Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/17/07 06:42 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

:: They can't.

Plain & simple.

The costs can't be reduced without government overhauls or they can't be reduced at all [Leaving Governmental Seizure of the medical idustry as the only option]

At 10/17/07 08:20 PM, SlithVampir wrote: Or maybe you have never felt true desparation. Some people just have no empathy.

I will not waste time arguing my point on your other issues, but this one is just plain rude. I was almost beaten to the point of kidney failure by a group of Mormon teenagers when I was 8, just for not being a Mormon. I went to the hospital. I was treated very well, and the best part is that MY FAMILIES' PRIVATE INSURANCE PAID FOR MY TREATMENT.

It is just plain selfish to assume that just because other people have money, the poor have a right to take it from them. Anyone that would do that needs to realize that LIFE IS HARD, GET USED TO IT.

And I will now take my leave, not to speak in this thread anymore, as there is nothing more to argue without hearing the same "the less fortunate people need your money" bullshit that is the basis of all liberal ideals.

Not all liberals are like this. I'm liberal. Fuck socialism. Fuck affirmative action too, just for the hell of it.

At 10/17/07 08:47 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 10/17/07 08:20 PM, SlithVampir wrote:

I will not waste time arguing my point on your other issues, but this one is just plain rude. I was almost beaten to the point of kidney failure by a group of Mormon teenagers when I was 8, just for not being a Mormon. I went to the hospital. I was treated very well, and the best part is that MY FAMILIES' PRIVATE INSURANCE PAID FOR MY TREATMENT.

Fucking Mormons. What can I say? Ask JakeHero about my escapades in Newark. If I had been shot like five others I saw, my lack of private insurance would have meant my death.

It is just plain selfish to assume that just because other people have money, the poor have a right to take it from them. Anyone that would do that needs to realize that LIFE IS HARD, GET USED TO IT.

You call ME rude?

And I will now take my leave, not to speak in this thread anymore, as there is nothing more to argue without hearing the same "the less fortunate people need your money" bullshit that is the basis of all liberal ideals.

Which brings me back to empathy. And how fas YOU could be one of those "less fortunate". Too bad you're leaving, though. You're the only one currently holding up. Though your lack of caring disturbs me.

Why is malpratice ensurance so high.

Answer the question.

At 10/17/07 08:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 10/17/07 03:34 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

9000-24000 Canadians die each year due to healthcare errors due to lack of proper record-keeping technology for fuck sake.

;
THis example is laughable.

Yeah or so you'd like to pretend because you're delusional.

Any 'statistic that can't narrow itself down by 15,000 cases proves nothing.

Lol no it doesn't. Because even if the LOWEST estimate is true, it still validates my point.

It is "assumed" that mis diagnosis & getting the wrong medication.

Yes, within a margin of error, and the margin of error is still tight enough to know that AT LEAST 9000 Canadians die from it.

18000 Americans die each year due to lack of healthcare. So consider that the US has 10 times the population of Canada (divide 18000 by 10 = 1800, or multiply 9000 by 10 = 90000). Even by the lowest

;
I went looking at your claim & looked at 1 web site ,
My first F'in try
I found this.

http://www.oshmanlaw.com/medicalmalpract ice/cancarmisdiagnosis.html

I started laughing.

Because there's nothing there?

100,000 deaths per year & 1 million injuries!!!!!!!!

Link doesn't work.

And notice how you're not even giving a relevant, applicable number because you just spouted it out without mentioning how that would compare to Canada who has 1/10th the population?

This is only for cancer in the U.S. I can only imagine how large the number gets if we look at everything ( might be something like 100,000 to 2 million)

I wonder how much larger the relative number in Canada is when you adjust for population difference. That is of course if you didn't just pull those numbers out of your ass.

Your full of shit.

Actually that would be you Mr. No Link.

Your linking to any web page you like, is back at you.

Yeah I link to web pages that are actually credible and actually WORK.

So respond to this if you like.

K.

I just want to say I'll never reply to anything you post "on my comments here" or any other thread you attempt to rebutt me on.

Yeah because you always get your ass handed to you, Mr brainwashed Canadian who lies to give credibility to his arguments.

