Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 8/3/07 12:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
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.

Meh....not many people choose it anymore, it's kinda gone out of style. I think the U of M program only has 100 undergrads or so, maybe 25 grad students. Very small department. Or if they do, it's because they have bigger aspirations in mind (Lawyers, politicians). In those cases, they usually brag about their bar exams and law degrees from harvard than their undergrads in classics....

A good chunk go on to law school, another good chunk go on to grad school. The rest.....

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

No, Classics gives them a good base for reading comprehension, writing ability, etc. Plus, what we basically operate under is advanced Roman law anyways....in fact a lot of legal terms are still in Latin...

Ask around, a lot of law students end up taking courses in Roman Law, studying Cicero and such.

Med school not so much, but again, same use for Latin and Greek. And they go into Hippocrates and such....

The Hippocratic Oath is still recited, I think that's a pretty strong testament to the ties between modern medicine and Classic roots.

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.

It wasn't for you my love! In any case, I've never been interested in Business....I'd rather major in....well....anything else....I did fine in Calc 1 and basic accounting but still question why the hell I ever took them in the first place....math just doesn't appeal to me (even though I'm by no means "bad" at it).

---

At 8/3/07 12:18 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

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.

Yet you failed to acknowledge that their system saves less lives.

You're focusing on an index of a whole bunch of criteria that don't the actual QUALITY of healthcare, and how well it saves people's lives.

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

Um... having more people doesn't mean you should have better healthcare. Um... India?

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.

It's not comprehensively poorer if the GOAL is to save lives rather than score high on a superficial index that gauges several criteria that don't actually equal BETTER QUALITY.

The only explanation is the healthcare system itself as research has shown not your stipulation of SARS and cancer.

You're delusional. The FACTS I provided show that Americans have higher survival rates from the same treatable diseases that Canadians have a lower survival rate. This gauges the actual QUALITY and PURPOSE of healthcare to get this - CURE PEOPLE - not to be financially efficient.

Seriously, what's more important, saving money and scoring higher on an artificual index, or saving lives? Is saving more lives not worth it to you if it costs more and causes us to score lower on a ranking system that doesn't even really mean anything?

Consider the costs necessitated for basic infrastructure, maintenance and it confounds the mind as to why the U.S system is so grossly inefficient.

It's not inefficient. You're failing to realize that the myth that Canada's healthcare is more ifficient is because they spend less only, yet they SAVE LESS LIVES. How can you judge healthcare on it's price rate, while IGNORING the ACTUAL ABILITY to save peoples lives?

Healthcare costs 2x more per citizen at 10x the population now realize the gross inefficiency in that.

You're getting pretty pathetic now. First off, once again, higher population doesn't equal efficiency. In fact, higher populations tend to complicate things.

Secondly, healthcare per person costs more in the US partially because we spend more on research (which Canada benefits from by the way), we have more numerous and more advanced technology that although it costs more, it SAVES MORE LIVES.

The US system is more expensive and therefore it only appears to be less efficient, even though it is more efficient in saving lives. Seriously, what do you think is more important, efficiency or ability to save people's fucking lives? Do you think that saving more lives isn't worth spending more?

Apparently you do.

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

Canadian healthcare is driven by covering everyone with a mediocre, inferior system. Since their government controls their healthcare, Canadians have no choice, and they have to subject themselves to the budget restrictions that result in longer waiting times and poorer quality care.

Free market healthcare is the reason why more Americans survive from treatable diseases. We spend more on medical research, we spend more on equipment, more doctors, better facilities. Even though this is driven by business, it results in better healthcare. When there is competition, there is innovation, this may result in there being a higher amount of money getting thrown around the health industry, but it also results in more lives being saved.

It's pretty fucking ridiculous when you stress price effectiveness when you're talking about something that is supposed to save lives first and foremost.

---

Oh and tony, here's something for you to think about.

Would you rather spend $2800 to have your father survive from heart failure for a year in Canada, or spend $6000 to have him survive for 5 years in the US?

How can you put the price above the actual quality of care someone gets? Is having someone live longer not worth twice or even 10 times the price?

---

Would you rather spend $2800 to have your father survive from heart failure for a year in Canada, or spend $6000 to have him survive for 5 years in the US?

I think the conundrum comes when you only have a net worth of $3250.....

---

At 8/3/07 12:33 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: save lives

Given that 18 000 americans die year over year because they don't have basic healthcare, and many continue to suffer from severe illnesses that developed from simple ailments that could've been prevented provided they had basic healthcare

I'm pointing out for a system that spends trillions of dollars on healthcare at twice per capita its ridiculous.

