Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Obama bowing againFollow

#277 Nov 18 2009 at 5:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Except that the correlation between cancer fatality rates and quality of health care is *not* weak. That's where your problem lies.

No, it's not. Your problem lies in attempting to correlation the cancer fatality rate from country (A) and compare it to country (B) and use that as a judgment of country (A)'s health care system and, in a more overarching sense, as a judgment for or against public health services. There's numerous problems with this but I'm not enthusiastic enough to explain it to you.

Edited, Nov 18th 2009 5:19pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#278 Nov 18 2009 at 5:16 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
All people in the UK who contract cancer get treated for free by the NHS regardless of their income, social position or insurance cover (or lack thereof). And the overall expenditure on healthcare in the UK is far, far less than the expenditure on healthcare in the US.

Thats a fact.

Also the biggest killer in the UK, and the US is heart disease. Not cancer. and I would say with virtual certainty that the reason people in the UK live longer (and spend less on healthcare as a nation) is that they have free readily availiable access to GP's (family doctors) who catch and treat huge amounts of diseases/illnesses way before a person gets to a hospital where treatments become exponentially more expensive.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#279 Nov 18 2009 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
[quote=Jophiel]And overall life expectancy figure for the whole population includes factors well outside the health industry itself. There's no way we can say that people in the US live shorter lives because they just aren't able to get good health care.


That's debatable.

But it's certainly not debatable in the case of infant mortality.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#280 Nov 18 2009 at 5:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
But it's certainly not debatable in the case of infant mortality.

Look, you fucking asshole communist, you have NO IDEA how many babies are born in crashing cars in the US, okay?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#281 Nov 18 2009 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Look, you fucking asshole communist, you have NO IDEA how many babies are born in crashing cars in the US, okay?


What are these "cars" you talk about?

The way it works here is that as soon as a woman finds out she's pregnant, she's whisked away by government agents and taken, by public transport, to the nearest hospital where she's kept for the remainder of her pregnancy. As soon as she gives birth, she's whisked away (again), by other government agents, and taken to an oxygen/cryogenic chamber where she's put in a coma and kept at exactly -2C. This semi-consciousness in sub-zero temperature usually enables people to "live" for another 127 years.

So yeah, two birds one stone.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#282 Nov 18 2009 at 5:53 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
In gbaji's world, people only die from cancer.
#283 Nov 18 2009 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Jophiel wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
But it's certainly not debatable in the case of infant mortality.

Look, you fucking asshole communist, you have NO IDEA how many babies are born in crashing cars in the US, okay?


You know, it just occurred to me that if we could discourage women from ripping babies out of other womens' wombs we could probably turn that whole infant-mortality stat around.

Poverty schmoverty.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#284 Nov 18 2009 at 8:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
CBD wrote:
In gbaji's world, people only die from cancer.


Way to look at the issue backwards.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#285 Nov 18 2009 at 8:26 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
CBD wrote:
In gbaji's world, people only die from cancer.


Way to look at the issue backwards.

So, cancer dies with people? That's a positive spin on it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#286 Nov 18 2009 at 8:40 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
CBD wrote:
In gbaji's world, people only die from cancer.


Way to look at the issue backwards.



Hahaha. Oh, you. You're so cute.
#287 Nov 18 2009 at 9:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
CBD wrote:
In gbaji's world, people only die from cancer.
Way to look at the issue backwards.
So, cancer dies with people? That's a positive spin on it.

In Soviet Obamaland, cancer dies from YOU!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#288 Nov 19 2009 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
No, I see that countries with governmental healthcare have higher longevity than those without. They correlate together. It doesn't mean one causes the other, but there's a high likeliness that they do. I've been out of statistics for a few years so I don't feel like trying to figure out the correlation coefficient, but I would imagine there's definitely one that's stronger than not.