W.A.F.L

OMG I'm acting like Morefngbs, look at this website:

http://www.morefngbs.isaLiar.ca/lolzomgw tf

It categorically proves that theres a 99.9999% chance that Morefngdbs's mother was a hamster, and his father smelt of elderberries. And that on a scale of 1-10 on the dipshit-o-meter, he scores precisely 23.409.

Nope, nope, don't reply to this and hold me to account for the validity (or existence) of that website because I'm acting like Morefngdbs and I'm immune to criticism and I can lie freely and if people prove me wrong I will just threaten to never reply to them again.

W.A.F.L

At 10/17/07 09:06 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Why is malpratice ensurance so high.

Answer the question.

Because John Edwards is still alive.

At 10/17/07 03:34 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: 9000-24000 Canadians die each year due to healthcare errors

US healthcare is more error prone than Canada. What was your point again?

Consider that Canadians jave lower survivability from treatable diseases than Americans do.

I have some you tube videos on what really happened on 9/11, unless of course you prefer concrete sources?

Americans have a higher life expectancy out of any out of any western nation anyway.

According to this site, we do have a higher life expectancy. Hell, Wikipedia even agrees.
Apparently you're wrong.

You also have a higher child mortality rate than Canada.
You have more deaths per 1000 than Canada.
.31 of your population lives with HIV/aids, as opposed to our .18.

See, you are ahead of us in some aspects, not very good aspects, but still.

Not only is it not free, but it's forced down your throat.

No more so than your Pay-As-You-Go system is forced down your throats. Don't like healthcare in Canada? Move, or go find a private clinic.

At 10/18/07 08:19 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 10/17/07 03:34 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: 9000-24000 Canadians die each year due to healthcare errors

US healthcare is more error prone than Canada. What was your point again?

My point is more Canadians die from poor healthcare than Americans die from no healthcare, thus making the emotionally-charged "OMG not everyone is covered" claim about American healthcare pretty ridiculous.

Your point was again?

Consider that Canadians jave lower survivability from treatable diseases than Americans do.

I have some you tube videos on what really happened on 9/11, unless of course you prefer concrete sources?

First of all, read the text, secondly I've already shown them.

For instance, cancer survival rates:

Results for Canada. Canada's system of national health insurance is often cited as a model for the United States. But an analysis of 2001 to 2003 data by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and economist David O'Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada:

- For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
- For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.

Heart failure:

The five-year death rate was 19.6% among U.S. patients and 21.4 percent among Canadian patients," says researcher Padma Kaul, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, in a news release. "After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics, we found that Canadian patients' risk for dying was 17% higher compared to U.S. patients.

The study showed that heart attack patients in the U.S. were nearly three times as likely to have heart surgery to repair damage as those in Canada. Specifically:

- Almost a third (30%) of American heart attack patients received an angioplasty, versus 11% of Canadians.
- More than 13% of heart attack patients in the U.S. had bypass surgery, compared with 4% of those in Canada.

Americans have a higher life expectancy out of any out of any western nation anyway.

According to this site, we do have a higher life expectancy. Hell, Wikipedia even agrees.
Apparently you're wrong.

I'm not wrong, you're delusional. Life expectancy is a result of many factors, many of which are outside of the effect of healthcare. As I PROVED, when non-healthcare factors are taken out. Americans have a higher life expectancy.

You also have a higher child mortality rate than Canada.

Racial factors, the US has a higher proportion of minorities that statistically have higher child mortality rates. African Americans are probably the largest source of the discrepancy.

Your healthcare is not the reason you have lower child mortality, the shear chance of your more statistically favorable demographics is.

- Canada's minority population is only 13% of the population. Or less than 1/7th.

- The US minority population is 33%, or 1/3rd of the our population.

The US population has a higher propensity for infant mortality based on racial factors, our healthcare is not the reason.

You have more deaths per 1000 than Canada.
.31 of your population lives with HIV/aids, as opposed to our .18.

Minorities.

See, you are ahead of us in some aspects, not very good aspects, but still.

Actually we're ahead in the quality of care. Our healthcare is better, but the US has factors that are outside of healthcare that inflate the statistics.

Not only is it not free, but it's forced down your throat.

No more so than your Pay-As-You-Go system is forced down your throats.

Lol you mean a system where you actually get to choose is being forced down your throat? How dare they force CHOICES down our throats as opposed to forcing one-size-fits-all healthcare down your throat?