You know where a lot of that money ends up right? In the pockets of executives that have achieved quotas and they're not 'improving' the system at all given that all they do is provide inadequate coverage and retract it for the most asinine of conditional clauses.

Its also interesting how $100 Million was spent by the private industry and politicians with special interests to overrule the initial implementation of a U.H.C

I also like how you've mentioned WHO is now ranking everybody on a magical scale

and yes, Americans also do die from medical errors as well

---

At 8/3/07 12:33 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Canadian healthcare is driven by covering everyone with a mediocre, inferior system. Since their government controls their healthcare, Canadians have no choice.

Oh yeah, and just to note most countries with U.H.C don't have strict impositions in place that ban private healthcare. Such as France, UK, Italy, Sweden ecetera

I'm not arguing that private healthcare doesn't have its benefits its just U.H.C is overall a better system.

Having both U.H.C AND Private healthcare systems implemented is best.

Pick any of your case studies from the 30 odd countries that rank above us.

---

At 8/3/07 12:50 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 8/3/07 12:33 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: save lives

Given that 18 000 americans die year over year because they don't have basic healthcare

9000-24000 Canadians die each year because Canada doesn't invest in information technology to simply medical records.

So even if the lowest estimate is true, Canada's BAD healthcare is responsible for MUCH more deaths in proportion to population than America's lack of healthcare. If the higher spectrum of the estimate is true than it kills more people over all.

I'm pointing out for a system that spends trillions of dollars on healthcare at twice per capita its ridiculous.

No it's not, because we save more lives. You're putting lower costs above human beings.

You know where a lot of that money ends up right? In the pockets of executives

And instead of going to technology and equipment, Canada's money goes to government paychecks to doctors that get paid regardless of how well they perform. In Canada, there is no incentive to excel in their medical industry, they just provide a mediocre "acceptable" level of care, because they will get payed the same regardless. This is what causes more people to die, there is no incentive to provide the best product, there is no competition, there is a MONOPLY on healthcare.

What happens when there is a monopoly over something? There is no innovation! There is just the desire to maintain a mediocre, bearable product to maintain a status quo.

that have achieved quotas and they're not 'improving' the system at all given that all they do is provide inadequate coverage

"Inadequate"? Apparently it is Canada's care that is inadequate considering they save less lives.

Its also interesting how $100 Million was spent by the private industry and politicians with special interests to overrule the initial implementation of a U.H.C

Proof?

I also like how you've mentioned WHO is now ranking everybody on a magical scale

Um it's a superficial scale, because it is giving a grandiose comparison in which the ability to actually SAVE LIVES is not even a factor.

It is heavily biased towards universal healthcare due to "distribution" and "fairness" or whatever else, yet it fails to address the fact that a country without universal healthcare still provides better coverage, and ends up saving more people's lives, which in case you didn't know, is the actual GOAL of healthcare.

and yes, Americans also do die from medical errors as well

Sure, but does that mean that less Americans should be covered, so that they are less likely to be the victim of malpractice? Would that save lives? Hahaa

---

At 8/3/07 12:58 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 8/3/07 12:33 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Canadian healthcare is driven by covering everyone with a mediocre, inferior system. Since their government controls their healthcare, Canadians have no choice.

Oh yeah, and just to note most countries with U.H.C don't have strict impositions in place that ban private healthcare. Such as France, UK, Italy, Sweden ecetera

I'm not doubting this is true, but um... link?

I'm not arguing that private healthcare doesn't have its benefits its just U.H.C is overall a better system.

It depends on what you consider to be better...

Low cost?

or....

The actual quality and ability of medical care to save lives?

Apparently you think saving money is more important than someone from dying.

The ranking you provided is meaningless if someone's goal is to save lives first and foremost. It's meaningless if people are emphasizing proficiency and quality of care, instead of ability to save money at the expense of lives.

Having both U.H.C AND Private healthcare systems implemented is best.

Where's your proof?

Pick any of your case studies from the 30 odd countries that rank above us.

The 30 odd countries that haven't been proven to provide actual higher quality care.

Oh, and I didn't see the link you provided here:

At 8/3/07 12:50 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

and yes, Americans also do die from medical errors as well

Those numbers are 2 times smaller in proportion to population in the US than the Canadian figures.

---

At 8/3/07 01:22 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/3/07 12:50 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 8/3/07 12:33 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: save lives

Given that 18 000 americans die year over year because they don't have basic healthcare

9000-24000 Canadians die each year because Canada doesn't invest in information technology to simply medical records.

So even if the lowest estimate is true, Canada's BAD healthcare is responsible for MUCH more deaths in proportion to population than America's lack of healthcare. If the higher spectrum of the estimate is true than it kills more people over all.

What because you hand-picked a single example?

