 Big Mac eaters in the world the #10 longest lived people.

I don't know if we're polluted or fat enough that the #1 system in the world can make us the #50 or #37 longest lived.  Maybe them stats go with the #20 system, #25?  #1 seems like a stretch.  Then again folks with internet access usually aren't the broke ones who I bet a nickle have the shorter life expectancy.


----------



## MajikMyst (Jan 10, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Hmmmm??? I could be wrong.. But.. 

Interesting Spin, but accidental dealths in the US account for about 18% of all deaths.

That statement kinda means that more than just accidental deaths were taken into account.. I mean if accidental deaths are just 18% of all deaths.. That would mean there is 72% more deaths somewhere.. So it kinda means that more than just accidental deaths were taken into account.. 

So???? Nice try on your part..


----------

