Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Your sources on chemical and biological weapons are over 6 years old, and one of them even states that Russia is begining to destroy their stockpiles.

And you say blacks and hispanics have shorter life expectancy, is this a biological thing, or is it because they make up a larger portion of poor people. Do poor white Americans lie years longer than rich black people? Because if they do not you really can't use that arguiement because it is based on income, not race, it just so happens they are poorer than the avergae white eprson.

---

At 8/1/07 03:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: It proves that their medical treatment is inferior, that their country handled a disease fairly poorly compared to how we did. Even though they did get more infections (maybe they just were hit harder intstead of being less able to contain it), they still had dozens of people die due to it. The US didn't, of the 70 people infected, nobody died... 1/6 of Canadians infected died.

What are you talking about? It doesn't prove ANYTHING. You HAVE heard of the scientific method right?

Um do you have some facts to back that up?

I don't need to, since it's supposed to be the job of the claimant to reduce these extraneous variables, but I'll look some up later today.

See, it's convenient for you to try and give a rebuttal to something I provided fact for, when all you do fabricate crap from the top of your head. You have your entire argument based in the hypothetical, and on the lack of disproof of this hypothetical.

First: I don't think you'd know what a "fact" was if it bit you in the ass. Second,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation _does_not_imply_causation

YOU, not me, have to PROVE that the deaths in Canada can be attributed to their healthcare, and not some other variable. That "imagination" is what scientists do all the time to check for extraneous variables.

There's a study out there that shows people with less kids have more household appliances. Don't go buying toasters as birth control just yet though.....

Provide some facts or gtfo. You can't use your vivid imagination as your only source of argument in a discussion revolving around - get this - tangible facts.

Correlations are not "tangible facts". They're information, that may or MAY NOT be used to provide a causal relationship between two variables. And anyways, you're starting awfully early with the ad hominems....

25% of those diagnosed with breast cancer in the U.S. die from it - while the mortality ratio in Canada is 28%. Similarly, the U.S. prostate cancer mortality ratio is 19% while 25% of those diagnosed with prostate cancer in Canada die from it.

Again, where does it say in there that it is DUE TO CANADA'S HEALTH SYSTEM that these correlations are true.

This actually DOES gauge the quality of healthcare. This is how you determine how well medical care actually achieves it's goal of curing... preventing death etc..

Yeah....no....
It gauges nothing. Taking into consideration such OTHER VARIABLES such as the rate at which people get the cancer in both countries, you have to first show me that proportionally this stat holds true. Maybe Canada's 6%+ death rate is due to a 20%+ infection rate? Show me otherwise, THEN you can start talking about "proof"....but not before.

The majority of the SARS cases and SARS deaths in Canada were in Toronto... hardly the boonies.

Well that's even better! You've just made my day! I can now say that it is not Canada's health care, but rather the deaths are due to Toronto's heath care. It can't be generalized to the entire country.

Secondly, the proximity of hospitals to the majority of the population IS a testament to the overall healthcare system. If less Americans died because they got transported to a hospital more quickly, due to better emergency transport or closer proximity... this is a good thing. But... this doesn't really matter because SARS was spread in urban environments, not in rural areas.

Yeah, that's true. I misspoke.

---

At 7/30/07 06:57 AM, Cheekyvincent wrote: - Help Israel with their massacre of the innocent Palestines

Anyone who says the Palestinians are innocent obviously 1) has no clue what Palestine is, and 2) is politically bias to the point where they can only be taken seriously through satire.

how is this good? the US government is a terrorist government itsef. how is it helpful?

I smell a troll. Speak out against palestine's own government on their turf and see if they're as lenient towards your God-given rights as the United States is with your treasonous ideology.

---

At 8/1/07 03:21 PM, Imperator wrote: Yeah....no....
It gauges nothing. Taking into consideration such OTHER VARIABLES such as the rate at which people get the cancer in both countries, you have to first show me that proportionally this stat holds true. Maybe Canada's 6%+ death rate is due to a 20%+ infection rate? Show me otherwise, THEN you can start talking about "proof"....but not before.

Canada's incidence of breast cancer is higher on the order of about 9.4%

Also, it's all well and good to talk about universal healthcare being a good idea. I think that we should keep the universal healthcare, but restructure it to be more efficient, and I'd rather keep the flawed system than switch to a private system.

Let's not pretend that our healthcare system handles things like cancer testing in a timely and efficient manner though.

---

At 8/1/07 03:21 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/1/07 03:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: It proves that their medical treatment is inferior, that their country handled a disease fairly poorly compared to how we did. Even though they did get more infections (maybe they just were hit harder intstead of being less able to contain it), they still had dozens of people die due to it. The US didn't, of the 70 people infected, nobody died... 1/6 of Canadians infected died.

What are you talking about? It doesn't prove ANYTHING.

Actually it proves exactly what I used it for.

You HAVE heard of the scientific method right?

Obviously it's a concept lost on YOU. When someone is to either disprove or prove something, they have to provide evidence of the relevance and effect of whatever variable they apply to the equation. You can't disprove or even cast doubt on something unless the variable you provide is rooted in fact.

The variables you provided came strictly from your own imagination, you cannot use them. If scientists heeded every single possible variable within the realm of imagination, no matter how ridiculous and baseless it is, there would be no such thing as scientific fact.

Um do you have some facts to back that up?

I don't need to, since it's supposed to be the job of the claimant to reduce these extraneous variables, but I'll look some up later today.

