|
HJAHAHAHAHAHAHHA MAN THAT THING IS COMPLETELY GOOOOLD
How the hell does she fall for that ?
"We should hunt toghether! By helicopter!!"
"Ahh yea, we can have so much fun"
|
Sydney2287 Posts
In case you get the "this video is no longer available" message:
+ Show Spoiler +http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=cl2K3L90Tvk
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On November 02 2008 08:07 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 06:19 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On November 02 2008 03:44 Savio wrote:
Comparing health systems is very difficult. For example, systems that were designed to provide nationlized access to every citizens will obviously look really good when one of the most key questions is about everyone's access to basic health care.
But it is harder to analyze the effect of increased availability of imaging equipment, increased access to specialists, and other such factors that the current US system has.
So I don't buy it at face value when some study shows the US "performing" below European standards.
I'm not actually arguing that the US system is better, but that the rankings you see online are not as accurate indicators and most people believe. Infant mortality is one of the most significant health indicators and very easy to compare. According to the CIA Factbook the USA ranks below Greece, Ireland, Slovenia and a whole host of other nations, as well as significantly below the European Union average. According to the United Nations World Population Prospects report, for the period 2005-2010, the USA also ranks below Cuba. The figures are widely available. Of course the USA still has an impressive rate by international standards but it is food for thought. Blindly comparing raw numbers of infant mortality rates is misleading if not outright dishonest, since these reflect a combination of many factors, not all of which are directly related to quality of healthcare. For example, you would get a much more honest comparison if you control for demographic differences. It is well-known that different ethnic groups in the US have quite widely varying infant mortality rates. The same can be said for all those international comparisons of secondary education, btw.
Yeah, damn those "raw numbers". Pesky facts are always getting in the way.
Well thanks for the accusation of outright dishonesty but even apart from the needless insult I am somewhat perplexed by your response. Of course there are a combination of factors, but what is needed is an open and honest examination of what those factors are, something we rarely see in exactly these kinds of discussions.
I am particularly intrigued by the statement that "different ethnic groups in the US have quite widely varying infant mortality rates" although I am somewhat surprised you think this is news to me. Unless you think it is genetic factors which cause these varying mortality rates I fail to see how this is something which helps whatever case it is you are making.
Anyway, I said I did not want to get into a big debate on this so I shall leave it at that.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i hear often that one of hte reasons for the u.s. rate is the different approaches taken to infant care. the u.s. is said to save a disproportionate number of premature infants, who are more difficult to care for.
|
this prank was done in very bad taste...
would have been much more interesting and informative (and probably funnier) if he would talk with her about real global policies and pressing economic problems 
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 02 2008 19:07 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 08:07 HnR)hT wrote:On November 02 2008 06:19 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On November 02 2008 03:44 Savio wrote:
Comparing health systems is very difficult. For example, systems that were designed to provide nationlized access to every citizens will obviously look really good when one of the most key questions is about everyone's access to basic health care.
But it is harder to analyze the effect of increased availability of imaging equipment, increased access to specialists, and other such factors that the current US system has.
So I don't buy it at face value when some study shows the US "performing" below European standards.
I'm not actually arguing that the US system is better, but that the rankings you see online are not as accurate indicators and most people believe. Infant mortality is one of the most significant health indicators and very easy to compare. According to the CIA Factbook the USA ranks below Greece, Ireland, Slovenia and a whole host of other nations, as well as significantly below the European Union average. According to the United Nations World Population Prospects report, for the period 2005-2010, the USA also ranks below Cuba. The figures are widely available. Of course the USA still has an impressive rate by international standards but it is food for thought. Blindly comparing raw numbers of infant mortality rates is misleading if not outright dishonest, since these reflect a combination of many factors, not all of which are directly related to quality of healthcare. For example, you would get a much more honest comparison if you control for demographic differences. It is well-known that different ethnic groups in the US have quite widely varying infant mortality rates. The same can be said for all those international comparisons of secondary education, btw. Yeah, damn those "raw numbers". Pesky facts are always getting in the way.
You can always produce out-of-context statistics to prove any point you like. That does not constitute an "open and honest examination" but the opposite.
Well thanks for the accusation of outright dishonesty but even apart from the needless insult I am somewhat perplexed by your response.
What needless insult? What I said was that using misleading raw data to prove something is "dishonest at worst". I don't know whether your motive was to mislead on purpose, or whether you were simply unaware of the carelessness and crudeness of your argument. Please learn to tell the difference between a personal insult and a criticism of your reasoning.