Canada's system has faults definitely and they could improve on these if they invested more money.

What I'm saying is given that the U.S govt. spend so much money on healthcare its achieved less i.e its more inefficient and had the potential to do more. Considering Canada spent hundreds of billions less its interesting that they scale better on most criteria relating to the issuance of healthcare.

I'm pointing out for a system that spends trillions of dollars on healthcare at twice per capita its ridiculous.

No it's not, because we save more lives. You're putting lower costs above human beings.

Nope, terrible interpration. I said its achieved LESS whilst spending MORE money but you continue to miscontrue my statements once again

'oh so youre saying lower costs > human beings'

You picked a single example and as I already said W.H.O has researched across a spectrum of studies but apparently that's not enough. You used their statistics to prove your point, then when i clarified it you dismiss it as useless and start throwing out examples.... please.

250 000 deaths in u.s hospitals

You know where a lot of that money ends up right? In the pockets of executives

And instead of going to technology and equipment, Canada's money goes to government paychecks to doctors that get paid regardless of how well they perform. In Canada, there is no incentive to excel in their medical industry.

Versus Private healthcare where there is no incentive to provide coverage when necessitated.
Given that;
a.) you can refuse them on preconditions
b.) you can refuse them care under clauses

So whoever you've signed up with runs a virtual monopoly on your healthcare at your expense their priority is to minimize your healthcare to increase their profits.

What happens when there is a monopoly over something? There is no innovation! There is just the desire to maintain a mediocre, bearable product to maintain a status quo.

Innovation in providing healthcare? 'Oh uhh here you go.'

Innovations in healthcare have come from a multitude of countries and they haven't stemmed from the healthcare industry but rather from scientific and medical research undertaken by drug companies, universities and the like.

oochie mumma!

that have achieved quotas and they're not 'improving' the system at all given that all they do is provide inadequate coverage

"Inadequate"? Apparently it is Canada's care that is inadequate considering they save less lives.

Apparently you missed where inadequate healthcare in the U.S was a cause for deaths and severe illnesses that have stemmed from otherwise curable ailments. There'd also be cases of corporate malpractice ecetera.

Given that we spend more money per capita on healthcare its economically feasible to roll out U.H.C IN ADDITION to Private healthcare much like the majority of countries that give BETTER healthcare then us.

Its also interesting how $100 Million was spent by the private industry and politicians with special interests to overrule the initial implementation of a U.H.C

Proof?

I can understand that you didn't realize this given that youre such an advocate for Private Healthcare against all common sense.

Also, didn't read through that specific article completely, I read it from another article but I didn't save the link.

I also like how you've mentioned WHO is now ranking everybody on a magical scale

Um it's a superficial scale, because it is giving a grandiose comparison in which the ability to actually SAVE LIVES is not even a factor.

Apparently you missed the fact that all criteria are NECESSITATED IN ORDER to save lives.
In addition to the fact that theyre the conclusive findings from RESEARCH.
Also interesting how you missed that their popolous' health and health treatment is significantly BETTER.
So in that sense it isnt a superficial scale nor is it some 'grandiose' comparison given that theyre the conclusive findings from research into criteria necessitated in order to implement a successful system to save lives. (and results found that show health coverage is better)

and yes, Americans also do die from medical errors as well

Sure, but does that mean that less Americans should be covered, so that they are less likely to be the victim of malpractice? Would that save lives? Hahaa

No less americans are covered under private healthcare then uhc --> d'oh.

Also, i recall the last time we talked about this where you asserted the uk didnt have private healthcare, which they do in addition to u.h.c

Much like how for countries better then the u.s most of them have u.h.c AND private healthcare

---

At 8/3/07 01:33 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I'm not doubting this is true, but um... link?

My computer is lagging A LOT

and i dont know how this is possible but my net connection is slow its been tested at 60 kbps so im assuming the virus hijacked my bandwidth.

I'll get to this later that ok?

till then..

laissez-faire economics

---

At 8/2/07 11:24 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: 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.

Oh, that's pretty much what art history majors do too. They need to underrstand the culture and whatnot to understand what and why the artist was arting.

Also, it seems resaonable to have it as a seperate major than history, since history is a big enough subject that you'd have to specialize earlier. It's like how you wouldn't take your master's in mathematics as a whole, you'd take it in algebra or differential equations or statistics or whatever, or how you don't take a bachelor's in engineering, you take it in electrical, geological or whichever subject catches your fancy.

Interesting side note: There's a lot of frighteningly unintelligent people in engineering. I know people who went into engineering, and after their first year they realized that they had a complete misconception of what engineers actually do.

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?

Saving more lives. That's why we either need to increase our spending, our efficiency, or both. What we're doing now isn't cutting it.

