Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Lol, Maybe my Country has bad healthcare, but yours is shit. You need better health care so you an support your people. UK is just doing it's best to do what it thinks is best.....so there!

At 1/4/08 06:20 PM, Kagoe wrote: Lol, Maybe my Country has bad healthcare, but yours is shit.

Actually US healthcare is about the best in the world in areas that can actually be measured, i.e. survivability from treatable diseases.

At 1/4/08 06:23 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Actually US healthcare is about the best in the world in areas that can actually be measured, i.e. survivability from treatable diseases.

Politics does include listening, you know? I've already said the answer to your question but I guess I'll just have to say it again. U.S needs better healthcare so they can support there very unhealthy people. O.k, so not all americans are unhealthy - but alot of them are. U S have big health care because there a big, rich country. Alot of americans need healthcare becuase there normally obese or have been shot. Either way, neither of our countries are perfect, but I know which ones closer...

At 1/4/08 06:23 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/4/08 06:20 PM, Kagoe wrote: Lol, Maybe my Country has bad healthcare, but yours is shit.

Actually US healthcare is about the best in the world in areas that can actually be measured, i.e. survivability from treatable diseases.

If by treatable diseases than you mean only cancer and a few others, then yes.

At 1/4/08 06:34 PM, Kagoe wrote:

At 1/4/08 06:23 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Actually US healthcare is about the best in the world in areas that can actually be measured, i.e. survivability from treatable diseases.

Politics does include listening, you know? I've already said the answer to your question but I guess I'll just have to say it again. U.S needs better healthcare so they can support there very unhealthy people.

The US has better healthcare that is more succcessful

O.k, so not all americans are unhealthy - but alot of them are.

A lot of British people are.

U S have big health care because there a big, rich country. Alot of americans need healthcare becuase there normally obese or have been shot.

Americans have better healthcare because we have a more developed system that isn't controlled by our government like yours is.

Your healthcare system is only better in arbitrary factors that don't put the facts into context. Your people are only healthier because your country is predominately made up of white Britons, while the racial disparity in the US and the UK is the same, the US just has more minorities.

Either way, neither of our countries are perfect, but I know which ones closer...

Yeah, the US.

At 1/4/08 06:36 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/4/08 06:23 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/4/08 06:20 PM, Kagoe wrote: Lol, Maybe my Country has bad healthcare, but yours is shit.

Actually US healthcare is about the best in the world in areas that can actually be measured, i.e. survivability from treatable diseases.

If by treatable diseases than you mean only cancer and a few others, then yes.

If by treatable diseases as in the major ones that are the biggest threats to public health in both the countries in the comparison, then yes.

At 1/3/08 10:39 AM, Kagoe wrote: Many of you think that your country is probably the best, but how many people would agree. This is politics; discuss your views and opinions. Personally, I think U.k is the best because it's a country that doesn't allow people or policemen to carry guns.

Wow, that's a great policy. Disarm your policeman so when criminals with illegal guns commit a crime, the police can...um...what excatly would they do in that situation?

England is the best country in the world because there's a fish and chips on my street.

who can argue with that?

lol

America is the best country in the world because I can order a kolishnakov rifle off the internet for only $400. I can use aforementioned rifle to shoot deer.

new zeland is ok it has those kiwi birds there kinda cool and i guess USA we r awsome. piss us off and well blow u up which is very sad

'X' is the best country because I live there. I love 'X'. I will now find some evidence to support my conculsion that I love 'X'.

Did you know 'X' is awesome? It has no gun crime anywhere but everyone is allowed to carry guns.
Did you know 'X' has the best healthcare because I say so? We're not the healthiest people but that's just because of them damn minorites. Otherwise 'X' would be great. Totally. It's not like the minorites are, in fact, legal citizens of 'X' at all.
Did you know 'X' fought in every war ever? It doesn't matter whether anyone helped we did the most because we're 'X'.
Did you know 'X' has the best education system in the world? Now I can't say I've ever been involved in the educational system of another country but 'X' is best because, hell, it's 'X'.
Did you know 'X' is fabulously wealthy and influential? This doesn't contribute towards why we're better in other areas though; we're better in those areas because we're 'X'.
Did you know 'X' has the best military ever? We're awesome like that.
Did you know 'X' is awesome because we have more civil liberties? We even legalised pot! How awesome is that?
Did you know 'X' is awesome becasue we're so peaceful? We lead by example. We don't do much for the world but we don't have to because we're 'X'
Did you know 'X' is awesome because we're a communist, socialist, capitalistic democratic, monarchistic republic? We're awesome like that. It's my personal idealogy too! But that's totally unrelated as to why we're awesome; we'd be awesome anyway.
That's why 'X' is awesome.