:: Don't like healthcare in Canada? Move, or go find a private clinic.

Private clinics are banned in 6 out of 10 Canadian provinces... socialist healthcare, shoved down your throat.

At 10/18/07 08:19 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 10/17/07 03:34 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: 9000-24000 Canadians die each year due to healthcare errors

US healthcare is more error prone than Canada. What was your point again?

If you check out the link I posted on the 2nd page you'll see "Page not found.
Under it there is "site Map" go down a bit more & you'll see "Medical malpractice" & a list of which I clicked cancer. (hey look mom, I was navigating around a web page) the statistics that has been throw about by cellie, just don't jive with any of that.

I'm positive his point is to put positive spin on a huge pile of bullshit.
That takes real talent, I thought that all the real good spin doctors were working for Bush.
I believe I'm right, the good ones all are :)

At 10/18/07 09:38 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: My point is more Canadians die from poor healthcare than Americans die from no healthcare, thus making the emotionally-charged "OMG not everyone is covered" claim about American healthcare pretty ridiculous.

But you are comparing two different things!
If you were to make a total of "how many die from poor healthcare" and "how many die from no healthcare" in each of the two countries, divide it by the population, and then post the results there would be some substance in the post.

Vanilla Ice cream tastes better than red cars.

Don't ignore this post as you did to somebody who earlier pointed out the same thing.

At 10/18/07 09:38 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Racial factors, the US has a higher proportion of minorities that statistically have higher child mortality rates. African Americans are probably the largest source of the discrepancy.

Correlation: It's not causation.

Your problem is that you're assuming that race is the main cause of infant mortality, rather than an underlying cause that is simply more correlated with race in your own country.

At 10/18/07 02:49 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/18/07 09:38 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Racial factors, the US has a higher proportion of minorities that statistically have higher child mortality rates. African Americans are probably the largest source of the discrepancy.

Correlation: It's not causation.

Your problem is that you're assuming that race is the main cause of infant mortality, rather than an underlying cause that is simply more correlated with race in your own country.

There's no way he would go out trying to find an alternate correlation which would prove him wrong, since you are right [And you are right i asume] You should already know what more logical correlation is itself.

I have a few questions on health care, i don't want to make my own thread about it;

If you had the power to change things about the current medicare system... Consider the following and answer them as best you can. Answering certian questions dealing with cause and effect can be answered in a means which disproves the 'issue' itself is a problem, in other words, you could answer a how would you prevent question with 'it's not an issue because... [Say for example, the problem could never happen for a certain reason]

- Would you seek to abolish private health clinics

- Would you seek to abolish private insurance agencies

- Would you make government controled medical facilities, Government controled Funding of medicine, Government controled insurance, or government regulated Medical Facilities, and insurance. [The difference being the degree of influence]

- What would you do to ensure that the government keeps whatever sort of influence it would have in medicine or insurance of high quality. The governments desire to help the people only lasts as long as the administration.

- Would you make health insurance federally controled, state controled, or more locally controled.

- If you choose to have health insurance on a government or state level, how do you plan to ensure that the coverage fits indivdual needs on such a large scale. And if it's on a local scale, how do you ensure that better communities receive better health care simply because they're own pre-existing wealth [and thus they're greater tax revenues] create stark differences in local health care quality.

- Does your plan to solve the healthcare issue involve finding ways to reduce the cost of malpratice ensurance. If so, how.

- How do you plan to combat the potential of increases strain on the demand for medical assistance as the life expentancies of individuals increase, and the baby boom generations retire.

- How do you ensure a combination of high quality health care with wide coverage and at the same time, ensure that tax strain does not punch holes into the profits of buisnesses. [Including the small sympathy worthy ones.]

At 10/17/07 06:59 PM, Christopherr wrote: This is a tricky thing to debate if you are not for national healthcare.

Indeed, but I'm not for it so do continue. <l=)

Much like other liberal tax-and-spend programs, this one has a goal of "helping people." Many do not realize that these liberal programs, especially Hilary's, have the ultimate goal of putting all the money in the government's control.

*hides his money under the mattress* It's mine biatch!

Anyone who objects to this program, or any other program like it, immediately gets tossed to the side because he "has no soul." After seeing so many of these things slip by, you just get sick of having no choice but to pay more money.