The person making the claim only has to disprove extenuating variables IF the variables are proven to EXIST and IF the variables that exist can be proven to have an affect on the trend.

You've provided no fact for anything you've said. Your "variables" that you brought up consist entirely of your own lack of logic, and your desperate attempt to discredit something for your personal agenda, at the expense of the truth.

You might as well have tried to cast doubt on the whole thing by saying that MAYBE UFOs visit Canada at a higher rate than they do the US, and that the radiation emitted from their proton hyperdrive propulsion systems weakens the immune system of Canadians, thus this might mean Canadians have lesser ability to survive diseases.

This absolutely cannot be disproved, but it isn't PROVEN either, therefore - just like the stupid "variables" you provided - they can't be applied to the equation. It's pretty ridiculous for someone not accept established facts just because someone can't disprove whatever wacky variable they conjure up. But this ridiculousness is exuded by you! You're basing your entire argument on your own baseless, incredibly laughable and uneducated whims of imagination, one of which I already disproved.

First: I don't think you'd know what a "fact" was if it bit you in the ass.

Hahaha! That's coming from YOU? You've never provided fact for anything you've ever said. Facts are the FARTHEST thing from your mind in any debate you get into, you've proven this. Even right now, all while you argue someone who based everything they said in fact (me) you think you're repudiating me all while you haven't provided fact for anything you've said.

Second,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation _does_not_imply_causation

Here, here's something for YOU to verse yourself with. This logical fallacy basically radiates from everything you've said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_fr om_ignorance

YOU, not me, have to PROVE that the deaths in Canada can be attributed to their healthcare, and not some other variable. That "imagination" is what scientists do all the time to check for extraneous variables.

"Extranous variables" have to be SHOWN to even exist or have effect in order to be included. You haven't shown this, you only made up total nonsense off the top of your head and pretend it means something even though you haven't proved anything, and most of what you said has already been disproved.

I did prove it what I stated. Canadians who are diagnosed with treatable diseases have less survivability form these treatable diseases, thus showing the QUALITY of their healthcare and its ABILITY to cure people is the main variable, and Canada is inferior in this regard. It's the main and only variable because to even include a variable into the equation, it has to be first validated as credible. You haven't provided any credible variable, therefore when the REAL factors are calculated and applied, it shows Canada's healthcare is less effective than ours, the fact that we're talking about MILLIONS of cases (cancer) on both sides makes the comparison even more sound.

There's a study out there that shows people with less kids have more household appliances. Don't go buying toasters as birth control just yet though.....

That's not applicable to this situation in anyway, not even the concept. We're gauging the ability of healthcare to do what it's supposed to do, the healthcare in Canada performed less well than ours did without there being any proof to show that their lesser ability to cure was caused by variables unaffected by healthcare.

People usually decide things on based on facts, not hypotheticals that stem from the vivid imaginations of people like you who have no clue what they are talking about.

Again, where does it say in there that it is DUE TO CANADA'S HEALTH SYSTEM that these correlations are true.

If that's your position, then it's impossible to prove basically anything in this entire subject.

But the fact is, it's proof in and of itself. It's a RELATIVE rate, thus showing the RELATIVE ability of each country's medical care to address, treat, and cure people diagnosed with the same disease. Therefore, our medical care outperformed theirs, the numbers themselves prove this.

In order for you to cast doubt on what is established fact you have to prove the applicability of whatever variable you propose should be factored in.

Otherwise, next time you hear someone say something like "The New Deal lifted Americans out of poverty. Americans were in poverty before it happened, they were lifted out of it quickly after it was enforced" You should proudly say:

"This isn't proven! Maybe Americans naturally got lifted out of poverty because all at once everyone stopped just being lazy, oh and so what if the government funds added revenue to businesses? Theres no proof that this correlation equals causation! Maybe ALIENS started abducting random business owners, and implanted them with brain bugs that controlled them to make them run their businesses better! You can't disprove this 'extraneous variable', therefore you've proven nothing! I'm IMPERATOR AHAHAHAA"

It gauges nothing. Taking into consideration such OTHER VARIABLES such as the rate at which people get the cancer in both countries, you have to first show me that proportionally this stat holds true. Maybe Canada's 6%+ death rate is due to a 20%+ infection rate? Show me otherwise, THEN you can start talking about "proof"....but not before.

Apparently your math skills are equally as poor as every other subject. It was a RELATIVE rate, it showed the death PERCENTAGE of people DIAGNOSED with certain diseases. Therefore it is entirely applicable, it gauges the RELATIVE survivability from treatable diseases.

Secondly, the proximity of hospitals to the majority of the population IS a testament to the overall healthcare system. If less Americans died because they got transported to a hospital more quickly, due to better emergency transport or closer proximity... this is a good thing. But... this doesn't really matter because SARS was spread in urban environments, not in rural areas.

Yeah, that's true. I misspoke.

Yeah, you tend to misspeak a lot. If only you'd own up to everything else you're wrong about, meaning 99% of everything you say.

---

Yeah, you tend to misspeak a lot. If only you'd own up to everything else you're wrong about, meaning 99% of everything you say. Blah blah, I'm smart....blah blah I can't NOT insult someone. Blah blah, I'm right because I don't understand what statistic significance is....

HAHAHA! Ok, might wanna watch yourself there....wouldn't want SevenSeize to delete more of your posts.....

Whatever you say Cellypoo!