...That isn't aimed at any particular country or poster (though I shall admit I drew inspiration from some). It's just an expression of disgust for pointless, boastful bunk threads like these designed purely so that egotistical people can whip out their respective sexual organs for comparison.

At 1/3/08 03:49 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 1/3/08 11:53 AM, Christopherr wrote:

At 1/3/08 11:08 AM, Kagoe wrote:

At 1/3/08 10:59 AM, Brick-top wrote: Canada's real nice.

We have a bit less than 10 times the population of Canada.
Canada-33,390,141
US-301,139,947
The US has roughly 9.02 times Canada's population. The US has slightly higher gun death percentages than Canada.

;
I recently read that there is an estimated 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
I don't know , it seems no one else is sure either, how many there are but I just rounded the 300 million up to 320 million & came up with the 10 to 1 .

Ehh, who cares. Both are close enough to count.

I know for a fact its a lot more crowded down there , around here seems almost empty after I come back from my once a year visits to the Southern U.S.

Yes it is. We would have far less crime percentages than other countries, but illegals commit an assload of crimes.
"In the population study of a sample of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990."
The numbers are painful to look at.

At 1/4/08 06:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: If by treatable diseases as in the major ones that are the biggest threats to public health in both the countries in the comparison, then yes.

Oh sorry, I forgot that America is perfect in everything and cancer is the only thing known to medicine that can kill you.

At 1/4/08 08:52 PM, Pontificate wrote: 'X' is the best country because I live there. I love 'X'. I will now find some evidence to support my conculsion that I love 'X'.
Did you know 'X' is awesome? It has no gun crime anywhere but everyone is allowed to carry guns.
Did you know 'X' has the best healthcare because I say so? We're not the healthiest people but that's just because of them damn minorites. Otherwise 'X' would be great. Totally. It's not like the minorites are, in fact, legal citizens of 'X' at all.
Did you know 'X' fought in every war ever? It doesn't matter whether anyone helped we did the most because we're 'X'.
Did you know 'X' has the best education system in the world? Now I can't say I've ever been involved in the educational system of another country but 'X' is best because, hell, it's 'X'.
Did you know 'X' is fabulously wealthy and influential? This doesn't contribute towards why we're better in other areas though; we're better in those areas because we're 'X'.
Did you know 'X' has the best military ever? We're awesome like that.
Did you know 'X' is awesome because we have more civil liberties? We even legalised pot! How awesome is that?
Did you know 'X' is awesome becasue we're so peaceful? We lead by example. We don't do much for the world but we don't have to because we're 'X'
Did you know 'X' is awesome because we're a communist, socialist, capitalistic democratic, monarchistic republic? We're awesome like that. It's my personal idealogy too! But that's totally unrelated as to why we're awesome; we'd be awesome anyway.
That's why 'X' is awesome.
...That isn't aimed at any particular country or poster (though I shall admit I drew inspiration from some). It's just an expression of disgust for pointless, boastful bunk threads like these designed purely so that egotistical people can whip out their respective sexual organs for comparison.

'X' posts piss people off. 'X' just got his NG Politics hymen broken. 'X' likes to use Newgrounds, and has under 100 posts.

...That isn't aimed at any particular person or group (though I shall admit I drew inspiration from some).

PS- a person who posts irrelevant information that pisses people off is called a troll. You don't want to be a troll. We already have lots of trolls. Just hold your tongue unless you want to add to the conversation, please.

At 1/4/08 08:57 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/4/08 06:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: If by treatable diseases as in the major ones that are the biggest threats to public health in both the countries in the comparison, then yes.

Oh sorry, I forgot that America is perfect in everything and cancer is the only thing known to medicine that can kill you.

Btw, I'm not saying America isn't awesome where it really counts, I'm just saying we could learn a thing or two from our European counterparts... and insuring every American wouldn't be such a bad idea, either.