*cries* I'm a soulless bastard! Waaaah!

The "all conservatives have no souls" could not be farther from the truth. The Republican party helps the needy with charities. They have set up more charities and given more money to charity than the Democratic party by far. Charities are much more efficient in giving to the needy than government programs (this means a higher percentage of each dollar gets to the recipient). Furthermore, people have the option of giving to charities, which makes everyone happy.

Eh...not really belonging to any party is good enough for me, but in the case of charties, YES! Charity is good, government controlling the healthcare and god knows what else, bad,.

At 10/18/07 02:49 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/18/07 09:38 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Racial factors, the US has a higher proportion of minorities that statistically have higher child mortality rates. African Americans are probably the largest source of the discrepancy.

Correlation: It's not causation.

Lol why don't you apply that logic to the idea that lower infant mortality is due to healthcare in Canada? The fact that Canada's healthcare is different doesn't mean that this results in them having lower infant mortality.

Correlation =/= causation.

Especially when you consider that white Americans, which share the same racial make up as most of Canada, score about the same as Canada at 5.7 in the same year (in 2004). Consider Canada's racial make up, where most minorities are Asia (who have lower infant mortality).

You have to realize that race is playing a factor.

Your problem is that you're assuming that race is the main cause of infant mortality

Now, I'm showing that race skews the results, thus making a comparison and pretending that healthcare is the only factor inapplicable.

rather than an underlying cause that is simply more correlated with race in your own country.

And Canada, and the UK, and other western countries, and basically any other conceivable country that have disparity as well.

At 10/18/07 08:09 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Lol why don't you apply that logic to the idea that lower infant mortality is due to healthcare in Canada? The fact that Canada's healthcare is different doesn't mean that this results in them having lower infant mortality.

Um, OK. There's definitely other factors that could be causing the lower infant mortality rate, and to claim it's due to universal healthcare is a very bold logical leap that I wouldn't support.

Since I wasn't claiming this in the first place, I don't see why you're all up on my case about it.

Your problem is that you're assuming that race is the main cause of infant mortality

Now, I'm showing that race skews the results, thus making a comparison and pretending that healthcare is the only factor inapplicable.

Saying that race skews the results IS claiming that race is a cause of infant mortality. If you make the claim "If you had the same racial makeup as our country, you would have the same infant mortality rate," then you have to show that race affects the infant mortality rate everywhere, not just in one country.

The problem with this is that we can't run any real tests because there's no way to set controls or compensate for uncontrolled variables.

This is why industrial statistics are way friggin' better than sociopolitical ones: they're actually useful for something.

At 10/18/07 09:04 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/18/07 08:09 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Lol why don't you apply that logic to the idea that lower infant mortality is due to healthcare in Canada? The fact that Canada's healthcare is different doesn't mean that this results in them having lower infant mortality.

Um, OK. There's definitely other factors that could be causing the lower infant mortality rate, and to claim it's due to universal healthcare is a very bold logical leap that I wouldn't support.

Since I wasn't claiming this in the first place, I don't see why you're all up on my case about it.

Because you're incredibly selective in what you scrutinize, and what you give no heed to and just accept as fact apparently.

The argument is all within the context about the quality of healthcare. Bcdemon stated better scores in infant mortality and life expectancy as a counter argument suggesting that Canada has areas where it does better, suggesting this is due to better healthcare.

Showing that these scores do not gauge healthcare quality only but instead can be a result of several factors that are entirely outside of the scope of healthcare is entirely relevant.

Your problem is that you're assuming that race is the main cause of infant mortality

Now, I'm showing that race skews the results, thus making a comparison and pretending that healthcare is the only factor inapplicable.

Saying that race skews the results IS claiming that race is a cause of infant mortality.

It may or may not. The fact is that it high infant mortality in the US is overwhelmingly attributed the simple fact that minorities, who have higher infant mortality by whatever cause, make up a large portion of the population.

If you make the claim "If you had the same racial makeup as our country, you would have the same infant mortality rate," then you have to show that race affects the infant mortality rate everywhere, not just in one country.

Well this has validity because there is disparity in other western countries between certain minorities and the majority of whites.

I can't find any infant mortality rates between races for Canada, but I have found it for the UK, which also has a lower infant mortality rate than the US.