---

At 8/1/07 11:18 PM, Imperator wrote: HAHAHA! Ok, might wanna watch yourself there....wouldn't want SevenSeize to delete more of your posts.....

Whatever you say Cellypoo!

Ok come on, we both know that cellardoor doesn't know about statistical significance, or about the meaning of "proof," but now you're just being a dick.

Also: Canada can't screen for diseases worth fuck, and the US spends about twice as much on healthcare per capita as we do, these might have some bearing on the things he's saying.

---

At 8/1/07 11:28 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 8/1/07 11:18 PM, Imperator wrote: HAHAHA! Ok, might wanna watch yourself there....wouldn't want SevenSeize to delete more of your posts.....

Whatever you say Cellypoo!

Ok come on, we both know that cellardoor doesn't know about statistical significance, or about the meaning of "proof," but now you're just being a dick.

Haha alright there Elfer. Even though I proved my case solidly, as you know, you're just allowing yourself to self-deceive because you're not comfortable with the truth.

As validated by:

Also: Canada can't screen for diseases worth fuck, and the US spends about twice as much on healthcare per capita as we do, these might have some bearing on the things he's saying.

And how does that detract from the fact the US has better healthcare?

---

At 8/1/07 11:28 PM, Elfer wrote:
Ok come on, we both know that cellardoor doesn't know about statistical significance, or about the meaning of "proof," but now you're just being a dick.

Alright alright, just one more for the road, then I'm gone:

Here, here's something for YOU to verse yourself with. This logical fallacy basically radiates from
everything you've said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_fr om_ignorance

Likewise\

¡Adios!

---

At 8/1/07 11:18 PM, Imperator wrote:

Yeah, you tend to misspeak a lot. If only you'd own up to everything else you're wrong about, meaning 99% of everything you say. Blah blah, I'm smart....blah blah I can't NOT insult someone. Blah blah, I'm right because I don't understand what statistic significance is....

HAHAHA! Ok, might wanna watch yourself there....wouldn't want SevenSeize to delete more of your posts.....

Whatever you say Cellypoo!

Yes, I was waiting for that. The things you say after your argument gets superior logic, or after you get proven wrong, you ignore everything that was said and resort to grade-school tactics "whatever you say cellypoo". What a great way of showing how desperate you are.

And then you have the stupidity to suggest that I don't understand statistical significance... meanwhile you thought that pulling random variables out of your ass was significant to the argument.

You're a very sad person. No wonder you're only a history major, you're not exactly able to think critically.

---

You're a very sad person. No wonder you're only a history major, you're not exactly able to think critically.

I'm a Classical Studies major, you lose!

---

At 8/1/07 11:36 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/1/07 11:28 PM, Elfer wrote: Also: Canada can't screen for diseases worth fuck, and the US spends about twice as much on healthcare per capita as we do, these might have some bearing on the things he's saying.

And how does that detract from the fact the US has better healthcare?

It doesn't. We have shittier healthcare because we're doing it wrong.

It's still more efficient for the amount of money that's put in, but we could be doing a lot better.

I'm an advocate of universal healthcare, not universal healthcare as it is currently practiced here.

---

At 8/1/07 12:48 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: SARS virus KICK CANADA'S ass

Spinach infected with E-Coli.

Canada
Infected: 1
Killed: 0

USA
Infected: 171
Killed: 3

Spinach kicked USA's ass.

At 8/1/07 10:21 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/1/07 01:48 AM, bcdemon wrote: 1441 was for Iraq to disarm. According to the lack of WMD found in Iraq, I would say they did disarm.

I've already presented evidence to show that at the time 1441 was issued, no one honestly believed that. If you don't want to admit that, that's your problem, but it's intellectually dishonest to sit there and act as though what we know now was a universally known fact at that time.

You're right, at the time it was issued. The USA accused Iraq of concealing WMD, so UN inspections took place to uncover these WMD. Except nothing was ever found, not with the 3 months of inspections before the invasion or the 4 years after the invasion. And the lack of WMD discoveries is what (I feel) prompted Bush to lay down his terrorist threat.

---

At 8/1/07 11:42 PM, Imperator wrote:

You're a very sad person. No wonder you're only a history major, you're not exactly able to think critically.

I'm a Classical Studies major, you lose!

Which is basically Greek and Roman HISTORY...

You lose.

At 8/1/07 11:53 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 8/1/07 11:36 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/1/07 11:28 PM, Elfer wrote: Also: Canada can't screen for diseases worth fuck, and the US spends about twice as much on healthcare per capita as we do, these might have some bearing on the things he's saying.

And how does that detract from the fact the US has better healthcare?

It doesn't. We have shittier healthcare because we're doing it wrong.

Which is my point... Canada doesn't have better medical care.

It's still more efficient for the amount of money that's put in, but we could be doing a lot better.

Well what do you think is more important? Efficiency or quality? Besides, it could be argued that Canada's healthcare is only less expensive per person because Canada spends a lot less on research and development, and benefits from American research and development. It could also be argued that Canada's healthcare is more efficient because there is a lower frequency of expensive procedures, and therefore less cost, which is also a downside because it causes longer waits, which might be to blame for less survivability from treatable diseases.

I haven't seen stats that say that Canada's actual healthcare is more efficient per person, for the actual kind of care itself. I've only seen stats that show that the country of Canada as a whole has a smaller per capita and per GDP medical spending.

I'm an advocate of universal healthcare, not universal healthcare as it is currently practiced here.

Well then you're wrong and right at the same time.