You said you wouldn't mind if Barrack Obama won the presidency, or something like that, yes? Am I right to say that a factor in your pseudo-support for him is that fact he only wants to make Health Care affordable for every American, and not making it a government mandate, yes? That is one of the few admirable conservative characteristics associated with Iowa's Negro amigo

At 1/4/08 09:06 PM, Grammer wrote: Btw, I'm not saying America isn't awesome where it really counts, I'm just saying we could learn a thing or two from our European counterparts... and insuring every American wouldn't be such a bad idea, either.

It's just that everything that the government subsidizes skyrockets in price... For example, college. 'Nuff said.

You said you wouldn't mind if Barrack Obama won the presidency, or something like that, yes? Am I right to say that a factor in your pseudo-support for him is that fact he only wants to make Health Care affordable for every American, and not making it a government mandate, yes? That is one of the few admirable conservative characteristics associated with Iowa's Negro amigo

I am damn sure he is more polite... That woman has some mouth. People really want to elect the woman that spurted expletives all over a secret service agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted his hands free in case of an emergency?

At 1/4/08 09:04 PM, Christopherr wrote: 'X' posts piss people off. 'X' just got his NG Politics hymen broken. 'X' likes to use Newgrounds, and has under 100 posts.

...That isn't aimed at any particular person or group (though I shall admit I drew inspiration from some).

PS- a person who posts irrelevant information that pisses people off is called a troll. You don't want to be a troll. We already have lots of trolls. Just hold your tongue unless you want to add to the conversation, please.

Political hymen? Please. I'm a lurker (in fact you shall find the vast majority of my posts have been in the political forum); posting only when I feel qualified or when I'm moved to distraction by a poster's idiocy. This was one of those times. You deny then that this thread serves no purpose other than to boast? I would argue otherwise when one takes in to account the nature of the question is entirely subjective (not to mention the absurdly large amount of factors to discuss) and accordingly cannot be debated to any satisfaction. Based upon this one assumes people who post in here do so to serve three things: to tell the world how wonderful their country is, to tell someone else how terrible their country is or to arse about. Each one of those three provokes an emotional reaction in most posters; are we, then, all nought but trolls? Of course not. A troll posts something PURELY in order to provoke reaction. Most people who post something because they appear to be under the woefully misguided misapprehension that they can actually convince someone here that they're correct. This thread is, as previously stated, merely an exercise in futile posturing.

The irony is that it is fairly easy to state which countries are lacking; conclusively proving which one is superior is nigh impossible.

At 1/4/08 09:25 PM, Pontificate wrote: Political hymen? Please. I'm a lurker (in fact you shall find the vast majority of my posts have been in the political forum); posting only when I feel qualified or when I'm moved to distraction by a poster's idiocy. This was one of those times.

You just came off kinda troll-ish.

You deny then that this thread serves no purpose other than to boast?

It's actually a secret plan here on NG to combine the best out of every country in the world into one super-country that only we get to be part of... We just have to decide what the best aspects of countries are...

I would argue otherwise when one takes in to account the nature of the question is entirely subjective (not to mention the absurdly large amount of factors to discuss) and accordingly cannot be debated to any satisfaction. Based upon this one assumes people who post in here do so to serve three things: to tell the world how wonderful their country is, to tell someone else how terrible their country is or to arse about. Each one of those three provokes an emotional reaction in most posters; are we, then, all nought but trolls? Of course not. A troll posts something PURELY in order to provoke reaction. Most people who post something because they appear to be under the woefully misguided misapprehension that they can actually convince someone here that they're correct. This thread is, as previously stated, merely an exercise in futile posturing.

Don't take it too seriously. This is really a lighthearted thread.

The irony is that it is fairly easy to state which countries are lacking; conclusively proving which one is superior is nigh impossible.

We're just idly chatting about what we love about our countries. A little argument here and there, but mostly friendly chat.

At 1/4/08 08:57 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/4/08 06:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: If by treatable diseases as in the major ones that are the biggest threats to public health in both the countries in the comparison, then yes.

Oh sorry, I forgot that America is perfect in everything and cancer is the only thing known to medicine that can kill you.

The US is better at treating both cancer and circulatory diseases (i.e. strokes and heart disease, the biggest one). These things are the two leading causes of death in Europe, the UK specifically, Canada, and the US both.

But the US has a significantly better success rate and survival rate for cancer (compared to Europe and Canada), due to several areas of superiority the US has... faster treatment, better access to advanced drugs and so forth. I can't find anything about the survival rates in Europe for heart failure, but the US is better than Canada as well in this area.