Infant mortality in the UK in 2006 was 5.2/1000 births, which is low. However, if you look at the areas of the UK with a high infant mortality (same link), it is MUCH higher where there are more minorities. Central Birmingham, which has a relatively large minority population of 29.7% (lower than the US average still), scored at 12.4/1000.

It's entirely irrelevant whether this is due to biological racial factors, or poverty factors. Because poverty is also very disparate, lopsided among minorities, and there is no real proof whether or not this is caused by discrimination, lifestyle, or even possibly genetics.

Therefore it IS reasonable to suggest that if countries like Canada and the UK had the same proportion of certain minorities they wouldn't score better than the US. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that infant mortality between comparable countries is not attributable only to healthcare, and that other factors, most obviously the disparity between races, and the difference in proportion of certain races, skews a comparison.

At 10/18/07 09:55 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Well this has validity because there is disparity in other western countries between certain minorities and the majority of whites.

It's entirely irrelevant whether this is due to biological racial factors, or poverty factors. Because poverty is also very disparate, lopsided among minorities, and there is no real proof whether or not this is caused by discrimination, lifestyle, or even possibly genetics.

I spent a while looking for this thing last night, but if you can find this for me, I'll say "sure":

Median income for black vs. median income of the general population, for each of the US and Canada. If there's a comparable inequality in both the US and Canada, then I'll say your argument works.

The best I could find was mean in Canada and median in the US, where it showed a larger difference in the US, but those are different stats, and income inequality has grown in Canada since the stats were recorded, so that comparison is completely meaningless.

On the other hand I already admit that there's probably factors other than healthcare influencing infant mortality rate???

At 10/18/07 04:39 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I have a few questions on health care, i don't want to make my own thread about it;

If you had the power to change things about the current medicare system... Consider the following and answer them as best you can.
- Would you seek to abolish private health clinics

;
absolutely not, I think they will have a place.

- Would you seek to abolish private insurance agencies

; In Canada we have private health plans, I am a member of GreenSheild.

- Would you make government controled medical facilities, Government controled Funding of medicine, Government controled insurance, or government regulated Medical Facilities, and insurance. [The difference being the degree of influence]

;I'm sorry, I don't understand what your asking here.

- What would you do to ensure that the government keeps whatever sort of influence it would have in medicine or insurance of high quality. The governments desire to help the people only lasts as long as the administration.

;
In Canada some administrations have lasted for over 20 years. (different system than the U.S.)
The medical community , is who appeals to the goverment, there are Health ministers in each Province. They make sure that anything they like & don't like gets released to the media.
Health care is a 'hot' topic with Canadians.

- Would you make health insurance federally controled, state controled, or more locally controled.

;
Health care is done here by province (we carry a provincial medical card)

- If you choose to have health insurance on a government or state level, how do you plan to ensure that the coverage fits indivdual needs on such a large scale. And if it's on a local scale, how do you ensure that better communities receive better health care simply because they're own pre-existing wealth [and thus they're greater tax revenues] create stark differences in local health care quality.

;
Although you have small health clinics & small hospitals in larger communities, there are large medical Hospitals in the larger cities. That is where the specialty operations, implants etc. take place.
Any smaller hospital who's resident doctor(s) , decide that the best care that can be given is in another larger facility, that is where your sent.

- Does your plan to solve the healthcare issue involve finding ways to reduce the cost of malpratice ensurance. If so, how.

;
Best explaination I found , see link below

- How do you plan to combat the potential of increases strain on the demand for medical assistance as the life expentancies of individuals increase, and the baby boom generations retire.

; Since much of the money comes from taxes paid on everything that you purchase to live.
Even if your retired,or on welfare you purchase items & pay taxes on them.

- How do you ensure a combination of high quality health care with wide coverage and at the same time, ensure that tax strain does not punch holes into the profits of buisnesses. [Including the small sympathy worthy ones.]

I don't understand what you mean by the 'tax strain punching holes in business profits'.
Hospitals are under the control ofa Federal Health Minister a member of Parliment , who oversee's the Provincial Health Ministers needs for each Province.
about 95% of our Hospitals are NOT privately owned & operated , they do not operate to make a profit.

