More Bill O'Idiot

[MRBRETTONWOODS]

Quote from bigdavediode:

The "Manhattan Institute for Policy Research?" A coin-operated think-tank? What's wrong with the Hawaii Department of Health?

And from 2004?

But okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that these numbers are correct. Let's assume that there's only a .1 year difference between the absolute top, richest state and all of Canada.

Isn't it interesting that taking the absolute TOP state and comparing it to all of Canada, including the poorest parts, that Canada is right in the running with the number one state?

You don't decide when surveys are taken for specific various regions.

Minnesota and Hawaii would be up to 20% of Canada's population by themselves.

There are also different life expectancies depending upon various counties throughout the US and Canada.

Life expectancy in british Columbia (Canada's highest) is 81.2 BASED ON 2005 DATA. Hawaii would still have a higher life expectancy, and presumably higher than the 2004 life expectancy for 2005 based upon statistical projections.

There is also a massive influx of illegal aliens from Latin America (especially Mexico) residing in the US, they count towards the birth/death index and the overall life expectancy as well.




The US healthcare system is very inefficient in general though, I agree on that point. Even Cuba, which has the same life expectancy as the US has less than 1/5 the per capita spending.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from MRBRETTONWOODS:

You don't decide when surveys are taken for specific various regions.

Yes, you do. For example, the census.

But let's get back on point that Canada is right on par with the number one state.

Minnesota and Hawaii would be up to 20% of Canada's population by themselves.

So? Should that make them do better or worse in life expectancy? Comparing similar populations has the same outcome (Canada wins, the US loses.)

There are also different life expectancies depending upon various counties throughout the US and Canada.

Absolutely.

Life expectancy in british Columbia (Canada's highest) is 81.2 BASED ON 2005 DATA. Hawaii would still have a higher life expectancy, and presumably higher than the 2004 life expectancy for 2005 based upon statistical projections.

Okeee... so even if we take the projections as accurate, which is fine with me, why would Canada's highest performer, BC, with an inferior form of healthcare which is cheap and presumably inefficient, have people living as long or longer than people in the top US state?

Why do states which border provinces with similar populations have lower life expectancy?

Why do even whites in the US have a lower life expectancy than all Canadians?

Why are cancer patient outcomes in general better in Canada than the US?

Why are heart transplant patient outcomes in general better in Canada than the US?

At some point you have to start asking yourself the next logical question: "Why can't we do better than Canada?"

There is also a massive influx of illegal aliens from Latin America (especially Mexico) residing in the US, they count towards the birth/death index and the overall life expectancy as well.

Doesn't matter. Even American whites can't even compete with Canadians, including minorities.

 

[MRBRETTONWOODS]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Yes, you do. For example, the census.

But let's get back on point that Canada is right on par with the number one state.



So? Should that make them do better or worse in life expectancy? Comparing similar populations has the same outcome (Canada wins, the US loses.)



Absolutely.



Okeee... so even if we take the projections as accurate, which is fine with me, why would Canada's highest performer, BC, with an inferior form of healthcare which is cheap and presumably inefficient, have people living as long or longer than people in the top US state?

Why do states which border provinces with similar populations have lower life expectancy?

Why do even whites in the US have a lower life expectancy than all Canadians?

Why are cancer patient outcomes in general better in Canada than the US?

Why are heart transplant patient outcomes in general better in Canada than the US?

At some point you have to start asking yourself the next logical question: "Why can't we do better than Canada?"



Doesn't matter. Even American whites can't even compete with Canadians, including minorities.

The complete official census will be in 2010, there hasn't been one that comprehensive in the past couple of years in the US, that is my point.

Camada is slightly below the #2 state for now.

Canada and the US do not have similar populations, the US is much larger.


I never said that Canadian healthcare was inferior, I said that the US healthcare system is inefficient, Canada overall is more efficient and effective at healthcare on a broader scale, but the US has better specialized care for those that can afford it (which is the minority, okay).




The US census is not completely accurate at determining race. According to the US census Osama Bin laden would be white.

Another white guy:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/vc/murders/morales_r.htm




I don't have a problem with a national healthcare system for the general population as a concept when it is effectively implemented. I have a problem with the vast inefficiencies and lack of proper oversight of the US government and US Government programs as a whole.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from MRBRETTONWOODS:

The complete official census will be in 2010, there hasn't been one that comprehensive in the past couple of years in the US, that is my point.

Camada is slightly below the #2 state for now.

For argument's sake, let's say that's correct -- it's worth noting then that according to this that Canada beats 96% of all states for life expectancy. Pretty interesting.

Canada and the US do not have similar populations, the US is much larger.

Yes, luckily that has no bearing on life expectancy. (Urbanization is a different topic, and Canada is highly urbanized.)

I never said that Canadian healthcare was inferior, I said that the US healthcare system is inefficient, Canada overall is more efficient and effective at healthcare on a broader scale, but the US has better specialized care for those that can afford it (which is the minority, okay).

What kind of specialized care? Heart transplants and cancers? Because Canada does better.