I am particularly intrigued by the statement that "different ethnic groups in the US have quite widely varying infant mortality rates" although I am somewhat surprised you think this is news to me. Unless you think it is genetic factors which cause these varying mortality rates I fail to see how this is something which helps whatever case it is you are making.
Whether or not it is news to you is irrelevant. The point is, we don't know to what extent genetic and other factors affect mortality rates, except that the racial disparities point very strongly to the existence of hidden factors that don't reflect healthcare quality.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
Here is something for the leftists to chew on:
Since [the Soviet leaders] believed that this revolutionary transformation was in the long-term interests of the people, they were willing to force it through, even when, as with collectivization, a majority of the relevant population clearly opposed it. They explained popular resistance as a result of the backwardness, prejudices, and fears of the unenlightened masses. The Communists’ sense of mission and intellectual superiority was far too great to allow them to be swayed by mere majority opinion.
-Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism, p. 14
Sound familiar? 
|
That is pretty scary, it's like what I imagine if Bill Maher were dictator.
|
"If black people have a shorter life expectancy in the US, it is because of their genes and not because they are usually poorer than the average white guy. Remember our medical system isn't expensive and is really fair."
HnR)hT, great thinker of Team Liquid.
|
On November 02 2008 23:03 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 19:07 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On November 02 2008 08:07 HnR)hT wrote:On November 02 2008 06:19 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On November 02 2008 03:44 Savio wrote:
Comparing health systems is very difficult. For example, systems that were designed to provide nationlized access to every citizens will obviously look really good when one of the most key questions is about everyone's access to basic health care.
But it is harder to analyze the effect of increased availability of imaging equipment, increased access to specialists, and other such factors that the current US system has.
So I don't buy it at face value when some study shows the US "performing" below European standards.
I'm not actually arguing that the US system is better, but that the rankings you see online are not as accurate indicators and most people believe. Infant mortality is one of the most significant health indicators and very easy to compare. According to the CIA Factbook the USA ranks below Greece, Ireland, Slovenia and a whole host of other nations, as well as significantly below the European Union average. According to the United Nations World Population Prospects report, for the period 2005-2010, the USA also ranks below Cuba. The figures are widely available. Of course the USA still has an impressive rate by international standards but it is food for thought. Blindly comparing raw numbers of infant mortality rates is misleading if not outright dishonest, since these reflect a combination of many factors, not all of which are directly related to quality of healthcare. For example, you would get a much more honest comparison if you control for demographic differences. It is well-known that different ethnic groups in the US have quite widely varying infant mortality rates. The same can be said for all those international comparisons of secondary education, btw. Yeah, damn those "raw numbers". Pesky facts are always getting in the way. You can always produce out-of-context statistics to prove any point you like. That does not constitute an "open and honest examination" but the opposite. Show nested quote +Well thanks for the accusation of outright dishonesty but even apart from the needless insult I am somewhat perplexed by your response. What needless insult? What I said was that using misleading raw data to prove something is "dishonest at worst". I don't know whether your motive was to mislead on purpose, or whether you were simply unaware of the carelessness and crudeness of your argument. Please learn to tell the difference between a personal insult and a criticism of your reasoning. Show nested quote +I am particularly intrigued by the statement that "different ethnic groups in the US have quite widely varying infant mortality rates" although I am somewhat surprised you think this is news to me. Unless you think it is genetic factors which cause these varying mortality rates I fail to see how this is something which helps whatever case it is you are making. Whether or not it is news to you is irrelevant. The point is, we don't know to what extent genetic and other factors affect mortality rates, except that the racial disparities point very strongly to the existence of hidden factors that don't reflect healthcare quality.
Care to elborate on that? Because now it sounds like you said that the reason that the US has higher infant mortality rates than Cuba is because that all the hispanics and blacks in the US have so bad genes that their children die all by themselves and not due to insufficient healthcare.
_edit_ Apparantly Bobilion interpretated your statement the same way as I did.
|
On November 02 2008 23:09 HnR)hT wrote:Here is something for the leftists to chew on: Since [the Soviet leaders] believed that this revolutionary transformation was in the long-term interests of the people, they were willing to force it through, even when, as with collectivization, a majority of the relevant population clearly opposed it. They explained popular resistance as a result of the backwardness, prejudices, and fears of the unenlightened masses. The Communists’ sense of mission and intellectual superiority was far too great to allow them to be swayed by mere majority opinion.-Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism, p. 14 Sound familiar?
That sounds a bit dodgy to me. I dont really see how this applies anyway, to equate health care or taxes to forced collectivization is ridiculous.