What we should do is increase spending to meet our healthcare needs, then reduce it as efficiency improves while maintaining at least the same standard of care.

Some things in our system just need more money thrown at them though. Canada needs a lot more facilities capable of performing MRIs, for example.

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.

They were actually doing this in a roundabout way a while back by offering tax breaks for things like gym memberships and such. Not perfect, but not a bad idea.

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.

I'd have to look it up on the WHO site where I got the spending figures, I don't know if they list their methodology.

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)

"Total spending on medical research in the United States has doubled in the past decade to nearly $95 billion a year"

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

"Federal health research spending to hit $1 billion"

Do you see the problem with comparing these two numbers?

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.

Of course curative is going to look more effective if you look at the survival rates of people who are already afflicted with diseases. The point of preventative care is to keep people from getting those diseases in the first place.

Also, considering what we're doing with half the money, it's not too bad. Even if we included your problematic research stats, Canada has a lot less healthcare funding per person. If the government would quit fucking around and put money into important programs instead of into stupid shit like the gun registry, we could have a system that actually works.

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

They mean the same thing. You want to save as many people as you can, but do it for the smallest amount of money that you can. Saving people should take priority though, i.e. we need to increase funding.

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.

27 and 251 are not enough for a low margin of error. For example, with the US, you can't even make a statistically significant estimate of the probability of death within +/- 10% at a 95% confidence interval.

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....

Both which are within a statistically reasonable margin of the mean death 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%.

Yes, it's a 0% death rate, which varies from the average death rate by 10%. Since there's only 27 people, that's not an unheard of result. As I said, if there's p = 0.1 that people will die, there's an inherent 5.8% chance that 0 of 27 people will die.

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.

No, you're not getting what I'm saying. If we take two countries, and one has a much higher incidence of SARS, then it is much less likely to vary from the average. Example: If a disease kills people with p = 0.2, A country with 100 infected is far more likely to vary from that rate by 10% than a country with twenty million infected.

A higher infection rate means a closer adherence to the actual probability of death. If it was 10%, then Cana was off by 7% and China was off by 3%. This is a result that could reasonably occur through chance.

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

Man, don't show a complete lack of understanding of how variation works, then tell me that I don't know about 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.

Right, that's what I was saying. Although, I think you only showed that the US has a higher rate of heart failure survival in the short term, if I recall correctly.

Also, since we do focus on preventative care, it would also be valid to compare the overall chance of dying from it, not just the chance of dying once you have it.

---

At 8/3/07 01:33 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/3/07 12:58 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 8/3/07 12:33 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Canadian healthcare is driven by covering everyone with a mediocre, inferior system. Since their government controls their healthcare, Canadians have no choice.

Oh yeah, and just to note most countries with U.H.C don't have strict impositions in place that ban private healthcare. Such as France, UK, Italy, Sweden ecetera

I'm not doubting this is true, but um... link?

http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/private-h ospitals
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/health .asp

I'm not arguing that private healthcare doesn't have its benefits its just U.H.C is overall a better system.

It depends on what you consider to be better...

Low cost?
or....
The actual quality and ability of medical care to save lives?

Apparently you think saving money is more important than someone from dying.

We spend TWICE as much on healthcare per capita. We earn $10 000 more. If we spend more money. If we have more money, then what should be the logical outcome of this? Better healthcare.

Now as I've said according to W.H.O this isn't the case
Across all criteria our Healthcare is INFERIOR. What can be said of all the extra money being spent?
inefficient use of resources

This had nothing to do with cost > human lives. Stop misconstruing my statements. What I'm saying is given how much we spend, why is it then that we scale worst across d.a.l.e, Overall Goals, Healthcare provided, Distribution et. al

You also have a tendency to neglect these criteria and point towards expenditure and then have the nerve to allege its a magical scale that has nothing to do with saving lives, although its a given considering these are measures of quality of care and the capacity to and the competency of saving lives. As was the case when you considered one criteria, responsiveness.

Now tell me, what system do we have? Private healthcare. Your argument is Private healthcare > U.H.C. Your application of theoretical free-market economics claims that 'competition' drives costs down. Apparently this isn't the case now is it? Unless you want to refute any statistics provided.

Another problem with this is the primary cost is healthcare. Their priority as a corporation is to give LESS healthcare in order to INCREASE profits.
You see, as a libertarian you cant have your cake and eat it too. There is a conflict of interest here whether you like to acknowledge it or not.

In regards to innovation most of this comes from Doctors, Scientists, Universities, Drug Companies - funded by none other then drug companies, universities and the U.S Government not the Private Healthcare Industry itself.