Best answer I could come up with quickly, about malpractice.
http://www.medlit.info/guests/mmpcanadia n/medlit.htm

I'm not going to say that what I have written here is 100% correct, but my ex-wife was the administrative assistant to the Chief of Family Medicine in Halifax N.S. so much of what I know is what I learned from her.

At 10/18/07 10:06 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 8/7/07 09:34 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'm against it in general but there's no way you can call it fair that people would be handing out checks for childeren that they're not parenting.

It's not like we're paying for only our own social security when we retire.

If people are going to be contributing money to a system which often times people contribute less money than what they get back, and in other scenarios, more money than what they get back, And at the same time, they have no say over how many welfare recipients there can be supported at one time, you have A SLIGHT problem.

"I don't understand what you mean by the 'tax strain punching holes in business profits'.
Hospitals are under the control ofa Federal Health Minister a member of Parliment , who oversee's the Provincial Health Ministers needs for each Province."

Usually... When individuals are paying 50-70% to the government, they tend to have less money to spend on other items [Which is sometimes a bad thing] This is however offset by the fact that TECHNICALLY that in a system run by the government the intention is so that the prices are as low as they can be since the government isn't trying to make a profit. But there's also the fact that the money is going Straight from taxes, into the people's hands which is then spent on medicare which goes back to the government, so the money atleast in your victorian england scenario [If you don't understand just ask, it's kind of an inside joke] the money goes somewhere. But then again it might not. that's something I need to find out.

"Since much of the money comes from taxes paid on everything that you purchase to live.
Even if your retired,or on welfare you purchase items & pay taxes on them."

You mean the primary source of government revenue is Sales Tax? That's Awsome.

At 10/19/07 04:39 PM, morefngdbs wrote: In Canada we have private health plans, I am a member of GreenSheild.

Private healthcare is banned in 6 out of 10 provinces.

Keep ignoring that because you know, just like every one of your other arguments, it's convenient to not actually accept facts.

At 10/19/07 07:25 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/18/07 09:55 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Well this has validity because there is disparity in other western countries between certain minorities and the majority of whites.

It's entirely irrelevant whether this is due to biological racial factors, or poverty factors. Because poverty is also very disparate, lopsided among minorities, and there is no real proof whether or not this is caused by discrimination, lifestyle, or even possibly genetics.

I spent a while looking for this thing last night, but if you can find this for me, I'll say "sure":

I looked for it also and I can't find anything in Canada that addresses economic status or healthcare stats by race or ethnicity.

That's why I used the UK as an example because they have a similar score on infant mortality as Canada does, yet have a huge disparity between the majority and the minority.

Median income for black vs. median income of the general population, for each of the US and Canada. If there's a comparable inequality in both the US and Canada, then I'll say your argument works.

Well I already think you think my argument works but you're scrutinizing.

I can't find shit for stats on basically any comparison of races in Canada.

The best I could find was mean in Canada and median in the US, where it showed a larger difference in the US, but those are different stats, and income inequality has grown in Canada since the stats were recorded, so that comparison is completely meaningless.

I would like to see that. Link plz.

On the other hand I already admit that there's probably factors other than healthcare influencing infant mortality rate???

Yet you made no mention of that and decided only to scrutinize my evidence that it is affected by race.

Even if it can't be proven that this is hereditary, it doesn't matter because even if you can't prove that their race is a factor, lifestyle factors could be affected to. If race meant nothing, then it would be odd that such a homogenous group, unified by race, overwhelmingly scores so poorly in infant mortality. If race was no issue, then it would be incredibly odd that such a characteristic would exist among a certain race only. Unless you could prove that discrimination against minorities was the cause, that the society is at fault for their condition and not themselves, which would be odd considering the success of other ethnic minorities in the US.

At 10/19/07 09:52 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: You mean the primary source of government revenue is Sales Tax? That's Awsome.

;
I don't believe it all comes from sales tax.
I found a blurb in a CBC story about Health care is funded by taxes, workmans comp. & some provinces charge a health premium. But Nova Scotia doesn't charge a premium, if it does I know I have never paid it.
I remember my father talking about a hospital tax, then sales tax became a blended tax (Province got some Federal got some)
Now its a tax called the H.S.T. (Harmonized Sales Tax) it is 14% in Nova scotia.
It is a different rate in Alberta, I'm not really sure what all the other provinces charge, but I think that 14% is what most provinces charge. Part of this tax goes into Provincial coffers & the rest goes to the federal level.