The US healthcare system, based on free market innovation, is better at saving lives. That is the purpose of healthcare.

It doesn't matter if more people are covered in the UK or other European countries with universal healthcare when they are covered by a mediocre, one-size-fits-all system that is plagued by cost cuts and waiting lines, and is less effective at treating the

At 1/4/08 09:06 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/4/08 08:57 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/4/08 06:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: If by treatable diseases as in the major ones that are the biggest threats to public health in both the countries in the comparison, then yes.

Oh sorry, I forgot that America is perfect in everything and cancer is the only thing known to medicine that can kill you.

Btw, I'm not saying America isn't awesome where it really counts, I'm just saying we could learn a thing or two from our European counterparts... and insuring every American wouldn't be such a bad idea, either.

Having the government take over our healthcare industry is the worst possible fucking idea ever.

You said you wouldn't mind if Barrack Obama won the presidency, or something like that, yes?

Yes.

Am I right to say that a factor in your pseudo-support for him is that fact he only wants to make Health Care affordable for every American, and not making it a government mandate, yes?

Yes.

Even though I still don't really agree with his healthcare policy, it's still a way, way better alternative than what other people are calling for. In contrast to Edward's system or Clinton's system is that it doesn't FORCE people to get healthcare, it simply puts measures in place to make it more affordable, thus giving people a choice, instead of taking the choices away.

The assbackward shit that Edwards and Clinton are proposing just boggles my mind how someone could actually support it.

They force people to buy healthcare, and they penalize those who don't. That means that people who can't afford healthcare, and can't purchase it will be met with even more financial woes when they have to pay a fucking fine so that their money will get pooled into the system regardless.

However, Obama's system isn't completely peachy either. It's going to require tax increases across the board.

That is one of the few admirable conservative characteristics associated with Iowa's Negro amigo

Can you go a day without making a racial/racist remark?

At 1/4/08 06:57 PM, TimTheGreat wrote:

At 1/4/08 06:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Your healthcare system is only better in arbitrary factors that don't put the facts into context. Your people are only healthier because your country is predominately made up of white Britons, while the racial disparity in the US and the UK is the same, the US just has more minorities.

What? Are white people genetically healthier

They have statistically longer life expectancies, and statistically score better in several areas that are used as indicators for healthcare quality of a country.

or is it because non-white people are poorer in America and can't afford Health care.

That wouldn't matter, because the disparity between races exists in the UK as well, and therefore if the racial makeup was more equal between the US and the UK, chances are the UK wouldn't score higher in certain indicators that people incorrectly attribute to healthcare.

For instance:

Infant mortality.

The UK has a lower infant mortality rate, about 5/1000 compared to America's 6.5/1000, this is used by people to say that British healthcare is better.

Applying context:

That's probably reflective of the fact that African Americans have an infant mortality rate of 14.1 (this was from 2000, the score has improved since then) and other minorities as well have a much higher rate of infant mortality in the US than the majority whites. Whites have the most in absolute terms, but the numbers for each race are disproportionately high among minorities.

You might say something like "if minorities were in the UK, they'd have lower infant mortality rate because of our healthcare" but you'd be wrong. Infant mortality in the UK in 2006 was 5.2/1000 births, which is lower than the US. 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.

Infant mortality can be shown to be relative of RACE, not the ability of the country to create a favorable atmosphere for infant survivability. The UK scores better only because it happens to have a certain racial structure. This is shown by the fact that areas of the UK were there are actually a lot of minorities, tend to score way worse than the national average... of a nation with a much smaller minority population as a whole compared to the uS.

Life expectancy:

The UK has a higher life expectancy than the US, but this can also be shown to be affected heavily by racial make-up.

Applying context:

Minorities in the US live shorter lives than the majority US whites.

- 33% (1/3rd) of the US is composed of minorities. Most of these minorities are Blacks and Hispanics, 13% and 12.5% of the population respectively.

These minorities especially blacks have a lower average lifespan than whites, by several years. This sways the national average.

- Only 7.9% (1/13th) of the UK population is composed of minorities, most of which are Asian.

Now, Asians in the US have a higher life expectancy than even whites do. This is a small minority in the US based on population, but the largest minority in the UK. These factors - the chances of race, not medical proficiency - give the UK a higher score, among other things as well that do not measure healthcare quality.