So in this regard, Private Healthcare DOES NOT work.
I've also noted that I'm not considering the abolition of Private Healthcare and then implementing U.H.C I'm saying much like France, Sweden, Italy, U.K et. al what we can do is introduce U.H.C alongside with Private Healthcare. The only problem is politics and $100 million dollar bids by farm houses trying to keep us on their crap.

-------------

Remember tape-worms? They're a parasite, you're the host. They suck nutrients from you but they try their best to remain unnoticed and to ensure you survive.
This is because they want your nutrients but they dont want you to recognize their existence because its a problem.

That tapeworm is the private healthcare industry.

-------------

I said 18 000 Americans die year over year because they lacked basic insurance right?
Assuming this statistic held uniformity from 93' (when U.H.C was proposed) till now that would be 14 years.

That means 250 000+ have died because Republicans refused to give them healthcare.
They spent, along with the Private Healthcare companies $100 Million to fight a noble and achievable cause.
250 000 innocent americans that needed our help died
250 000 women, children, mothers, fathers died
250 000 that just wanted a check-up, a surgery, basic healthcare.
That's more then what was lost in the Vietnam War and Iraq War combined.
You know what the difference was? We agreed to fight Vietnam and Iraq for Freedom. U.H.C was fought because some men wanted money.

And yes for once this actually was a partisan issue.

-------------
All that jib-jab about 'better healthcare' from a myriad of random death statistics here's the overall chart also taken into consideration by w.h.o;

Canada Death Rate per 100 000
Male 732 - Female 634
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/mort/
table1_process.cfm

U.S Death Rate per 100 000
Male 853 - Female 855
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/mort/
table1_process.cfm

Canada Healthy Life Expectancy
Male 70 - Female 74

U.S Healthy Life Expectancy
Male 67 - Female 71
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/count ry/compare.cfm?country=CAN&indicator=HAL E0Male,HALE0Female&language=english

Canadian Healthcare is better then U.S Healthcare.

in general terms not absolute of course

Having both U.H.C AND Private healthcare systems implemented is best.

Where's your proof?

http://who.int/countries/usa/en/
http://who.int/countries/fra/en/
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthra nks.html

---

At 8/3/07 10:36 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

in general terms not absolute of course

If that were true, then why is that according his little percentage polls, does Canada have a much higher ration of deaths than the US despite the US having so many who are uninsured?

---

At 8/3/07 12:17 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/3/07 10:36 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

in general terms not absolute of course

If that were true, then why is that according his little percentage polls, does Canada have a much higher ration of deaths than the US despite the US having so many who are uninsured?

If you make the presumption that the upper spectrum of the estimate range is true, as well as assuming that the US healthcare system has zero errors per year, then yes.

---

At 8/3/07 12:24 PM, Elfer wrote:

If you make the presumption that the upper spectrum of the estimate range is true, as well as assuming that the US healthcare system has zero errors per year, then yes.

It doesn't matter if it was 9,000 or 20,000.

Ratio-wise, Canada has a higher death rate.

---

At 8/3/07 10:36 AM, tony4moroney wrote: -------------
Canada Death Rate per 100 000
Male 732 - Female 634
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/mort/
table1_process.cfm

http://www.who.int/whosis/database/mort/
table1_process.cfm
I truly don't know how this ended up linking to Austria, I don't recall looking up arnold schwarzenegger, there may be an actual problem with the linking to WHO.

Alternatively you might have to do a little work yourself. As in click two buttons.
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/mort/
table1.cfm

U.S Death Rate per 100 000
Male 853 - Female 855
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/mort/
table1_process.cfm

http://www.who.int/whosis/database/mort/
table1_process.cfm
hmm the link is the same...

---

At 8/3/07 12:27 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/3/07 12:24 PM, Elfer wrote:

If you make the presumption that the upper spectrum of the estimate range is true, as well as assuming that the US healthcare system has zero errors per year, then yes.

It doesn't matter if it was 9,000 or 20,000.

Ratio-wise, Canada has a higher death rate.

Again, that's if you assume that the American healthcare system makes zero errors.

---

At 8/2/07 02:52 PM, Proteas wrote: Who's the liar now?

G. W. Bush - May 29, 2003
We found the weapons of mass destruction.

Donald Rumsfeld - March 30, 2003
"We know where they [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat"

Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

I dunno, you tell me?

---

At 8/3/07 01:00 PM, Elfer wrote:

Again, that's if you assume that the American healthcare system makes zero errors.

How can you have that number if there are 0 errors?