Not to mention, the majority of the relevant population want health care for everybody, the exact methodology is what is up for debate (if you have any semblance of a soul at all)
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 02 2008 23:13 Boblion wrote:
"If black people have a shorter life expectancy in the US, it is because of their genes and not because they are usually poorer than the average white guy. Remember our medical system isn't expensive and is really fair."
HnR)hT, great thinker of Team liquid.
I don't understand why people have the need to blatantly lie about what I said only a few posts above. It must feel good to slander those whose political views are different from one's own?
|
On November 02 2008 23:23 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 23:13 Boblion wrote:
"If black people have a shorter life expectancy in the US, it is because of their genes and not because they are usually poorer than the average white guy. Remember our medical system isn't expensive and is really fair."
HnR)hT, great thinker of Team liquid.
I don't understand why people have the need to blatantly lie about what I said only a few posts above. It must feel good to slander those whose political views are different from one's own?
I don't understand why people haven't other arguments than " niggas have fucking bad genes " to explain why their medical system is bad. That is so lame.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 02 2008 23:22 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 23:03 HnR)hT wrote:On November 02 2008 19:07 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On November 02 2008 08:07 HnR)hT wrote:On November 02 2008 06:19 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On November 02 2008 03:44 Savio wrote:
Comparing health systems is very difficult. For example, systems that were designed to provide nationlized access to every citizens will obviously look really good when one of the most key questions is about everyone's access to basic health care.
But it is harder to analyze the effect of increased availability of imaging equipment, increased access to specialists, and other such factors that the current US system has.
So I don't buy it at face value when some study shows the US "performing" below European standards.
I'm not actually arguing that the US system is better, but that the rankings you see online are not as accurate indicators and most people believe. Infant mortality is one of the most significant health indicators and very easy to compare. According to the CIA Factbook the USA ranks below Greece, Ireland, Slovenia and a whole host of other nations, as well as significantly below the European Union average. According to the United Nations World Population Prospects report, for the period 2005-2010, the USA also ranks below Cuba. The figures are widely available. Of course the USA still has an impressive rate by international standards but it is food for thought. Blindly comparing raw numbers of infant mortality rates is misleading if not outright dishonest, since these reflect a combination of many factors, not all of which are directly related to quality of healthcare. For example, you would get a much more honest comparison if you control for demographic differences. It is well-known that different ethnic groups in the US have quite widely varying infant mortality rates. The same can be said for all those international comparisons of secondary education, btw. Yeah, damn those "raw numbers". Pesky facts are always getting in the way. You can always produce out-of-context statistics to prove any point you like. That does not constitute an "open and honest examination" but the opposite. Well thanks for the accusation of outright dishonesty but even apart from the needless insult I am somewhat perplexed by your response. What needless insult? What I said was that using misleading raw data to prove something is "dishonest at worst". I don't know whether your motive was to mislead on purpose, or whether you were simply unaware of the carelessness and crudeness of your argument. Please learn to tell the difference between a personal insult and a criticism of your reasoning. I am particularly intrigued by the statement that "different ethnic groups in the US have quite widely varying infant mortality rates" although I am somewhat surprised you think this is news to me. Unless you think it is genetic factors which cause these varying mortality rates I fail to see how this is something which helps whatever case it is you are making. Whether or not it is news to you is irrelevant. The point is, we don't know to what extent genetic and other factors affect mortality rates, except that the racial disparities point very strongly to the existence of hidden factors that don't reflect healthcare quality. Care to elborate on that? Because now it sounds like you said that the reason that the US has higher infant mortality rates than Cuba is because that all the hispanics and blacks in the US have so bad genes that their children die all by themselves and not due to insufficient healthcare. _edit_ Apparantly Bobilion interpretated your statement the same way as I did.
Only a person who is at once ignorant about infant mortality rate statistics, too lazy to check on them, and eager to throw dirt at first opportunity, can possibly commit such a "misinterpretation". Mexicans in America have better rates than whites, even though on average they are as poor as, and less likely to be insured than, blacks.
|
Why would the Gene pool in the US be so much worse than that of Singapore, Hong kong, Sweden, Greece, South Korea, Cuba and Slovenia?