At 8/2/07 01:00 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 8/1/07 12:48 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: SARS virus KICK CANADA'S ass

Spinach infected with E-Coli.

Canada
Infected: 1
Killed: 0

USA
Infected: 171
Killed: 3

Spinach kicked USA's ass.

Firstly, link?

Secondly, if those stats are true then Canada didn't have a large enough infected rate to have a small enough margin of error in a comparison with the US to be credible.

Making a relative comparison when the data is THAT lopsided doesn't work, because the amount of infections isn't what you're comparing, it's amount of survivability from infections, a relative rate. Being 0 for 1 is mathematically the same, but it isn't statistically the same as being 0 for 10, or 0 for 100.

---

Which is basically Greek and Roman HISTORY...

Actually, that'd be covered under a degree in Ancient History.

CS covers a broader subject matter and has a lot of departmental cross-overs. Hence the reason a lot of CS majors follow up with Law (or other upper-education) degrees.

And knowing is half the battle.....

G.I. Joe!

---

US vs Canada cancer survival rates

Looks like canada's cancer survival rating is a bit higher than yours.

Study at Yale finds long term survival rates of heart failure identical between Canada and the US

The mortality rate for cancer in the US male population is about 234/100 000, and in Canada the rate is 215/100 000. You also have a higher mortality rate for women.

I don't know about you but I would rather have a higher cancer survival rating than a higher SARS survival rating.

---

At 7/30/07 06:57 AM, Cheekyvincent wrote: lol the picture of them is funny...
"The world owes a debt to the United States for its leadership in the fight against international terrorism, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said."

Well, what has the US done good to the world...
hmm...
- bombed iraq and Afghanistan and killed tonnes of civillians
- Help Israel with their massacre of the innocent Palestines
- Claimed credit for themselves for WW2
- opened Guantamino bay
- Secretly transported prisoners to torture camps...
how is this good? the US government is a terrorist government itsef. how is it helpful?

Discuss

Actually, sounds like the USA owes the world (in addition to the trillions of dollars the USA owes to China XD). Anyways Prime Minister Gordon Brown sounds like the Prime Minister of Albania XD

---

At 8/1/07 03:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

SARS

At 8/1/07 03:21 PM, Imperator wrote: Correlation =/= Causation

Since when was one incident indicative of the entire healthcare system?

Imperator's right about correlation causation

'Studies have shown family's with many appliances have less kids'
Why not shove a toaster up your vagina as a contraceptive?
Although I'd argue the correlation - causation argument is kind of stretched here.

This SARS case is also a representation of only one criteria;
Responsiveness

Not to mention its one single case study you've presented

Now who would've undertaken more comprehensive research taking into consideration an array of factors and criteria

W.H.O

who?