I don't have a problem with a national healthcare system for the general population as a concept when it is effectively implemented. I have a problem with the vast inefficiencies and lack of proper oversight of the US government and US Government programs as a whole.

Well to reassure you, the health care bill only gave an option for states that, if they wanted to, they could create a public option for the public.

That was such an anathema to the Republicans (and a few Democrats) that they had to kill that option. Ie. the Republicans gave you less freedom and less choice, a lot less, in favor of their core constituents: insurance companies.

 

[smilingsynic]

Quote from ak15:

LOL. Are you out of your mind? His answer referenced population size only. Nothing and I repeat nothing in his reply even remotely resembles "diverse." What I've stated is completely on topic and has nothing to do with conservatives, left, right etc. It was an obvious error by O'Reilly. Take something out of context? My answer is perfectly referencing the context.
O'Reilly: We have ten times as many people as you do. That translates to ten times as many accidents, crimes, down the line.

How much more obtuse can you get?

AAA is one of the most obtuse people here--always has been. That's why most of us have put him on ignore.

 

[Covertibility]

According to some people on a talk radio station I was listening to while in Panama City, the Obama healthcare bill will discourage americans from being doctors and that you all will be operated on by Iraqi doctors. That was a caller from Tennessee.

Of course the moon landing was the other big talk of the day and one caller said when Neil dun landed on that durn moon, he ran outside with binoculars to see if he can that astronaut.

Some of the stuff said is just priceless. FOXNews can get away with O'reilly's and Hannity's crap is because the viewing audience doesn't know any better. Conservative talk radio is a comedy goldmine.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from smilingsynic:

AAA is one of the most obtuse people here--always has been. That's why most of us have put him on ignore.

Reading my posts will increase your IQ level. Granted, you are starting from such a low point it will take months to notice any change.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Yes, you do. For example, the census.

But let's get back on point that Canada is right on par with the number one state.



So? Should that make them do better or worse in life expectancy? Comparing similar populations has the same outcome (Canada wins, the US loses.)



Absolutely.



Okeee... so even if we take the projections as accurate, which is fine with me, why would Canada's highest performer, BC, with an inferior form of healthcare which is cheap and presumably inefficient, have people living as long or longer than people in the top US state?

Why do states which border provinces with similar populations have lower life expectancy?

Why do even whites in the US have a lower life expectancy than all Canadians?

Why are cancer patient outcomes in general better in Canada than the US?

Why are heart transplant patient outcomes in general better in Canada than the US?

At some point you have to start asking yourself the next logical question: "Why can't we do better than Canada?"



Doesn't matter. Even American whites can't even compete with Canadians, including minorities.

Why are heart transplant outcomes better in canada? Because they limit the procedure to younger, healthier patients. They let the lederly ones go home and die. That's why so many canadians and other wealthy people form countries with socialized medicine come here to be treated. To avoid the ques, to get the best doctors and hospitals and to get around rationing. The same thing will happen here. The very wealthy congressmen and connected VIPs will never have to worry about being denied a lifesaving procedure or waiting in a long que for a procedure.

You act like no one in the US has ever had experience with a government-run system. We have and know the idea that it will be better and more efficient than the private system is ridiculous, no matter how many bogus statistical comps you throw out.

If Obama-care will be so great, why doesn't it cover congressmen and the executive branch?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Why are heart transplant outcomes better in canada? Because they limit the procedure to younger, healthier patients.

LOL. I would hope everywhere limits heart transplants to those most compatible and the youngest and healthiest -- unless you have some secret source of donor hearts available.

They let the lederly ones go home and die. That's why so many canadians and other wealthy people form countries with socialized medicine come here to be treated.

Because of the abundance of hearts?

To avoid the ques, to get the best doctors and hospitals and to get around rationing. The same thing will happen here. The very wealthy congressmen and connected VIPs will never have to worry about being denied a lifesaving procedure or waiting in a long que for a procedure.

They never will no matter how public or private the system is.

You act like no one in the US has ever had experience with a government-run system. We have and know the idea that it will be better and more efficient than the private system is ridiculous, no matter how many bogus statistical comps you throw out.

Okay, other than your personal feelings, what is the efficiency of the private system? High?

If Obama-care will be so great, why doesn't it cover congressmen and the executive branch?

Because they like their public system, I suppose.

 

[MRBRETTONWOODS]

The Americans that can afford specialized care can have it done with a shorter wait time and receive more invasive and proactive treatment.



There is no effective cost control in the Obama plan, the CBO has said that the program will be incredibly expensive. The program is very compromised. The pharmaceutical industry is not being requested to make any major sacrifices.

The public healthcare option is not clear and there has not been much detail into the public option. Obama still has not outlined the compete costs nor did he give details about any restrictions about the public plan.


The Watered-down Obama public healthcare reform law will not remove the overall costs and lack of effectiveness in the current healthcare system.

The republicans and democrats are bought and sold by the same lobbyists, there isn't any difference to the bottom line at the end of the day.