If you take factors outside of healthcare out of the equation, Americans have the highest life expectancy in the western world. Therefore comparisons that give the UK an advantage due to higher life expectancy are FALSELY attributing it to healthcare, and suggesting that UK healthcare is better in this regard when in fact it's not.

At 1/4/08 09:50 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/23/3/89#T1

Just read the whole thing because you hit that little reply button. And yes, it's scholarly written.

While the United States often performs relatively well for this set of indicators, it is difficult to conclude that it is getting good value for its medical care dollar from these data. The huge difference in the amount the United States spends on health care compared with the other countries could very well be justified if the extra money provided extra benefits. Population surveys have shown that the extra spending is probably not buying better experiences with the health care system, with the exception of shorter waits for nonurgent surgery.30 Earlier studies have shown the United States to be in the bottom quartile of population health indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality.31 Our results also fail to reveal what the extra spending has bought, although there are many important places to look.

Now you may say: "Oh, there's a bunch of factors that affect life expectancy". Well, being that this article cites and is cited by scholarly reports, when they say something is wrong, there is no way I'm going to believe you over them, sorry.

Having the government take over our healthcare industry is the worst possible fucking idea ever.

Well, perhaps in terms of cost it is, but our free-market solution hasn't exactly made us #1

Even though I still don't really agree with his healthcare policy, it's still a way, way better alternative than what other people are calling for. In contrast to Edward's system or Clinton's system is that it doesn't FORCE people to get healthcare, it simply puts measures in place to make it more affordable, thus giving people a choice, instead of taking the choices away.

mmmm... that's a fair assessment.

That is one of the few admirable conservative characteristics associated with Iowa's Negro amigo

Can you go a day without making a racial/racist remark?

Oh come now, you should know I'm no racist. You've called me a piece of shit loser, freak, and that I should go kill himself, but I don't think you hate all people with bipolar disorder, I just think you're incredibly insensitive to me >=P

...albeit the half-terrorist jab is a tad mean, but in my defense it was in retaliation for all of the suggestions of suicide.

Ah well, peace love, and chicken grease.

At 1/4/08 10:07 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/4/08 09:50 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/23/3/89#T1

Just read the whole thing because you hit that little reply button. And yes, it's scholarly written.

And once again, it's making an enormous fallacy based.

Population surveys have shown that the extra spending is probably not buying better experiences with the health care system, with the exception of shorter waits for nonurgent surgery.30 Earlier studies have shown the United States to be in the bottom quartile of population health indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality.

I've already showed how this is not reflective of healthcare.

You're just doing the same thing you did last time. Except this time you have a different link.

They are TRYING to measure healthcare quality, but they are not putting it into context and adjusting for differences in demographics. They aren't measuring the actual quality of healthcare, they are looking at what they think are symptoms of poor healthcare, and pretending that healthcare quality is the only variable.

And the life expectancy thing most notably is bullshit, considering, once again, when factors outside of healthcare are removed form the equation Americans have the longest life expectancy in the western world.

Now you may say: "Oh, there's a bunch of factors that affect life expectancy". Well, being that this article cites and is cited by scholarly reports, when they say something is wrong, there is no way I'm going to believe you over them, sorry.

Notice how they never put anything into context? They aren't accurately gauging healthcare quality, they did the same gap in logic that people always do, never factoring in outlying variables.

Well, perhaps in terms of cost it is, but our free-market solution hasn't exactly made us #1

In saving lives, it has.

Oh come now, you should know I'm no racist.

No, actually I do think you're racist, and prejudiced in other areas. But let's not get into that.

At 1/4/08 10:36 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: I've already showed how this is not reflective of healthcare.

Well, they wrote a scholarly article that cited doctors, and you're at best a College graduate. Guess who's word I'm going to take for granted?

You're just doing the same thing you did last time. Except this time you have a different link.

And my argument is just as strong as it is last time. Health care is a prime factor in life expectancy. They wrote a scholarly, I assume peer-reviewed article, you did not. I'm going with them, sorry.

And the life expectancy thing most notably is bullshit, considering, once again, when factors outside of healthcare are removed form the equation Americans have the longest life expectancy in the western world.