W.H.O that's who

Canada --> 30th

Canada Per Capita Healthcare Expenditure
$3500

31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark

~~~~~~~~~~

U.S.A --> 37th
Cuba --> 39th

Oh.. hello Cuba

U.S Per Capita Healthcare Expenditure
$6500

Cuba Per Capita
$250

Aye Carumba!
Ochie mumma!

Don't forget Cuba was stricken with economic turmoil because of the embargo we placed on them.

Now back to Canada and U.S
You said their U.H.C was better then our system because of the SARS victims survivability rate right?
One singular event right?
How many died again, <20 right?

Well how about this;

18 000 americans year over year die because they have no healthcare
Bonjour!

You know why you're thinking this way.
Republicans.
Libertarian Free-Market Economics.

now if youll excuse me i need to sleep and after this ng redesign all i got was a fucking laggy textbox

---

At 7/30/07 06:57 AM, Cheekyvincent wrote: lol the picture of them is funny...
"The world owes a debt to the United States for its leadership in the fight against international terrorism, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said."

Well, what has the US done good to the world...
hmm...
- bombed iraq and Afghanistan and killed tonnes of civillians

Yes. Bombs kill people.

They also killed terrorists, but nobody points THAT out.

- Help Israel with their massacre of the innocent Palestines

I'm not getting into that because I don't know that much about it.

- Claimed credit for themselves for WW2

Yes. They did. There wasn't much left of Europe left not under fascist control. AND: Almost every country that stayed free for the entire war takes all the credit.

- opened Guantamino bay

o.0

Narrow-minded fucker

- Secretly transported prisoners to torture camps...

Not torture camps, interrogation camps.

What? You think terrorists wil tell you Osama's plans if you sit down and have tea with them?

how is this good? the US government is a terrorist government itsef. how is it helpful?

Discuss

I see a large ammount of fail in the area of YOU, you narrow-minded media-loving fucking douchebag.

Burn in hell

---

At 8/2/07 02:04 AM, JoS wrote: US vs Canada cancer survival rates

Looks like canada's cancer survival rating is a bit higher than yours.

That's not overall cancer survival, that's only cancer among children. Also, the most recent stats there only compared the US and Canada during the same time 19 years ago.

Those stats only apply to children, and the stats aren't even current.

Study at Yale finds long term survival rates of heart failure identical between Canada and the US

"Virtually identical" after one year, however:

Compared to Canadian patients, those in the U.S. had almost a 20 percent lower risk of dying within 30 days of being hospitalized for heart failure

Then, let's look at this CBC article:

Doctors in the United States tend to treat heart attacks more aggressively than their Canadian counterparts, which improves chances of survival for patients, researchers say.

Americans who've had heart attacks are almost three times more likely than Canadians to receive angioplasties and bypass surgeries to treat their clogged arteries, the researchers said.

The five-year mortality rate was two per cent higher among the Canadian patients (21.4 per cent) compared to in American patients (19.6 per cent). The results translate into 300 or 400 more lives lost every year north of the border.

Hmm.. so obviously Americans spend more, but more people survive due to more frequent expensive treatments. Maybe the cost-cutting in Canada's universal system, which makes it appear to be more efficient, is causing more deaths?

The mortality rate for cancer in the US male population is about 234/100 000, and in Canada the rate is 215/100 000. You also have a higher mortality rate for women.

You didn't provide a link for this.

I don't know about you but I would rather have a higher cancer survival rating than a higher SARS survival rating.

Are you 0-14 years old? Because the only stats you showed were for cancer survival among children aged 0-14 years, and it only compared Canada and the US at the same time 19 years ago.

---

I'd just like to point out that where tony4moroney lacks (a lot) in substance and logic, he makes up for by spacing out his posts to ridiculous levels to make it seem like he's saying more than he is.

At 8/2/07 03:24 AM, tony4moroney wrote: Not to mention its one single case study you've presented

I showed that Canadians are less likely to survive from breast cancer and colon cancer as well, and just recently I showed they are less likely to survive from heart failure, in addition to SARS.

Now who would've undertaken more comprehensive research taking into consideration an array of factors and criteria

That's judging the system of the country on a few factors, it doesn't judge the car

Canada --> 30th

Canada Per Capita Healthcare Expenditure
$3500

You know, part of the ranking is the spending per capita. This is partially why Canada ranked higher. You're saying they rank higher, and THEN you're using the fact they spend less to suggest that they rank higher in spite of the fact they pay less, when this part of the reason they ranked higher in the first place.

Meanwhile, that's judging a system on a set criteria, it doesn't prove in absolute terms that the system is better at treating people. It's giving a grandiose comparison, some of which is biased heavily towards criteria such as "Fairness in financial contribution" as well as the spending as relative to GDP.

But it fails gauge the quality of the medical care and teh medical infrastrucutur in the final ranking. Look under "Responsiveness" and "Distrubution" the US is ranked higher than Canada.

And in these areas, America's addition spending may make things look less efficient in absolute terms, but it saves lives.

Now back to Canada and U.S
You said their U.H.C was better then our system because of the SARS victims survivability rate right?

And Cancer, and heart failure.

One singular event right?

How many died again, <20 right?

30 something in Canada, out of 251 infecitons, 0 out of 73 infections in the US.

Theres enough infections on both sides to make the comparison have a low enough margin of error in relative comparison.

Well how about this;

18 000 americans year over year die because they have no healthcare
Bonjour!

How about this:

9000 to 24000 Canadians die each year due to medical care errors because of faulty records. The fact that they don't want to pay for new technology kills more people in both relative and absolute terms (potentially) than whatever lack coverage AMericans have.

Hmm....

Seems the cost-cutting in universal healthcare is worse than the lack of coverage in the US, especially considering population difference.

And I didn't even go down the road of Canadians dying while waiting in line...

---

I can't believe I didn't notice this one:

At 8/1/07 12:46 PM, JoS wrote: Your sources on chemical and biological weapons are over 6 years old

You provided no sources (let alone a source that is more recent than the one I provided) to back up the incorrect claim you made. You said the US has the most chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and you were wrong.

I don't understand how you can keep doing this to yourself. You always make outrageous claims and use them as some sort of certain fact, and then you get proven wrong. You could at least check up on what you're saying...

