|
On May 18 2009 01:01 Syntax Lost wrote:
I thought I would stop by and highlight more of Aegraen's dishonesty which seems to be occuring in this thread as well. By the way, Aegraen, I'm still waiting for a response in the Condoleezza thread.
As always an excellent post Syntax Lost, but you won't ever get him to reply to your posts. The sane part of Teamliquid thanks you for your efforts, but if you're hoping for a response, your efforts have all been in vain I'm afraid.
|
On May 18 2009 01:18 jeppew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 01:15 Railz wrote:On May 18 2009 01:01 Syntax Lost wrote:Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we have one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world, and we rank as one of the highest in life expectancy. Complete fabrication. According to the CIA World Factbook, the United states has an infant mortality of 6.26 per 1000 live births. By comparison, Canada has 5.04, an improvement of 24%. And socialist Sweden? 2.75 per 1000 live births--an improvement of 228%! Overall, the US rates 45th in the world in terms of infant mortality. Lowest? Really? Seriously, check how many first world countries rate worse than the US, there's not many. I'm just going to respond to this portion of the post as I have no feelings one way or the other about the rest of it. I've seen people try to call this number out against the US multiple times without realizing that list never tried to adjust for population. It goes by births/1000 and unfortunately, for the US, when being compared to Canada it has about 10,000 more births/1000 which makes it pretty difficult to make a fair comparison of the 2 when we have so many more chances for complications. Granted, it is still a high number I suppose, but it doesn't knock the original point of being an unfair comparison. The only 2 near population size to the US is Indonesia and Brazil =/ a higher ammount of births are just going to make the average more accurate, not worse. edit: or are you implying that there are much more births per capita in the US? so many that it puts a burden on the healthcare system?
A higher amount of births might be a good way to 'get an average' but it is still unfair to compare to other countries with populations overwhelming under the US to try and get that average. Maybe the US is average and everyone else is extremely lucky - one way or the other it proves the point, infant mortality rate is nigh incomparable between such differing populaces.
|
United States43758 Posts
On May 18 2009 01:15 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 01:01 Syntax Lost wrote:Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we have one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world, and we rank as one of the highest in life expectancy. Complete fabrication. According to the CIA World Factbook, the United states has an infant mortality of 6.26 per 1000 live births. By comparison, Canada has 5.04, an improvement of 24%. And socialist Sweden? 2.75 per 1000 live births--an improvement of 228%! Overall, the US rates 45th in the world in terms of infant mortality. Lowest? Really? Seriously, check how many first world countries rate worse than the US, there's not many. I'm just going to respond to this portion of the post as I have no feelings one way or the other about the rest of it. I've seen people try to call this number out against the US multiple times without realizing that list never tried to adjust for population. It goes by births/1000 and unfortunately, for the US, when being compared to Canada it has about 10,000 more births/1000 which makes it pretty difficult to make a fair comparison of the 2 when we have so many more chances for complications. Granted, it is still a high number I suppose, but it doesn't knock the original point of being an unfair comparison. The only 2 near population size to the US is Indonesia and Brazil =/
Oh God not this again. I can't believe you're still going with this. Per 1000 births means it is adjusted for population. If it was total dead babies in Canada vs total dead babies in US then the population difference would skew the results. But this is % (or rather permill) of dead babies out of total babies, once you reach a number which is a fair sample (which in a country of millions it will be) then the population is insignificant.
|
United States43758 Posts
On May 18 2009 02:59 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 01:18 jeppew wrote:On May 18 2009 01:15 Railz wrote:On May 18 2009 01:01 Syntax Lost wrote:Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we have one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world, and we rank as one of the highest in life expectancy. Complete fabrication. According to the CIA World Factbook, the United states has an infant mortality of 6.26 per 1000 live births. By comparison, Canada has 5.04, an improvement of 24%. And socialist Sweden? 2.75 per 1000 live births--an improvement of 228%! Overall, the US rates 45th in the world in terms of infant mortality. Lowest? Really? Seriously, check how many first world countries rate worse than the US, there's not many. I'm just going to respond to this portion of the post as I have no feelings one way or the other about the rest of it. I've seen people try to call this number out against the US multiple times without realizing that list never tried to adjust for population. It goes by births/1000 and unfortunately, for the US, when being compared to Canada it has about 10,000 more births/1000 which makes it pretty difficult to make a fair comparison of the 2 when we have so many more chances for complications. Granted, it is still a high number I suppose, but it doesn't knock the original point of being an unfair comparison. The only 2 near population size to the US is Indonesia and Brazil =/ a higher ammount of births are just going to make the average more accurate, not worse. edit: or are you implying that there are much more births per capita in the US? so many that it puts a burden on the healthcare system? A higher amount of births might be a good way to 'get an average' but it is still unfair to compare to other countries with populations overwhelming under the US to try and get that average. Maybe the US is average and everyone else is extremely lucky - one way or the other it proves the point, infant mortality rate is nigh incomparable between such differing populaces.