|
Oh and we have black people here too.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 02 2008 23:23 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 23:09 HnR)hT wrote:Here is something for the leftists to chew on: Since [the Soviet leaders] believed that this revolutionary transformation was in the long-term interests of the people, they were willing to force it through, even when, as with collectivization, a majority of the relevant population clearly opposed it. They explained popular resistance as a result of the backwardness, prejudices, and fears of the unenlightened masses. The Communists’ sense of mission and intellectual superiority was far too great to allow them to be swayed by mere majority opinion.-Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism, p. 14 Sound familiar? That sounds a bit dodgy to me. I dont really see how this applies anyway, to equate health care or taxes to forced collectivization is ridiculous. Not to mention, the majority of the relevant population want health care for everybody, the exact methodology is what is up for debate (if you have any semblance of a soul at all)
I wasn't talking about healthcare but about the way leftists tend to push through unpopular policies in general, such as affirmative action, abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, and open borders. There is massive resistance from the left to subjecting any of the above to a vote.
|
On November 02 2008 23:29 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 23:22 KlaCkoN wrote:On November 02 2008 23:03 HnR)hT wrote:On November 02 2008 19:07 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On November 02 2008 08:07 HnR)hT wrote:On November 02 2008 06:19 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On November 02 2008 03:44 Savio wrote:
Comparing health systems is very difficult. For example, systems that were designed to provide nationlized access to every citizens will obviously look really good when one of the most key questions is about everyone's access to basic health care.
But it is harder to analyze the effect of increased availability of imaging equipment, increased access to specialists, and other such factors that the current US system has.
So I don't buy it at face value when some study shows the US "performing" below European standards.
I'm not actually arguing that the US system is better, but that the rankings you see online are not as accurate indicators and most people believe. Infant mortality is one of the most significant health indicators and very easy to compare. According to the CIA Factbook the USA ranks below Greece, Ireland, Slovenia and a whole host of other nations, as well as significantly below the European Union average. According to the United Nations World Population Prospects report, for the period 2005-2010, the USA also ranks below Cuba. The figures are widely available. Of course the USA still has an impressive rate by international standards but it is food for thought. Blindly comparing raw numbers of infant mortality rates is misleading if not outright dishonest, since these reflect a combination of many factors, not all of which are directly related to quality of healthcare. For example, you would get a much more honest comparison if you control for demographic differences. It is well-known that different ethnic groups in the US have quite widely varying infant mortality rates. The same can be said for all those international comparisons of secondary education, btw. Yeah, damn those "raw numbers". Pesky facts are always getting in the way. You can always produce out-of-context statistics to prove any point you like. That does not constitute an "open and honest examination" but the opposite. Well thanks for the accusation of outright dishonesty but even apart from the needless insult I am somewhat perplexed by your response. What needless insult? What I said was that using misleading raw data to prove something is "dishonest at worst". I don't know whether your motive was to mislead on purpose, or whether you were simply unaware of the carelessness and crudeness of your argument. Please learn to tell the difference between a personal insult and a criticism of your reasoning. I am particularly intrigued by the statement that "different ethnic groups in the US have quite widely varying infant mortality rates" although I am somewhat surprised you think this is news to me. Unless you think it is genetic factors which cause these varying mortality rates I fail to see how this is something which helps whatever case it is you are making. Whether or not it is news to you is irrelevant. The point is, we don't know to what extent genetic and other factors affect mortality rates, except that the racial disparities point very strongly to the existence of hidden factors that don't reflect healthcare quality. Care to elborate on that? Because now it sounds like you said that the reason that the US has higher infant mortality rates than Cuba is because that all the hispanics and blacks in the US have so bad genes that their children die all by themselves and not due to insufficient healthcare. _edit_ Apparantly Bobilion interpretated your statement the same way as I did. Only a person who is at once ignorant about infant mortality rate statistics, too lazy to check on them, and eager to throw dirt at first opportunity, can possibly commit such a "misinterpretation". Mexicans in America have better rates than whites, even though on average they are as poor as, and less likely to be insured than, blacks.
The point is, we don't know to what extent genetic and other factors affect mortality rates, except that the racial disparities point very strongly to the existence of hidden factors that don't reflect healthcare quality.
Please, please tell me in what other way you could possible interpret this statement in any way other than you saying "Certain groups in the US have bad genes, therefore their children will die more than what is normal no matter healthcare"
I was curious, I was open to the idea that I missunderstood. But apparantly quite a lot of people draw the same conclusions as I did.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
You can always produce out-of-context statistics to prove any point you like. That does not constitute an "open and honest examination" but the opposite.
Indeed a person can produce misleading or out of context statistics to support a point. Or a person can produce internationally recognised health indicators to illuminate or support a point or to provide evidence for thinking one thing or another. Your misreading of the meaning behind my comment about an open and honest examination shows how far away you are from being able to tell the difference, in my view.
What needless insult? What I said was that using misleading raw data to prove something is "dishonest at worst". I don't know whether your motive was to mislead on purpose, or whether you were simply unaware of the carelessness and crudeness of your argument. Please learn to tell the difference between a personal insult and a criticism of your reasoning.