Do you not remember last time you did this? You made some pretty hefty claims, I proved them all wrong, and it took you several posts filled with denial until you admitted it. I just thought you would have learned that making up convenient (yet entirely incorrect) facts from the top of your head doesn't pay off, apparently you haven't learned though.

and one of them even states that Russia is begining to destroy their stockpiles.

Just like the US is destroying OUR nuclear stockpiles as well according to the same agreement? Kind of like how the US will have cut our nuclear arsenal in half between 2004 and 2012?

Meanwhile you fail to acknowledge how the US hasn't developed chemical and biological weapons for decades, while Russia continues to do so. LINK

You're proving your bias when you make the US seem bad because of WMD, yet you continue to defend Russia once it's been proved they have more nukes, and continue to pursue other WMD while the US doesn't. Thus you parade the fact that your stance is based on your desire to rip on the US, rather than your desire to actually address whatever problem you think exists honestly and subjectively.

And you say blacks and hispanics have shorter life expectancy, is this a biological thing, or is it because they make up a larger portion of poor people.

I don't know for sure if it's a biological thing, but there's nothing to show that it's not. Look at the life expectancy of their countries of origin, or look at their life expectancy in other 1st world nations. It's still lower than the whites that make up the majority in the US. Since the US has a much larger proportion of these minorities (making our white majority much smaller in proportion to population than other 1st world countries) it makes comparison across the boards inapplicable. It doesn't gauge the ability of the US to create human development in relative terms, because those countries would have higher human development anyway based on the sheer chance of their more favorable (in medical terms) racial make-up.

If there's proof that these minorities live longer and have lower infant mortality in other western countries than they do in the US then maybe you could blame it on racial inequality in the US. But you can't, because it's a fact that minorities score equally as low in the UK (which was used in your comparison) as they do in the US. The UK (and a lot of other countries including your own) just has a much smaller minority population.

Do poor white Americans lie years longer than rich black people? Because if they do not you really can't use that arguiement because it is based on income, not race, it just so happens they are poorer than the avergae white eprson.

But in that case you could say that they are poorer because their race tends to underachieve, both in their native countries and in western host nations, which is also a fact.

---

At 8/2/07 01:23 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/1/07 11:42 PM, Imperator wrote: I'm a Classical Studies major, you lose!

Which is basically Greek and Roman HISTORY...

You lose.

Don't be ridiculous. It's Greek and Roman ART history. That's much more adjective.

At 8/1/07 11:53 PM, Elfer wrote: It doesn't. We have shittier healthcare because we're doing it wrong.

Which is my point... Canada doesn't have better medical care.

Oh I know, you were just using some goofy arguments to make that point. There's much better reasons that our healthcare is inferior.

It's still more efficient for the amount of money that's put in, but we could be doing a lot better.

Well what do you think is more important? Efficiency or quality?

Quality, of course, but efficiency is important in order to get the most quality from the money available. There's a lot of ways the government could be making health care more efficient, and to be honest, a lot of ways Canadian citizens could be helping out too. For example, by staying in good shape, eating healthy and not smoking, one could save everyone a lot of money.

Besides, it could be argued that Canada's healthcare is only less expensive per person because Canada spends a lot less on research and development, and benefits from American research and development.

I don't think that medical R&D counts as healthcare spending. A lot of that is done at either private facilities run by drug companies or at university labs.

However, if you can find something that shows that the US spends significantly more per capita on research, and that those numbers are included in the per capita healthcare spending, I'd say that you're right.

It could also be argued that Canada's healthcare is more efficient because there is a lower frequency of expensive procedures, and therefore less cost, which is also a downside because it causes longer waits, which might be to blame for less survivability from treatable diseases.

See, that's not what causes the longer waits, what causes the longer waits is insufficient equipment and specialists to deal with the number of procedures that we do actually have. There's no natural market forces at play because most of that is handled by the government, and all they'd have to do is put in the funding to handle the extra procedures in a timely manner.

In any case, I wouldn't say that dropping a policy of preventative healthcare in order to cause more expensive procedures is a good idea. Preventative healthcare is more efficient than curative by an enormous margin.

I haven't seen stats that say that Canada's actual healthcare is more efficient per person, for the actual kind of care itself. I've only seen stats that show that the country of Canada as a whole has a smaller per capita and per GDP medical spending.

Keep in mind that we also don't have uninsured people (for the most part). We cover the entire population with half as much money, and I doubt that US healthcare is more than twice as good as what you would get in Canada.

At 8/2/07 01:00 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 8/1/07 12:48 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: SARS virus KICK CANADA'S ass

Firstly, link?

Secondly, if those stats are true then Canada didn't have a large enough infected rate to have a small enough margin of error in a comparison with the US to be credible.

I think you pretty much pulled the same thing earlier with your SARS statistics though. The overall mortality rate for SARS was about 10%, meaning that with 27 cases in the US, there was naturally a 5.8% chance that nobody would die from it.

I'd figure out the probability that at least 1/6 of the infected in Canada would die, but that's a cumulative binomial distribution problem, and there's really no good way to solve those without writing a program, and it's a bit early in the morning for coding. As a quick estimate though, I'd say the odds are probably better than 10%

Neither of these cases had enough incidence of disease to bring in the law of large numbers. Not enough degrees of freedom, so the results aren't significant. Oh well. There's plenty of things that lots of people get that you people could talk about, like cancer or heart disease.

---

At 8/2/07 01:00 AM, bcdemon wrote: Except nothing was ever found, not with the 3 months of inspections before the invasion

"During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." Hans Blix on December 19th 2002, regarding the December 7th report Iraq submitted to the UN security council regarding their weapons of mass destruction.

"Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections." Hans Blix in his March 7th 2003 report to the UN security Council on Iraq's compliance with UNSCR #1441.

Who's the liar now?

---

Haven't read the whle thread, but you guys know what the irony here is?