NO! If you're comparing a country with millions of births against a country with ten births then you'd have a point because ten births is not a valid statistical sample. But you're not. You're comparing two countries with vast populations, the difference between the EV and the actual value will be negligible.
Someone with better maths skills than I could actually work out the probability of a significant deviation for you if you wanted. Used to be able to but it's been years since school. It'll be a low number. A very low one.
|
On May 18 2009 01:15 Railz wrote:
I've seen people try to call this number out against the US multiple times without realizing that list never tried to adjust for population. It goes by births/1000 and unfortunately, for the US, when being compared to Canada it has about 10,000 more births/1000 which makes it pretty difficult to make a fair comparison of the 2 when we have so many more chances for complications. Granted, it is still a high number I suppose, but it doesn't knock the original point of being an unfair comparison. The only 2 near population size to the US is Indonesia and Brazil =/
I think you've misunderstood the statistic. Infant mortality rates are measured versus the number of births, not versus any population count. So when a figure such as 6.26 per 1000 live births is given, it means that for every 1000 live-born babies in the country, on average, 6.26 of those 1000 will die before their first birthday. Saying that there are more children born doesn't change the statistic aside from giving a larger sample.
|
|
|
On May 18 2009 02:25 Hans-Titan wrote:
As always an excellent post Syntax Lost, but you won't ever get him to reply to your posts. The sane part of Teamliquid thanks you for your efforts, but if you're hoping for a response, your efforts have all been in vain I'm afraid.
Thank you, and I'm aware. I've seen plenty of people like him before (that's why I keep good references so it's easy to demolish their statements) and know that they'll either evade your points, nitpick at semantics, ignore your post, repeat their claims like a broken record or engage in all sorts of other mental gymnastics in order to support their point. Like a religious fanatic, they will never examine or question their beliefs and will always take them to be self-evident regardless of the evidence presented to them. (See his comments that he doesn't care about statistics.) I still hound him on the issue because I want to ensure that he isn't able to weasel about on the issue and that it's very clear he has no logical rebuttal.
Nevertheless, there is still a group of people that read these threads though they may never post in them and some of them may be on the fence of such issue. I'm sure (or at least hopeful) a number of them can understand the evidence being presented so they can at least have a more informed opinion on the issue. I'm also sure that many here that agree on the issue can use the information I've collected if they encounter other arguments, be they on TL, other internet forums or in real life (though referencing is obviously far more difficult under such circumstances). If not enlightening, then the very least I hope my posts are at least entertaining for others to read.
|
I kinda like the US health system. Stays true to darwinism. If you were to play tag with grenades or something over here, they'd spend millions trying to stitch your ass together. Such a waste. Then again if you happen to be in an honest accident, our system is awesome. Anything deemed necessary is paid for by the state.
|
On May 18 2009 02:59 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 01:18 jeppew wrote:On May 18 2009 01:15 Railz wrote:On May 18 2009 01:01 Syntax Lost wrote:Aegraen wrote:
Secondly, we have one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world, and we rank as one of the highest in life expectancy. Complete fabrication. According to the CIA World Factbook, the United states has an infant mortality of 6.26 per 1000 live births. By comparison, Canada has 5.04, an improvement of 24%. And socialist Sweden? 2.75 per 1000 live births--an improvement of 228%! Overall, the US rates 45th in the world in terms of infant mortality. Lowest? Really? Seriously, check how many first world countries rate worse than the US, there's not many. I'm just going to respond to this portion of the post as I have no feelings one way or the other about the rest of it. I've seen people try to call this number out against the US multiple times without realizing that list never tried to adjust for population. It goes by births/1000 and unfortunately, for the US, when being compared to Canada it has about 10,000 more births/1000 which makes it pretty difficult to make a fair comparison of the 2 when we have so many more chances for complications. Granted, it is still a high number I suppose, but it doesn't knock the original point of being an unfair comparison. The only 2 near population size to the US is Indonesia and Brazil =/ a higher ammount of births are just going to make the average more accurate, not worse. edit: or are you implying that there are much more births per capita in the US? so many that it puts a burden on the healthcare system? A higher amount of births might be a good way to 'get an average' but it is still unfair to compare to other countries with populations overwhelming under the US to try and get that average. Maybe the US is average and everyone else is extremely lucky - one way or the other it proves the point, infant mortality rate is nigh incomparable between such differing populaces.