---

There has always been a superpower, and their must always be, or countrys would colapse, tyrants would roam freen slaughtering without regard. The US used smart bombs when bombing to keep civilian caualitys to a minimum, when it would have been extreamly cheaper to use conventional bombs. i fail to see how that compares to Saddam whiping out an entire village. We aid those who need it, even if they turn on us later, and reporters even said that most iraqies said off camera that they were glad of the invasion, but did not say so becuase they were afraid of being killed... ( yes, i now, i cant spell to great, but that dosent lessen my ideals

---

At 7/30/07 07:31 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

- Claimed credit for themselves for WW2

Yeah, because the US was the largest single contributor to allied victory in WWII. The US was the only country to fight in every theatre of war. The US was the only country to supply all the allies with things that had the US not provided it to them, they would have lost way before the US entered with troops. The US did the most overall. The war was being lost before the US entered the war, adn when the US entered the war, the US did the most tactically. The US single handedly defeated the Japanese, all while providing almost all of the war material used by the British and Russians who in turn, couldn't even fight Germany without the US leading the campaign in Europe as well.

Your so so wrong mate. First off the Commonwealth fought in every theater of the war, Allthough not a country, It was a very strong Unity.

The Aid given to the allies from the US is Debatable. But I probably agree with you that without it the war would of been lost. Howether thats not something to brag about really, because Russia produced as much material and equipment to the war effort as the US and still needed to bum of America, simply because the Soviet Union did a huge amount more. Russia inflicted more casulties on the enemy than the US and the Commonwealth put together.

Your right that The war was being lost before the US entered the war, But It wasn't really the US entering which turned the Tide, It was the British who started to win in Africa and it was the Russians who started advancing on the Nazis. At first the US kept bollocking up things. It wasn't until operations like the Anglo-American invasions of Sicily that the US really contribuated alot to the course of the war (besides supplys).

The US didn't 'single handedly' defeat the japanese. The Australians were heavily involved in the Pacific and the British dominated the SE asia theater.

What the US did do was do by far the most against the Japanese Navy, Similar to how the Commonwealth did by far the most in The Atlantic and Med against the Germans and Italians

As for taking full command in Europe, Don't be so Ignorant as to completly ignore the Eastern front which was warfare on a much much larger scale than the western front and were the US had no command.
In the western front howether your right. The US did take command but this wasn't because the US was superior tactically, but because the US said they wouldn't help unless they were in command.
Allthough Eisenhower was an extremmely good commander so it doesn't matter.

The Italian Campaign which was the British plan to Break into europe was extremmely succesfull it just gets overshadowed by the larger American planned normandy landings. Both were strategic masterpieces. I honestly think that American and British tactics were as good as each other.
Allthough that unlike the other things I have stated is just an opinion. As is yours about American tactics being superior.

---

Depends how you look at it.America (for about 30 years now) has been interfering with the worlds business with most of that interfering happening in the middle east region.the secret behind the stage dealings with corrupt Arab governments then a couple decades later overthrowing said government because it didn't suit America;s needs anymore.Look at the Iran Iraq war.did you know america was secretly aiding both countries so they would kill each other?

1,000,000 Iraqi and Iranian lives were lost due to American meddling.Those lives are now gone.America doesn't see those lost lives.

---

At 8/4/07 06:45 PM, SouthAsian wrote:

1,000,000 Iraqi and Iranian lives were lost due to American meddling.Those lives are now gone.America doesn't see those lost lives.

I'm assuming you're high.

---

At 8/3/07 11:18 PM, bcdemon wrote: I dunno, you tell me?

And I can just as easily provide you an assload of democratic party rep quotes saying that there WERE wmd's in Iraq and that we had to do something about them, but I don't see how that really matters seeing as how Hans Blix was the responsible for the inspections, and he said that (in no uncertain terms) that he had no reason to believe that Saddam had disarmed.

You want to blame someone for the bad info that led us into the war in Iraq, you give credit where credit is due and cut the bullshit.

---

Your country's military is pretty much a joke without the US.

And your's is pretty stupid anyway, since you don't allow openly gay men into it. Apparently the best millitary in the world discriminates against homesexuals because they could seem embarrasing in the showers.
Have a nice day, kthxbai.

---

I've never posted in this forum...but after reading through this thread it does seem like there is a lot of people with something in their heads besides hot air...and i would consider myself to be liberal, but, only because i don't take what ANY government says on just face value. And the fact that i probably know more about the US government than most americans.... which i know because of my extended stay in such country.

I believe in freedom, and nothing but. I believe in the US consitution, especially everyone having a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", as long as actions according to those rights do not disturb another's rights.

That being said, i can say that yes, the US is one of the most dangerous countries on the planet at the moment. Now hold on to those tough 'what are you talking about?' retorts until you have read the full of my post.