Yes, indeed it is very easy to couch one's insults in such a way that one can later fall back on such a tenuous appeal as the one you make there.I have been guilty of it myself in the past but I have tried to recognise that and stop doing it. I note that you do it yet again in that reply.
Whether or not it is news to you is irrelevant. The point is, we don't know to what extent genetic and other factors affect mortality rates, except that the racial disparities point very strongly to the existence of hidden factors that don't reflect healthcare quality.
Oh really? I am most intrigued by that last sentence.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 02 2008 23:35 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 23:29 HnR)hT wrote:On November 02 2008 23:22 KlaCkoN wrote:On November 02 2008 23:03 HnR)hT wrote:On November 02 2008 19:07 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On November 02 2008 08:07 HnR)hT wrote:On November 02 2008 06:19 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On November 02 2008 03:44 Savio wrote:
Comparing health systems is very difficult. For example, systems that were designed to provide nationlized access to every citizens will obviously look really good when one of the most key questions is about everyone's access to basic health care.
But it is harder to analyze the effect of increased availability of imaging equipment, increased access to specialists, and other such factors that the current US system has.
So I don't buy it at face value when some study shows the US "performing" below European standards.
I'm not actually arguing that the US system is better, but that the rankings you see online are not as accurate indicators and most people believe. Infant mortality is one of the most significant health indicators and very easy to compare. According to the CIA Factbook the USA ranks below Greece, Ireland, Slovenia and a whole host of other nations, as well as significantly below the European Union average. According to the United Nations World Population Prospects report, for the period 2005-2010, the USA also ranks below Cuba. The figures are widely available. Of course the USA still has an impressive rate by international standards but it is food for thought. Blindly comparing raw numbers of infant mortality rates is misleading if not outright dishonest, since these reflect a combination of many factors, not all of which are directly related to quality of healthcare. For example, you would get a much more honest comparison if you control for demographic differences. It is well-known that different ethnic groups in the US have quite widely varying infant mortality rates. The same can be said for all those international comparisons of secondary education, btw. Yeah, damn those "raw numbers". Pesky facts are always getting in the way. You can always produce out-of-context statistics to prove any point you like. That does not constitute an "open and honest examination" but the opposite. Well thanks for the accusation of outright dishonesty but even apart from the needless insult I am somewhat perplexed by your response. What needless insult? What I said was that using misleading raw data to prove something is "dishonest at worst". I don't know whether your motive was to mislead on purpose, or whether you were simply unaware of the carelessness and crudeness of your argument. Please learn to tell the difference between a personal insult and a criticism of your reasoning. I am particularly intrigued by the statement that "different ethnic groups in the US have quite widely varying infant mortality rates" although I am somewhat surprised you think this is news to me. Unless you think it is genetic factors which cause these varying mortality rates I fail to see how this is something which helps whatever case it is you are making. Whether or not it is news to you is irrelevant. The point is, we don't know to what extent genetic and other factors affect mortality rates, except that the racial disparities point very strongly to the existence of hidden factors that don't reflect healthcare quality. Care to elborate on that? Because now it sounds like you said that the reason that the US has higher infant mortality rates than Cuba is because that all the hispanics and blacks in the US have so bad genes that their children die all by themselves and not due to insufficient healthcare. _edit_ Apparantly Bobilion interpretated your statement the same way as I did. Only a person who is at once ignorant about infant mortality rate statistics, too lazy to check on them, and eager to throw dirt at first opportunity, can possibly commit such a "misinterpretation". Mexicans in America have better rates than whites, even though on average they are as poor as, and less likely to be insured than, blacks. Show nested quote + The point is, we don't know to what extent genetic and other factors affect mortality rates, except that the racial disparities point very strongly to the existence of hidden factors that don't reflect healthcare quality. Please, please tell me in what other way you could possible interpret this statement in any way other than you saying "Certain groups in the US have bad genes, therefore their children will die more than what is normal no matter healthcare" I was curious, I was open to the idea that I missunderstood. But apparantly quite a lot of people draw the same conclusions as I did.
It does not have to be genetic, although we _don't know enough_ to rule out that possibility. The disparities between black and Mexican rates, for example, may be entirely a product of the behavior of the mother while pregnant. This would include things like what food was ingested, sleep patterns, stress levels, drugs, violence in the household, physical activity levels, etc. I'm not saying that the disparities are NOT genetic in origin - we just don't know. You can't account for the vast difference between black and Mexican rates in the US by things like "poverty", because both groups are about equally poor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