The world literally does owe the US a debt. All the countries, like Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, which the US has destroyed to build its empire, will be indebted to the US forever. They already are. Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman.i

---

At 8/2/07 08:05 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 8/2/07 01:23 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Which is basically Greek and Roman HISTORY...

Don't be ridiculous. It's Greek and Roman ART history. That's much more adjective.

Actually it covers Greek and Roman culture, language, politics, religion/mythology, philosophy etc.. and art is only a part of it. But still, I find it funny that it's even a major... it's basically like having someone major in addition and subtraction rather than mathematics as a whole. I wasn't even aware that Classical Studies was a major, so I figured that Imperator majored in history.

Which is my point... Canada doesn't have better medical care.

Oh I know, you were just using some goofy arguments to make that point. There's much better reasons that our healthcare is inferior.

Actually my arguments were and are entirely sound. Instead of judging quality of healthcare based on life expectancy and infant mortality (which I showed are affected by factors outside of health care), it's much more accurate to judge it based on how relatively well the healthcare performs in the same situation. Showing the relative survivability from treatable diseases is entirely applicable, because this ACTUALLY can be attributed to the quality of the care itself, and how well it achieves its goal of curing people of medical conditions, diseases etc..

Quality, of course, but efficiency is important in order to get the most quality from the money available.

Well, apparently Canada's government's quest for efficiency is costing lives. 9000 - 24000 Canadians die each year due to medical errors that are caused by lack of information technology which is a result of lower budgets apparently. This is much higher in relative terms (due to Canada having 1/9th the population) than the amount of Americans that are killed due to not being covered (18000), and is potentially higher in absolute terms as well.

What's better? Saving more lives or saving more money?

For example, by staying in good shape, eating healthy and not smoking, one could save everyone a lot of money.

Or how about this... if you don't stay in good shape, then you reap the consequences by having to provide for your own care. The only time anyone should ever rely on the state and therefore other people's tax dollars is when they have a legitimate excuse for not providing for themselves.

I don't think that medical R&D counts as healthcare spending.

It does. In fact, part of the reason the US has much higher costs is because the US has much more advanced medical technology. Researching, purchasing and using this costs more money, but apparently it saves more lives.

Isn't saving lives worth the extra money that is required for better care? Or should people be worried about spending less so they can rank higher in a superficial index that doesn't actually gauge the quality of their care?

A lot of that is done at either private facilities run by drug companies or at university labs.

Which still gets included in the healthcare spending figures.

However, if you can find something that shows that the US spends significantly more per capita on research, and that those numbers are included in the per capita healthcare spending, I'd say that you're right.

Easy.

In 2005, the US spent $95 billion on Medical research. (it also states that this is included in healthcare costs)

For 2005, Canada was projected to spend $1 billion.

I haven't found stats that are more recent then that, but we can assume neither countries have changed that much since then, so let's use current population to create a relative comparison:

US Population: 302,505,726
Canadian population: 32,980,263

So Canada has 1/9th the population of the US.... yet 1/95th the Research spending, this means that the US spends about 10 times more per capita than Canada does on medical research.

Exact numbers:
US Medical Research per capita: $314.04
Canada Medical Research per capita: $30.32

More than 10 times more per capita.

It could also be argued that Canada's healthcare is more efficient because there is a lower frequency of expensive procedures, and therefore less cost, which is also a downside because it causes longer waits, which might be to blame for less survivability from treatable diseases.

See, that's not what causes the longer waits, what causes the longer waits is insufficient equipment and specialists to deal with the number of procedures that we do actually have.

Um duh?... that's what CAUSES a lower frequency in procedures... therefore longer waits.

In any case, I wouldn't say that dropping a policy of preventative healthcare in order to cause more expensive procedures is a good idea. Preventative healthcare is more efficient than curative by an enormous margin.

You apparently haven't looked at the stats I've provided... if Canada's preventative healthcare is more efficient, it obviously isn't more effective considering it ends up saving less lives than American healthcare which revolves around curative care.

It depends on what you consider to be more important, efficiency in saving people, or efficiency in cutting costs?

Keep in mind that we also don't have uninsured people (for the most part). We cover the entire population with half as much money, and I doubt that US healthcare is more than twice as good as what you would get in Canada.

It saves more lives though, are you one to judge this based on price effectiveness? Is making someone have a 30% larger chance of survival not worth twice as much money?

Secondly, if those stats are true then Canada didn't have a large enough infected rate to have a small enough margin of error in a comparison with the US to be credible.

I think you pretty much pulled the same thing earlier with your SARS statistics though.

No, because my stats had a large enough frequency of infection on both sides to make a comparison have a low margin of error when comparing death rates.

The overall mortality rate for SARS was about 10%,

Um in Canada it was 1/6th or about 17% (according to your own link). China only had a 7% fatality rate....

meaning that with 27 cases in the US, there was naturally a 5.8% chance that nobody would die from it.

If there were 27 cases in the US, 0 people died then that's a 0% death rate. If there was 100 cases then this would make a statistically acceptable 0% death rate, even though it's already mathematically 0%.

Neither of these cases had enough incidence of disease to bring in the law of large numbers.

Ok the, let's flip the tables a bit (using your own link), compare Canada and China. Canada had a 17% death rate out of 251 cases, China had a death rate of only 7% out of 5,327 cases. Thus showing that even a country with a much higher frequency performed better. So apparently death rate isn't affected by infection rate that much.

So I don't know wtf you're talking about, you obviously don't understand statistics.

Not enough degrees of freedom, so the results aren't significant. Oh well. There's plenty of things that lots of people get that you people could talk about, like cancer or heart disease.

Haha and I showed that Canadians had a lower survival rate from prostate cancer, breast cancer, and heart failure in addition the lower survival from SARS.

---