The United States undertakes terrorist operations quite a lot. Even upon it's own allies, and blaming them on their enemies. The US likes to control other nations through subversive politics, which is underlined by their own unclassified documents and news reports.

The US is not just hated for no reason, people around the would get more news about the US' undertakings than people in the US do on average. Fox News for instance just spews hatemongering, and looking down on other nations, among it's hugely right bias. In the US, falsifying news is NOT against the law.

The US is seen as the bully around the block. They're young, and they're tough, but very hypocritical and not that bright. The US likes to dictate policy to much older nations, like which governmental and economic system is the best, because, they seem to think there's is the best. Which doesn't add up when a lot of americans can't even point out where Washington D.C is on a map, and with a health care system totally in shambles as compared to other developed nations. The US likes to say they love freedom and liberty, but their own population doesn't even have it. In a nation that you could get fired from your job or refused health care for being transsexual for example. It also likes to say it was just doing good for the world by ridding Iraq of Saddam, but has no thoughts of going into Darfur and stopping the violence there.

Anyways, the US is seen as a very dangerous country, because of past policy and current policy. It holds the biggest stockpile of WMD's in the world, and feels it has to dictate policy to other parts in the world. If a country says no to the US' demands, that country may be invaded, or threatened to be invaded. The US is completely renegade with total disregard of the thoughts and opinions in the International community.

I don't hate the United States, I hate what it's become and I enjoy in it's potential.

Fox News does a smear piece on The Netherlands: http://www.glumbert.com/media/foxnl
Two reporters blow the whistle on FOX News: http://www.glumbert.com/media/monsanto

Terrorism and the United States: A Pragmatic and Theoretical Approach. http://faculty.mckendree.edu/scholars/20 03/randol.htm

---

At 8/4/07 02:57 PM, tawc wrote:

At 7/30/07 07:31 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

- Claimed credit for themselves for WW2

Yeah, because the US was the largest single contributor to allied victory in WWII.

Your so so wrong mate.

No I'm not, maybe you should consult a history book or two. There is no scholar, no expert on WWII who would say anything other, it's a simple fact that the US did the most. Even though the US didn't enter the war immediately, the US still was the most important factor in allied victory, anyone who says otherwise is either doing so because they WANT it to be untrue for their pride/bias, or they are just mindlessly repeating the lies from people who do.

First off the Commonwealth fought in every theater of the war, Allthough not a country, It was a very strong Unity.

In the Pacific, the ONLY "commonwealth" people that fought did so to a VERY SMALL degree, and their contributions were basically meaningless. Most of them anyway were only colonial conscripts, British forces were basically nonexistent in the Pacific.

The Aid given to the allies from the US is Debatable.

It's really not though, it's a fact that the US provided the vast majority of war material for the allies during WWII. Your country was losing even when the US was paying your bill, and providing you with almost all of your equipment, fuel, ammunition, vehicles, weapons, textiles, everything. Your country would never have been able to even fight the Germans for very long if you didn't receive aid.

The Russians were no different. Although the aid they received from the US was smaller in proportion to the material they provided themselves compared to the UK, it was still MASSIVE. Russia wouldn't have been able to operate at the scale they did if it wasn't for the US.

But I probably agree with you that without it the war would of been lost. Howether thats not something to brag about really, because Russia produced as much material and equipment to the war effort as the US and still needed to bum of America, simply because the Soviet Union did a huge amount more. Russia inflicted more casulties on the enemy than the US and the Commonwealth put together.

Russia only fought Germany to any significant degree... and they did so on the dime of the US, with US supplies and equipment that they needed desperately. Russia inflicted more casualties and received more, but that's not really how you judge the effect in a war. You judge it based on the overall tactical and strategic victories in the war as a whole, and the TOTAL affect of a country on the result.

Russia did more against Germany than the US did tactically, but they didn't do more in WWII as a whole. British people, Europeans, including the Russians tend to isolate WWII to Europe in their minds, entirely failing to realize that while the US was fighting with them against Germany, the US was also single-handedly fighting an defeating the Japanese.

Your right that The war was being lost before the US entered the war, But It wasn't really the US entering which turned the Tide, It was the British who started to win in Africa and it was the Russians who started advancing on the Nazis.

And once again you refuse to acknowledge that both of these supposed things that turned the tide were only turning the tide (slightly) against the Germans... while the Japanese (who were just as powerful as the Germans) were at full strength in an entirely separate region of the world, and the US fought them single-handedly, beyond a few basically meaningless, token contributions from commonwealth colonial conscripts.

At first the US kept bollocking up things.

Um?

It wasn't until operations like the Anglo-American invasions of Sicily that the US really contribuated alot to the course of the war (besides supplys).