if every other country was so lucky it would even show up in stastitics i would call that a miracle.
i think you need to read up on statistics abit.
|
About the infant mortality rates:
The USA statistics has a bit of bias in it simply because we have such diverse populations and geographical distributions. In a lot of the Midwest, Mountain, and Southern areas, population is a lot more sparse and many more babies are born without proper medical access. That and toss in the fact that culturally, these areas have much younger median mother age, more unsupported mothers when they are pregnant, and probably more ignorance about pregnancy and you get higher infant mortality. Here is a CDC published study back from 2006 and around pages 6-9, you can see some of the differences across the states. A lot of other modernized countries don't have this same problem, so it's really hard to compare. Take any statistics on the entire USA as a whole with a bit of skepticism because the USA is, by nature, way too large and way too diverse to describe in such generalized terms.
|
On May 17 2009 05:01 The Raurosaur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 13:09 FieryBalrog wrote:
Here's the problem, Kwark. British society as it is now, is failing. In fact, all of Europe is failing. The demographics don't lie. The population is aging and increasingly frail with a shrinking population of young people to support society. All Western Europe increasingly depends on immigrants- Muslim, Eastern European and to a lesser extent Asian- but these immigrants don't necessarily share your enlightened European values values and any attempt to assimilate them is "racist" and isn't allowed for by our modern multicultural dogma. Why does a demography shift = failing? By that standard, the US has been failing for most of its history, what with all the immigration and cultural melting pots. Many immigrants to Western Europe are only short-term - i.e. they intend to leave after 5, 10 years once they have comfortable savings to take to their families back home. (Also, surely free movement of labour is one of the ideals of the free market?) A more practical question for the Americans - how much does the average person pay for their health insurance? I'm moving to the US later this year and am curious to what a good deal is etc.
The demographic shift most people are talking about is an aging population relative to labor force. As the baby boomer generation retires and gets older, they become more expensive to society by simultaneously taking up more health care and stopping wealth generation. Toss in the fact that many industrialized nations have smaller family sizes (which means a smaller labor force), and you have a very large problem on your hands.
As for health insurance in the US, it depends on how old you are, what family history you have, where are you getting your insurance from, which state you are living in, how much coverage are you looking for, etc. There are a lot of determining factors and it can range from $150/month to $1500/month depending on these factors.
|
On May 18 2009 03:57 gchan wrote:About the infant mortality rates: The USA statistics has a bit of bias in it simply because we have such diverse populations and geographical distributions. In a lot of the Midwest, Mountain, and Southern areas, population is a lot more sparse and many more babies are born without proper medical access. That and toss in the fact that culturally, these areas have much younger median mother age, more unsupported mothers when they are pregnant, and probably more ignorance about pregnancy and you get higher infant mortality. Here is a CDC published study back from 2006 and around pages 6-9, you can see some of the differences across the states. A lot of other modernized countries don't have this same problem, so it's really hard to compare. Take any statistics on the entire USA as a whole with a bit of skepticism because the USA is, by nature, way too large and way too diverse to describe in such generalized terms.
but the common factor is your healthcare system. and the average will reflect it's effectiveness.
you can use birth mortality rate on a global scale to measure how well the worlds population is getting health care, even though it varies much more than it does in the US.
but the reverse doesn't work, you can't make any conclusions based on a part of something because of an average on the whole. for example i can't say anything definitive about healthcare in texas because of the statistics about the US as a whole, but i can say something about the US.
the fact still stands that the american healthcare system results in more infant deaths than the systems in other industrial nations, and it costs more.