There's also a high degree of correlation between countries with governmental health care and high degrees of socialism. Which tends to include things like planned development designed to maximize population density (putting people closer to emergency resources), and perhaps more relevantly pushing people into mass transit and away from private forms of transportation. I'd suggest that the figures for longevity in the US are most affected by the abnormally high rate of private car ownership and use than to any other component.

The UK, for example has about 1/5th the population of the US, but about 1/15th the number of car fatalities per year. You know. If we're going to look for plausible reasons for such things...


Look, mate, we don't need to be pushed towards mass transit. No one drives in London, on account of how crowded the roads are.
#289 Nov 19 2009 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Sir Kavekk wrote:
Look, mate, we don't need to be pushed towards mass transit. No one drives in London, on account of how crowded the roads are.
Wait, but then how...but if...

/0
#290 Nov 19 2009 at 11:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Sir Kavekk wrote:
Look, mate, we don't need to be pushed towards mass transit. No one drives in London, on account of how crowded the roads are.
Wait, but then how...but if...

Debris, drunken bodies, dead livestock, broken oxcarts... I've read ********
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#291 Nov 19 2009 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
[quote=Sir Kavekk]Look, mate, we don't need to be pushed towards mass transit. No one drives in London, on account of how crowded the roads are.
Wait, but then how...but if...

Debris, drunken bodies, dead livestock, broken oxcarts... I've read ***************** guess Kavekk was talking about normal market hours.
#292 Nov 19 2009 at 11:47 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
You want to believe there is a strong correlation so that you can feel good about your views.


Presence of a universal health care system to life expectancy is both more statistically significant and more closely correlated than income, however.

Even though life expectancy is far more insensitive to length of life improvements than low-value accidental-type deaths, like infant mortality, homicide and car crashes. Which makes this correlation even more interesting and valuable.

Edited, Nov 19th 2009 1:00pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#293REDACTED, Posted: Nov 19 2009 at 12:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Paula,
#294 Nov 19 2009 at 12:58 PM Rating: Good
In the UK, you wait a few months to see a specialist or oncologist if the situation is not immediately life threatening. You pay nothing.

In the US, you wait a few months to get pre-certification from your insurance company before you can see a specialist, only to have them refuse to pay the bill since the situation was not immediately life threatening.

#295 Nov 19 2009 at 1:16 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
In the US, you wait a few months to get pre-certification from your insurance company before you can see a specialist, only to have them refuse to pay the bill since the situation was not immediately life threatening the treatment was "experimental."



Edited, Nov 19th 2009 1:27pm by Sweetums
#296 Nov 19 2009 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
***
2,813 posts
I keep misreading this title and thinking it says "Obama bowling again", and my first reaction is "DON'T DO IT, OBAMA!! IT'S A TRAP!"
#297REDACTED, Posted: Nov 19 2009 at 2:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Kylen,
#298 Nov 19 2009 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Kylen,

Quote:
I keep misreading this title and thinking it says "Obama bowling again", and my first reaction is "DON'T DO IT, OBAMA!! IT'S A TRAP!"


I would to. Did you see Obama try and throw a baseball? I don't the US has ever had such a limp wristed president.


Perhaps you're just jealous that he has a hot wife to jerk him off and your wrist is so strong because you only have yourself?
#299REDACTED, Posted: Nov 19 2009 at 2:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#300 Nov 19 2009 at 2:24 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
People care about baseball?
#301 Nov 19 2009 at 2:33 PM Rating: Good
***
2,813 posts
Meh, he can still kick any other politician's *** on the basketball court. I'd think you of all people would be able to respect that.

It doesn't matter if you voted for him or not though, Obama's bowling skills were pretty hilarious (or cringe-inducing) to watch when he was on the campaign trail.

What sports a politician is and isn't good at usually doesn't matter to me, although I did think it was pretty awesome when I found out that John Kerry was an avid (and half-decent) snowboarder. You don't see too many people his age willing to give new sports like that a try, let alone become proficient at them.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 484 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (484)