Even though yeah, the US didn't do much in North Africa, it was still more than British forces did in the Pacific, by a long shot. And even then, the North African compaign wasn't exactly crucial in the defeat of Germany. Before El Alamein, the majority of western Europe was already taken by the Germans... Africa was sort of a diversion, kind of an act of containment to prevent the Germans from spreading even further, which according to history... could have made things even worse for the Germans.

The US didn't 'single handedly' defeat the japanese. The Australians were heavily involved in the Pacific and the British dominated the SE asia theater.

The Australians weren't heavily involved, they did basically jackshit. The British didn't dominate South East Asia, that's basically 100% nonsense. The British barely held on to a few of its colonies while not fighting the Japanese openly or offensively, if by that you mean "dominated" then I don't think you're exactly a good determiner of who did what.

What the US did do was do by far the most against the Japanese Navy, Similar to how the Commonwealth did by far the most in The Atlantic and Med against the Germans and Italians

The Atlantic naval battles were NO WHERE NEAR as as important as the ones in the Pacific, and even then the US navy did more in the Atlantic than the British navy did in the Pacific. The med was basically nothing...

As for taking full command in Europe, Don't be so Ignorant as to completly ignore the Eastern front which was warfare on a much much larger scale than the western front and were the US had no command.

The US was in supreme allied command, and oversaw the campaign in western Europe. The US still had influence on the eastern front in that the Russians were still dependent on US-provided aid. This gave the US a bit of influence.

In the western front howether your right. The US did take command but this wasn't because the US was superior tactically, but because the US said they wouldn't help unless they were in command.
Allthough Eisenhower was an extremmely good commander so it doesn't matter.

The Italian Campaign which was the British plan to Break into europe was extremmely succesfull it just gets overshadowed by the larger American planned normandy landings.

The US did just as much in Italy as the British did, in addition to the US doing the majority of planning and fighting in the Normandy landings, the battle of normandy, and operations in greater Western Europe.

Both were strategic masterpieces. I honestly think that American and British tactics were as good as each other.

I don't think so, because the first and last time the US gave joint-command over an operation in western Europe to the British, it was a total failure. Hello? Operation market Garden? Field Marshal Montgomery oversaw basically one of the worst defeats the allies against the Germans.

Before that and after that, the US commanders had a way different, more successful tactic, and that is why the British weren't allowed to command operations from then forward.

---

When fidel castro was Sick why did he request american doctors instead of Russian, Canadian, or Cuban ones?

I bet it has something to do with fuedalism.

---

okay okay....we can all argue who 'won' WWII until we're all blue in the face....but one thought to consider is that without all allies engaged the war would not have been won...each did their share...the lessons learned by the Canadian invasion at Dieppe paved the way to the invasion of normandy, and the fact that the Russians were on heavy advance onto Hitler's troops, because Hitler stupidly didn't prepare his army for the harsh Russian winter, Hitler actually pulled out panzer divisions out of defending normandy.....no one nation can or should claim victory as it was a team effort....that and the stupidity and bad leadership by Hitler himself.

---

At 8/5/07 01:22 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/3/07 11:18 PM, bcdemon wrote: I dunno, you tell me?

And I can just as easily provide you an assload of democratic party rep quotes saying that there WERE wmd's in Iraq and that we had to do something about them, but I don't see how that really matters seeing as how Hans Blix was the responsible for the inspections, and he said that (in no uncertain terms) that he had no reason to believe that Saddam had disarmed.

Proteas, the democratic wing of your government was going on the same faulty intelligence that the conservative wing was going on.
When someone accuses another of having something without any evidence on hand, a search or in this case inspections take place to prove if the accusations are true or false. If the inspections do not find anything, you don't just go "well who cares, we know they are there" which is what the Bush adm. did. Hans Blix was doubtful that Iraq had WMD. Why was he doubtful, because he never found any WMD.

Hans Blix - "And in January 2003, we had performed quite a lot of inspections to sites which were given by intelligence and they had not shown any weapons of mass destruction, so we began to be doubtful."
"And among the 700 inspections that we performed, none brought us any evidence of weapons of mass destruction."

So you have accusations and no evidence whatsoever. See your government went on the basis that 'unaccounted for meant existing'. And as Hans Blix said "that was an error."

You want to blame someone for the bad info that led us into the war in Iraq, you give credit where credit is due and cut the bullshit.

It wasn't bad intel that led your country to invade Iraq, it was bad thinking on the part of the Bush adm.
The inspections and lack of WMD discoveries proved that the intel was shaky, but your government still wanted to war with Iraq. Bush couldn't prove Iraq had WMD, so then he made his 48 hour ultimatum to Saddam. Anything just to start a war with Iraq.

Link for Hans Blix quotes.