|
On May 18 2009 04:13 jeppew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 03:57 gchan wrote:About the infant mortality rates: The USA statistics has a bit of bias in it simply because we have such diverse populations and geographical distributions. In a lot of the Midwest, Mountain, and Southern areas, population is a lot more sparse and many more babies are born without proper medical access. That and toss in the fact that culturally, these areas have much younger median mother age, more unsupported mothers when they are pregnant, and probably more ignorance about pregnancy and you get higher infant mortality. Here is a CDC published study back from 2006 and around pages 6-9, you can see some of the differences across the states. A lot of other modernized countries don't have this same problem, so it's really hard to compare. Take any statistics on the entire USA as a whole with a bit of skepticism because the USA is, by nature, way too large and way too diverse to describe in such generalized terms. the fact still stands that the american healthcare system results in more infant deaths than the systems in other industrial nations, and it costs more.
That is /exactly/ my point. You are generalizing the US health care system as if it were homegenous everywhere in the US. Just like there are varying levels of infant mortality in the USA across states, there is varying levels of health care available across states. As is, with the current level of heatlh care, the US system already costs more than any other nation. It is because we are much larger and much more spread out. The bottom line is that doctors don't want to live in the midwest. Hospitals don't want to started up in areas with 1 family living every 20 square miles. It's not cost effective, it's not practical, and it is going to be way more than the government can handle. All I'm saying is that using a generalized description for the entire US is bit inaccurate and a bit presumptious.
|
Uh, other western countries have the exact same geographical issues you're talking about, but worse.
Heard of Canada?
Oh, they still have lower cost per capita and a lower mortality rate? Shit.
|
Errr, the US has a population denisty of about 31 people/km^2. By comparison, Canada has a density of 3.2 people/km^2. Sweden 20 people/km^2. And you think the US population is spread out? You can also be sure that these nations have their own unique health problems which will skew their results as well. But even if we were to accept that the situation in the US were somehow unique, you're looking at a difference of 25% in terms of infant mortality between the US and Canada with over a 50% increase in spending relative to GDP and three times the overhead cost. They might be unique, but they're not *that* unique.
|
The amount of asshole materialists in America really astonishes me. Ya ignore facts and use logical fallacies to justify your dumbass country's practices but it's painfully obvious how wrong it all is =\
|
|
|
Dumping tax dollars into healthcare doesn't create more doctors, it's that simple.
Small town doctors have literally been forced out of business by the imposition of government regulation and the weight of liability, paperwork, and medicare/medicaid.
|
On May 18 2009 04:36 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 04:13 jeppew wrote:On May 18 2009 03:57 gchan wrote:About the infant mortality rates: The USA statistics has a bit of bias in it simply because we have such diverse populations and geographical distributions. In a lot of the Midwest, Mountain, and Southern areas, population is a lot more sparse and many more babies are born without proper medical access. That and toss in the fact that culturally, these areas have much younger median mother age, more unsupported mothers when they are pregnant, and probably more ignorance about pregnancy and you get higher infant mortality. Here is a CDC published study back from 2006 and around pages 6-9, you can see some of the differences across the states. A lot of other modernized countries don't have this same problem, so it's really hard to compare. Take any statistics on the entire USA as a whole with a bit of skepticism because the USA is, by nature, way too large and way too diverse to describe in such generalized terms. the fact still stands that the american healthcare system results in more infant deaths than the systems in other industrial nations, and it costs more. That is /exactly/ my point. You are generalizing the US health care system as if it were homegenous everywhere in the US. Just like there are varying levels of infant mortality in the USA across states, there is varying levels of health care available across states. As is, with the current level of heatlh care, the US system already costs more than any other nation. It is because we are much larger and much more spread out. The bottom line is that doctors don't want to live in the midwest. Hospitals don't want to started up in areas with 1 family living every 20 square miles. It's not cost effective, it's not practical, and it is going to be way more than the government can handle. All I'm saying is that using a generalized description for the entire US is bit inaccurate and a bit presumptious.
you shouldn't try to blame it on population density when arguing against a swede 
|
On May 18 2009 05:21 HeadBangaa wrote:
Dumping tax dollars into healthcare doesn't create more doctors, it's that simple.
Small town doctors have literally been forced out of business by the imposition of government regulation and the weight of liability, paperwork, and medicare/medicaid.
That's shitty administrative costs that could be reworked by a government program. Why would governments use the same shitty health system everyone is complaining about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1581/1229183799866.png)
