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.
Once again, that's just the point. Infant mortality rates may be "internationally recognized health indicators" - not internationally recognized indicators of the quality of available healthcare. Stop conflating the two.
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.
Now you're just trying to score points by taking offense where clearly none was intended. A favorite leftist tactic.
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.
I always though taking offense where clearly none was intended was a trademark conservative christian right move. Isn't that what deeply religious people are best at?
Infant mortality rates may be "internationally recognized health indicators" - not internationally recognized indicators of the quality of available healthcare. Stop conflating the two.
Nobody has conflated the two. You will note that in the actual post in which I introduced those statistics I merely observed that they were "food for thought". However, it is hard to know where else one should start in assessing a nation's healthcare other than those very statistics which are designed to measure key features of the nation's health performance.
I am not sure there is anything further to be gained from continuing to debate the issue.
I can't understand the pranker half the time, What was so funny about this?
after reading a review of what the pranker said. I didn't even know he said all the things and I heard them all. She probably can't understand as well so it doesn't make her seem stupid (even though she is).
I can't understand the pranker half the time, What was so funny about this?
after reading a review of what the pranker said. I didn't even know he said all the things and I heard them all. She probably can't understand as well so it doesn't make her seem stupid (even though she is).
He was speaking English with a french accent. That is very close to how Sarkozy would sound since the pranksters themselves are from Montreal and thus speak French. If she can't understand him then she would have the same problem understanding the French president.
He sounded pretty clear to me. You can tell that Palin understood him but was a bit bewildered with her uneasy laughs. Best part is at the end when he says he loved the documentary they made on her life, Nailin Pailin. EPIC. Followed by an uneasy chuckle by her.
On November 02 2008 09:51 Savio wrote: However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet.
Well, what IS universal health care? Everyone talks about it as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've never heard anyone defining it. When does a disease become so expensive to treat that he should no longer be covered under the government's healthcare plan?
Singapore's healthcare system is worth a study. I'm convinced it works because we don't see "universal healthcare" as a right. You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
I'm convinced that better healthcare is achievable through greater private spending as opposed to government spending. When healthcare becomes free, the biggest problem is that everyone starts thinking they have the "right" to any and everything they want.
are you kidding me? Nobody fucking chooses to have a serious illness. (except smokers =[ ) but even they should get treatment
That's precisely the problem with the entitlement mentality. I didn't choose to fall sick last week, but why should someone else pick up the bill for me? If you go by the "it's not their fault" argument, you could make a case for the government to provide EVERYTHING, from hearing aids to experimental drugs.
do you seriously understand what you are saying?
Do you understand how expensive healthcare is in the United States? Do you live here?
What the fuck?
Its thousands upon thousands of dollars to go to the hospital or be driven in an ambulance......you dont think the government (especially for the "wealthiest" nation on earth" shouldnt be able to help out its citizens? No, instead we have fucking warmongering, jesus camp, anti science dumbfucks who want to be greedy and start wars and shit, so we cant have better education and health care for the citizens of this country.
Let me make this simple for you.
1. Healthcare costs are lower here BECAUSE of the system. Therefore, we are able to afford more. Since your healthcare costs are higher because of your system, I thought it would be interesting to look at a different kind of system that provides lower health costs.
2. Nobody has defined what "universal healthcare" is. If you have an obscure disease, are you entitled to healthcare just because you didn't ask for it, even if it costs millions of dollars? Logically, we just have to accept that some diseases are too expensive to put on the government's bill.
If you want to keep thinking that the solution to healthcare is for the government to pay for everything, be my guest. But it's unsustainable.
Ok, so if i have some obscure disease that costs money to treat, and I dont have the money to pay for it.... should I be left to die?
Um, yes... It may sound cruel but it happens everywhere, everyday.
no doctor who ever has taken their oath seriously would do something like that.
You'd be amazed what doctors will do. There are a lot of doctors that will deliver a full term healthy baby 90% of the way, then stab through the skull till it stops kicking. Then pull its head out and say that it wasn't murder.
On November 02 2008 09:51 Savio wrote: However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet.
Well, what IS universal health care? Everyone talks about it as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've never heard anyone defining it. When does a disease become so expensive to treat that he should no longer be covered under the government's healthcare plan?
Singapore's healthcare system is worth a study. I'm convinced it works because we don't see "universal healthcare" as a right. You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
I'm convinced that better healthcare is achievable through greater private spending as opposed to government spending. When healthcare becomes free, the biggest problem is that everyone starts thinking they have the "right" to any and everything they want.
are you kidding me? Nobody fucking chooses to have a serious illness. (except smokers =[ ) but even they should get treatment
That's precisely the problem with the entitlement mentality. I didn't choose to fall sick last week, but why should someone else pick up the bill for me? If you go by the "it's not their fault" argument, you could make a case for the government to provide EVERYTHING, from hearing aids to experimental drugs.
do you seriously understand what you are saying?
Do you understand how expensive healthcare is in the United States? Do you live here?
What the fuck?
Its thousands upon thousands of dollars to go to the hospital or be driven in an ambulance......you dont think the government (especially for the "wealthiest" nation on earth" shouldnt be able to help out its citizens? No, instead we have fucking warmongering, jesus camp, anti science dumbfucks who want to be greedy and start wars and shit, so we cant have better education and health care for the citizens of this country.
Let me make this simple for you.
1. Healthcare costs are lower here BECAUSE of the system. Therefore, we are able to afford more. Since your healthcare costs are higher because of your system, I thought it would be interesting to look at a different kind of system that provides lower health costs.
2. Nobody has defined what "universal healthcare" is. If you have an obscure disease, are you entitled to healthcare just because you didn't ask for it, even if it costs millions of dollars? Logically, we just have to accept that some diseases are too expensive to put on the government's bill.
If you want to keep thinking that the solution to healthcare is for the government to pay for everything, be my guest. But it's unsustainable.
Ok, so if i have some obscure disease that costs money to treat, and I dont have the money to pay for it.... should I be left to die?
Um, yes... It may sound cruel but it happens everywhere, everyday.
no shit it happens "everywhere" but it doesnt HAVE to happen here. We should hold ourselves to higher standards. Thats absolutely fucking ridiculous, no doctor who ever has taken their oath seriously would do something like that.
Okay, we'll agree to disagree then. But can I just point out that even in Britain, where the healthcare IS free, there are still people who die of dreadful illnesses because neither they nor the state can afford treatment.
No such thing as a free lunch or free health care.
On November 02 2008 11:20 Jibba wrote: What is the free minimum your government provides? I thought it's substantially higher than what we receive.
If by that you mean the amount below which you get free healthcare, there isn't any. You always have to pay, unless you are in such a wretched state that you approach your MP and beg for help.
It's hard to tell exactly how much the government subsidies are, because they vary from treatment to treatment. Fertility treatments at government hospitals, for example, are more heavily subsidised because we want more kids.
But basically if you look at healthcare cost as a percentage of GDP it's really low.
I hasten to add that I'm NOT saying that it's perfect, I'm just saying that good healthcare doesn't need huge government, which was what Savio was worried about.
Basically I want you to explain this more and say how accurate it is.
VERY interesting article Jibba. Thanks for sharing.
EPT