I highly doubt that to be the case, but again, they have credentials. To believe a College grad (I assume) who can post a few relevant links to cancer, over a scholarly article which cites professionals in the field, is like believing Dylan Avery over the American Society of Civil Engineers when he says buildings shouldn't fall that way.

Notice how they never put anything into context? They aren't accurately gauging healthcare quality, they did the same gap in logic that people always do, never factoring in outlying variables.

Uh huh, sure, they're all wrong, they making fallacies, and you're the sole genius. Gotcha.

Well, perhaps in terms of cost it is, but our free-market solution hasn't exactly made us #1

In saving lives, it has.

Life expectancy. Goal attainment.

Oh come now, you should know I'm no racist.

No, actually I do think you're racist, and prejudiced in other areas. But let's not get into that.

Talk to me in pm, I'll unblock you.

I think either the United States or the Republic of Ireland are the best or very nice countries.

The United States is a mixture of all different countries in the world. Therefore it has influences from all over the world in the way life is lived. Sure, we have the stereotype of careless, stupid, rich, white males that run everything and is out to get the poor man, but for the most part, our government is run by a multitude of ethnicities. The United States also has influence over most of the world as well. Every country now has iPods and different American customs and pop culture.

I also think Ireland because, well, I'm Irish and they are one of the most wealthy countries with one of the highest standards of living in the EU.

At 1/4/08 10:50 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/4/08 10:36 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: I've already showed how this is not reflective of healthcare.

Well, they wrote a scholarly article that cited doctors, and you're at best a College graduate.

It doesn't matter what the source is when the facts are on my side. It's not my opinion, it's the facts that I'm simply revealing.

If you notice, they never put things into context. They simply look something that may or may not be due to healthcare, and tie it into a healthcare comparison, without ever acknowledging that there are outside variables.

You're just doing the same thing you did last time. Except this time you have a different link.

And my argument is just as strong as it is last time.

Your argument is just as wrong as it was last time.

Health care is a prime factor in life expectancy.

In that case, the US has better healthcare in that regard because when factors that are not related to healthcare quality are removed from the equation, Americans have the longest life expectancy in the western world.

And as I showed, the the nation-wide higher life expectancy in the US compared to the UK is due to the enormous difference in racial make-up.

Notice how they never put anything into context? They aren't accurately gauging healthcare quality, they did the same gap in logic that people always do, never factoring in outlying variables.

Uh huh, sure, they're all wrong, they making fallacies, and you're the sole genius. Gotcha.

You simply parrot a writing that you even know yourself did not include outside variables or even mention them.

You know that I showed that life expectancy and infant mortality is low in the US because of factors outside of healthcare.

You don't want to accept it, so you hide behind the words of someone else.

Well, perhaps in terms of cost it is, but our free-market solution hasn't exactly made us #1

In saving lives, it has.

Life expectancy. Goal attainment.

Life expectancy... better in the US when shit that isn't affected by healthcare isn't included. Thus showing in that regard, if healthcare is the factor, the US is better.

Goal attainment... you've never proved what it meant, and if it was relative to the goals of the country, or relative to the other countries in actual affect of healthcare.

If you try to raise $20 bucks to feed Nigerian 10 children, and you make $15, you've achieved 75% of YOUR goal.

If I try to raise $100 to feed 10 children, and end up making $50, that's a 50% goal achievement, yet I'd still end up feeding those kids more effectively. Therefore the difference in goal attainment in relation to our own goals CANNOT be attributed to a kid-feeding system compared to the other. If I fed the kids better, it doesn't matter if I missed my more lifty goals.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if Canada's less lofty goals are achieved in higher proportion than ours are.

But then again, you never even proved what goal attainment meant. You never proved if it even had anything to do with medical treatment itself. It could have been about payment deadlines and budgets and other things that are meaningless when trying to determine which country provides more effective relative treatment.

Oh come now, you should know I'm no racist.

No, actually I do think you're racist, and prejudiced in other areas. But let's not get into that.

Talk to me in pm, I'll unblock you.

No thank you.

The need for convenience lead to the need for faster means of making food, which lead to methods which decreased the nutritional value of said food products which lead to usage of additives as replacements which lead to various health issues concerning US citizens.

Simply put, when eating unhealthy becomes [in reality] more inexpensive then nutritional and life style prudence in terms of both financial and social costs [which it is progressively becoming] and such actions are less accepted by society, the trend will gradually decrease. It is my beleif that within the next 10-20 years the era of 'evil mac-donalds' will start to decline.