Actually it covers Greek and Roman culture, language, politics, religion/mythology, philosophy etc.. and art is only a part of it. But still, I find it funny that it's even a major... it's basically like having someone major in addition and subtraction rather than mathematics as a whole. I wasn't even aware that Classical Studies was a major, so I figured that Imperator majored in history.

Classics has been a major since god knows when. The Life of Brian scene where the Roman is correcting his Latin is a pun on the old British education system's emphasis on the Classics (fun fact).

Most people use Classical Studies as a gateway to law or med school. That or they enter politics. There's a few like me who continue it through. But really it can lead to a lot of different things. Writing for example, and anywhere where critical reading analysis is needed.

And so ends the shameless promotion of my major.

---

But still, I find it funny that it's even a major... it's basically like having someone major in addition and subtraction rather than mathematics as a whole.

Missed this!
Oooh tisk tisk....cellypoo!

It's more like majoring in "Life". Classics is all around you my love. From the good:
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=23688&re ndTypeId=4
http://www.savethebighouse.com/images/yo st.jpg
http://www.grecoreport.com/the_founding_
fathers_&_the_classics.htm

To the bad:
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbvi ew_approve/180746/2/istockphoto_180746_r oman_eagle.jpg
http://www.crimelibrary.com/graphics/pho tos/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/eichma nn/2-2-Dachau-enter.jpg

From the language, to our government, to even our entertainment industry; all share a little piece of the past that I study.

and think about what you said:
"Actually it covers Greek and Roman culture, language, politics, religion/mythology, philosophy etc."

Philosophy, religion, culture, politics, language, history. That's a LOT of subjects that have their OWN majors....mine encompasses ALL of them. If anything, majoring in classics is more like getting majors (or maybe minors) in Math, Physics, and Chemistry.

Just keep remembering my dear cellypoo:
You're living under a res publica.....

---

At 8/2/07 11:43 PM, Imperator wrote: Classics has been a major since god knows when.

Yes I had to look it up to realize this.

But in that case, it's a pretty inconspicuous major because I've never ever heard of someone majoring in it. I've known people that have taken Classical Studies courses, but never as a major. It seems like too much of a narrow subject for it to benefit many people in their future career.

Most people use Classical Studies as a gateway to law or med school.

That's incredibly odd, as an elective... or for English or History credits? Or what?

And so ends the shameless promotion of my major.

Yeah well your major is unappealing to me, I'm not intrigued. I'd rather major in....French history or something. No that's a lie, but you get my point.

---

At 8/2/07 04:35 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I'd just like to point out that where tony4moroney lacks (a lot) in substance and logic, he makes up for by spacing out his posts to ridiculous levels to make it seem like he's saying more than he is.

Nope, it means that I can bring across a point much more succinctly

1. Less ad hominems
2. Less ego stroking

I also spaced it out so itd be a lot easier to read, I added some unnecessary commentary o_0, but it beats paragraphs of personal attacks ; ]

As I said, you've only managed to address ONE criteria, most of your argument was founded on ONE event --> SARS.

That's judging the system of the country on a few factors, it doesn't judge the car

Just like judging the system on responsiveness to an outbreak isn't judging the car, so you couldn't have reached the miracle conclusion of U.S > Canadian Healthcare on your conjecture alone.

Canada --> 30th

Canada Per Capita Healthcare Expenditure
$3500

You know, part of the ranking is the spending per capita.

Here;

Health Level D.A.L.E;
Canada 12th, U.S 24th

Health Distribution
Canada 18th, U.S 32nd

Responsiveness Level
Canada 7-8th, U.S 1st

Responsiveness Distribution
Both 3-38

Fairness in Financial Contribution
Canada 17th-19th, U.S 54th-55th

Overall Goal Attainment
Canada 7th, U.S 15th

Health Expenditure Per Capita
Canada 10th, U.S 1st

Level Of Health
Canada 35th, U.S 72nd

OK Now I've made it so clear even an idiot wouldn't disagree that Canada's healthcare system IS better across ALL criteria apart from responsiveness, despite the U.S having spent TWICE as much money per capita.

Also, you could argue responsiveness is relative to their less dense populations and much more efficient use of resources. Whilst the U.S is more urbanized, has more dense populations living in cities with > per capita expenditure its only logical that responsiveness to an outbreak would be better. Even so, its only 6 positions better with the 5 nations inbetween having world class healthcare systems in place already.

So yes, I was JUSTIFIED in separating per capita expenditure from overall rankings given that Canada has generally achieved MORE with MUCH LESS money.

Therefore from these figures;

U.H.C --> 'Free-market healthcare'

This is also only the Canadian - U.S Comparison, we'd be grossly outclassed by *gasp* France.

Laissez-Faire economics only theoretically work, they can't be perfectly applied to every 'industry'.

Overall Healthcare System Perfomance
Canada 30th, U.S 37th

Meanwhile, that's judging a system on a set criteria,

Given that its the World Health Care Organization that's funded to research healthcare systems what they've given can be regarded significantly, the criteria would be infinitsemally more comprehensive then a few case studies you've presented that address one criteria.

It doesn't prove in absolute terms that the system is better at treating people.

Overall Goal Attainment, health level DALE, health distribution. Also it should be noted that these are the conclusive findings. They'd have 400 odd pages of research.

It's giving a grandiose comparison,

No, its the conclusive findings we're observing. They'd have the most reputable, comprehensive research and data in hand given that they're the international health organization that was funded several millions of dollars to research this. What we're observing is the summary of of their research into Healthcare Levels, Distribution, Overall Attainments.

some of which is biased heavily towards criteria such as "Fairness in financial contribution" as well as the spending as relative to GDP.

Conjecture

As I've shown Canada's U.H.C system is superior across all criteria apart from responsiveness to which they're ranked 7th-8th.

And in these areas, America's addition spending may make things look less efficient in absolute terms, but it saves lives.

Remember, we have a population of 300 million,
Canada's population 30 million

U.S GDP >
U.S GDP Per Capita >

There's no excuse for why in a population 10x larger in a wealthier country still has a comprehensively poorer system. The only explanation is the healthcare system itself as research has shown not your stipulation of SARS and cancer.

Consider the costs necessitated for basic infrastructure, maintenance and it confounds the mind as to why the U.S system is so grossly inefficient. Healthcare costs 2x more per citizen at 10x the population now realize the gross inefficiency in that.

Its because of profiteering. Corporatism. 'Free-Market' Economics. The goal of a faceless Corporation is to increase profits and reduce expenses. This is a conflict of interest to the general population when the expense is HEALTHCARE