Cellar it's a possibility that he lives in 4 of the 10. Infact there's a 40% chance that he does.

At 10/17/07 08:47 PM, Christopherr wrote: I was almost beaten to the point of kidney failure by a group of Mormon teenagers when I was 8, just for not being a Mormon. I went to the hospital. I was treated very well, and the best part is that MY FAMILIES' PRIVATE INSURANCE PAID FOR MY TREATMENT.

I don't have any ill-will towards mormons, but if you actually did go that way, well, that would rank up with dying while on the crapper.

Slith, I'm in the dark about your adventures in Newark, but maybe that's because I'm semi-retarded and can't remember. Meh

At 10/20/07 11:57 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Cellar it's a possibility that he lives in 4 of the 10. Infact there's a 40% chance that he does.

Your logic is faulty. A 40% chance would require that the population is exactly the same within all states.

At 10/20/07 04:29 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I would like to see that. Link plz.

This is the link for median incomes in the US

I didn't save the link for that Canadian one because the stats weren't comparable, and they were old enough that even if I could use them to make a point, they were too old, given that income inequality has been increasing here in recent years.

Even if it can't be proven that this is hereditary, it doesn't matter because even if you can't prove that their race is a factor, lifestyle factors could be affected to. If race meant nothing, then it would be odd that such a homogenous group, unified by race, overwhelmingly scores so poorly in infant mortality.

Right, but you're only looking at the correlation between race and infant mortality. You haven't even tried looking for an underlying cause. For example, income inequality is also linked to child mortality rates, and there's actually a logical reason for this to be a cause of child mortality.

At 10/20/07 12:06 PM, JakeHero wrote:
Slith, I'm in the dark about your adventures in Newark, but maybe that's because I'm semi-retarded and can't remember. Meh

Don't ya remember that epic assault weapon debate? Either way, I saw five people I went to school with get shot when I lived in Newark back in the day. Now I live in suburban Nutley, NJ. Go figure

At 10/20/07 12:50 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/20/07 04:29 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I would like to see that. Link plz.

This is the link for median incomes in the US

That's easy to find, I was hoping for the Canadian one.

I didn't save the link for that Canadian one because the stats weren't comparable, and they were old enough that even if I could use them to make a point, they were too old, given that income inequality has been increasing here in recent years.

Poo.

Even if it can't be proven that this is hereditary, it doesn't matter because even if you can't prove that their race is a factor, lifestyle factors could be affected to. If race meant nothing, then it would be odd that such a homogenous group, unified by race, overwhelmingly scores so poorly in infant mortality.

Right, but you're only looking at the correlation between race and infant mortality. You haven't even tried looking for an underlying cause.

Which is irrelevant because regardless of the cause, if the factor that I'm addressing was removed from the equation, it would change the comparison of the countries. If low-scoring groups of people that were unified by shared factors were removed from the equation and Canada and the US were compared, the scores would be different.

For example, income inequality is also linked to child mortality rates, and there's actually a logical reason for this to be a cause of child mortality.

Yeah but it's odd that income "inequality" is so lopsided towards certain minorities. It's a simple blacks represent a large portion of the US that are overwhelmingly more likely to be at the bottom end. Suggesting that this whole phenomenon is due to discrimination would be odd considering that other minorities in the US tend to excel, like Asians and Middle Easterners.

I don't buy the "discrimination causes it" bit, but I'm not saying that it is genetic either. All I'm saying is that the US has a high population of minorities that do not exist to the same degree in other western countries, like Canada. Based on the stats, they cause an inflation of the negative stats for the US that make a comparison across the board ridiculous for a nation to nation comparison, especially if someone pretends that healthcare is the only thing being indicated. Race is a factor, period. Whether or not it is the underlying cause in and of itself as a biological phenomenon is irrelevant.

Cellardoors theory on races isn't inconceivable withoutthe notion of races being naturally poor.

Segregation, though no longer legal, still exists on the basis that once segregated communities are still primarilled occupied by the races who occupied them previously. And since these communities were intentionally [and previously] kept in poor order, you end up with concentrations of minority ethnicity either unwiling or unable to move, and or less able to improove the situation either due to a lack of proper administrating or a lack of cooperation.