So; go around calling people fatty if you like, Any good Atheist know's that in the principals of ITA that doing so discourages the poor practice of bad nutrition for the survival of the human race, and a world of sink and swim would probably be quickest and most efficient system at rooting out individuals who do not take the proper steps for human survival.

The world is so cruel :P

________________________________________
________________________________________
___________

PS; Drakim, would you favor immigrants coming into your country in search of Norwegian opportunity, even if they came without following whatever citizens initiation policy your country has]
You know where this is going anyway...

At 1/4/08 11:40 PM, TimTheGreat wrote:

At 1/4/08 10:00 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

That wouldn't matter, because the disparity between races exists in the UK as well, and therefore if the racial makeup was more equal between the US and the UK, chances are the UK wouldn't score higher in certain indicators that people incorrectly attribute to healthcare.

But surely if America had Universal Healthcare, allowing everyone to get healthcare, then there would be a higher life expectancy?

Nope.

If we had universal healthcare in similitude to what the UK or Canada has, it would SABOTAGE the several areas of superiority in healthcare the US has.

Universal healthcare that your country has is controlled by your government. There is no competition, there is no incentive to excel or to provide the best product. Your government can cut costs and cut corners with impunity, creating waiting lines and so forth without having to fear that their jobs are in risk... because they have a monopoly on healthcare, and they are not in risk of being ousted by another party that is better at providing healthcare than they are.

If this happened in the US, our current innovative atmosphere, our enormous breakthroughs in medicine that occur all the time, wouldn't exist. Government-controlled healthcare would ruin things, and the quality of healthcare would degrade because there would no longer be any incentive for healthcare providers to actually excel and compete anymore.

Any monopoly, not least of which one controlled by a government, is a bad thing.

At 1/5/08 12:17 AM, TimTheGreat wrote: I see your point. And I agree that most breakthroughs in medicine are in the United States. But that doesn't effect life expectancy in the US compared to the rest of the world, because as as soon as America has a breakthrough, the rest of the world laps it up.

Yes, but that's not really the idea.

The US has a lower life expectancy for things that are completely unrelated to healthcare. When these things are removed from the equation, Americans actually have very good life expectancy, better than any other western country.

So it doesn't matter if the US doesn't look good when looking at numbers out of context. Americans still benefit from our system, because we are at the cutting edge in treatment. Someone is more likely to be treated successfully for a life threatening disease in the US than basically anywhere else. This is because our healthcare providers have no government interference preventing them from spending what the government might consider to be too much money.

It's not as if America keeps the new knowledge and doesn't share it with the rest of the world.

Yes, but it's pretty stupid for people to disregard that fact and claim their country's healthcare is better without putting it into context. Some countries have "better" healthcare because they supposedly spend less yet cover everyone. But they ignore the fact that much of their drugs, equipment, and procedures were developed in the US... who funded it. They also ignore that even though everyone is covered in their country, they are covered by a system that is less effective in saving lives in actual medical procedures.

Basically, Universal Healthcare is better for Countries as long as there is a big country to rely on making all the Breakthroughs.

You're right.

Countries with universal healthcare benefit from thhe US because we have a massive private medical industry. The US does all the research and spends all the money on developing medical equipment and new drugs and so forth, and then by the time they become affordable, countries can purchase them then while bypassing the process the US went through. So they benefit from the US system, and save money because of it... thus being lifted up by the bootstraps by the US.

For example... the US spends 78% of the biotechnology spending in the world. Europe only spends 16% even though it has over twice the population the US.

At 1/3/08 11:11 AM, Kagoe wrote:

At 1/3/08 11:08 AM, Memorize wrote: United States.

Realistically speaking.

You also have a shitty reason for liking the UK.

Well, UK and new zeland are the only countries in the whole world that don't alow poilcemen to carry guns. Besides, every year, about 1 1/2 thousand american kids die because of there parents having guns. The kids find thheir parents gun and would accidently use and boom goes there litttle heads...

well then thwe best country would have to be new zealand we arent hated we dont have massive pollution problems we dont have racism (or much of it atleast) our government doesn't do stupid things like start wars we have free healthcare free education we have an amazing landscape beautiful forests mountains and such we dont have many gangs

in conclusion new zealand rocks

How about China, specifically Hong Kong