The Italians have a higher quality of life than Americans, according to the Economist and at 40 degrees I think it's safe to say that people in any country would have deaths.
Certainly it will.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ron Paul says healthcare not a right
- Thread starter Kassz007
- Start date
The Italians have a higher quality of life than Americans, according to the Economist and at 40 degrees I think it's safe to say that people in any country would have deaths.
Certainly it will.
Quote from Mom0/pH0x:
yeah but they also don't die by the thousands in san diego and LA, and LOTS of people don't have AC there, and it gets alot hotter there than anywhere in france... so you tell me...
also, do you have any evidence of longer lifespans amongst euro americans? i'd say the difference IS statistically significant... france having the #8 lifespan in the world and usa having what? number 30? i mean that's significant... if it were your own days, or your wife? children? parents? would those days not be significant? they would to me....
according to wikipedia, the french have on average 2 years longer to live... have your parents died? i gaurantee you that when they do you will wish you had two more years with them... i don't know how you can say that 2 years out of 78 is not statistically significant... and even if you can manufacture a mathematical argument for it... it is significant in real terms...
Well, I'll tell you....either the french have a particularly delicate constitution or it's because ambulances stopped picking up victims of heat stroke and hospitals stopped answering the phones when they become overwhelmed. Point is, we have worse heat waves and never had such a death wave as a result...you tell me. In the South we all had air conditioners and cooling centers for folks who couldn't afford them.
according to wikipedia, the french have on average 2 years longer to live...
I see your point. Sadly, statistical significance doesn't consider your love for your parents. But, I tell ya' if you want to live the extra two years, you have to avoid being fat. The French are not obese! They don't get better medical care, they are healthier to begin with. Also, they drink more often but they drink less at any one time. Being drunk is frowned upon in France. And they drink wine, not the hard liquor and beer we drink here. Wine is better for you.
Have you ever been to France? Have you ever actually lived there? It's different if you're just a tourist. For example, as a tourist, you probably never experienced a multi-day pharmacist strike so that you were unable to buy aspirin for days while you had a pounding headache. Make you wish for death, I tell ya'.
also, do you have any evidence of longer lifespans amongst euro americans?
Yes. My father-in-law is a WHO doctor and he and a good friend are also epidemiologists. I don't remember the specific study because you can imagine how many they've thrown my way - but you can look on the WHO website. Their research is available online.
BTW, they're not LONGER life expectancies. The are equivalent to European life expectancies. Sadly, blacks and hispanics also have a bigger obesity problem (not unrelated to the heart and diabetes problem, btw). So, they skew the statistics and people in this group should be especially careful about eating right and exercising.
Anyway, while this particular discussion has been fun, it's way off topic. You clearly think for some reason that medical care is the only factor in life expectancy and that Europe trumps the United States without ever living there to know for sure. While all of that is interesting, it's beside the point in this thread and so I'm bowing of this conversation. Thanks for the chat.
Quote from Angrycat:
Kazz,
You, by your own admission, have never been seriously ill. You have no clue what kind of healthcare you have.
Nonsense. Certainly he's used the healthcare system and been exposed to it.
Also, giving up beer, smokes, fast food and a 52 inch plasma seems a small price to pay for life saving treatment. Dontcha think?
His point is that that's not a choice he's forced to make.
I mean if your life wouldn't be worth living without any of that, then you really have to question how empty your life is.
That's true -- a person can live without pizza, trips, a tv, and many other things. However that has nothing to do with healthcare.
Besides, you're Canadian, so what you think of America's health care arrangements doesn't matter. You don't get a vote.
Many people with US citizenship live in Canada. These people were recently organized by political parties in turn out to vote drives.
So he might vote.
Quote from bigdavediode:
The Italians have a higher quality of life than Americans, according to the Economist and at 40 degrees I think it's safe to say that people in any country would have deaths.
You have either not lived in America or you haven't lived in Italy. Or it's possible that what you consider a quality life is not one I would consider quality. For example, I don't consider the mafia running everything and so many strikes that a website exists just to warn people on a daily basis a good quality of life. But, you may disagree.
Yes, at 40 degrees some deaths are expected. But, in America, parts of the country reach those temperatures regularly and tens of thousands of people don't die.
Quote from Angrycat:
Well, I'll tell you....either the french have a particularly delicate constitution or it's because ambulances stopped picking up victims of heat stroke and hospitals stopped answering the phones when they become overwhelmed. Point is, we have worse heat waves and never had such a death wave as a result...you tell me. In the South we all had air conditioners and cooling centers for folks who couldn't afford them.
There's a huge difference between areas of the south, which are used to high heat, and the areas with the heat waves in France which had not experienced these over 40 degree temperatures and had no air conditioning.
according to wikipedia, the french have on average 2 years longer to live...
I see your point. Sadly, statistical significance doesn't consider your love for your parents. But, I tell ya' if you want to live the extra two years, you have to avoid being fat. The French are not obese! They don't get better medical care, they are healthier to begin with. Also, they drink more often but they drink less at any one time. Being drunk is frowned upon in France. And they drink wine, not the hard liquor and beer we drink here. Wine is better for you.
Certainly there are lifestyle factors. Compare a more similar population, such as Canada, and you'll discover that Canadians also have higher life expectancies.
Yes. My father-in-law is a WHO doctor and he and a good friend are also epidemiologists. I don't remember the specific study because you can imagine how many they've thrown my way - but you can look on the WHO website. Their research is available online.
BTW, they're not LONGER life expectancies. The are equivalent to European life expectancies. Sadly, blacks and hispanics also have a bigger obesity problem (not unrelated to the heart and diabetes problem, btw). So, they skew the statistics and people in this group should be especially careful about eating right and exercising.
Sorry, white males in the US live to 75.7, while in Canada the all male population's life expectancy is 76.98.
Quote from Angrycat:
You have either not lived in America or you haven't lived in Italy. Or it's possible that what you consider a quality life is not one I would consider quality.
You can see the Economist's rating system online. If you'd like, I can link to it. It uses both objective and polled measures.
For example, I don't consider the mafia running everything and so many strikes that a website exists just to warn people on a daily basis a good quality of life. But, you may disagree.
No, I agree, which is why I don't live in New Jersey.
Yes, at 40 degrees some deaths are expected. But, in America, parts of the country reach those temperatures regularly and tens of thousands of people don't die.
Yes, in the US areas with warm weather often get hot weather.
Quote from bigdavediode:
Nonsense. Certainly he's used the healthcare system and been exposed to it.
His point is that that's not a choice he's forced to make.
That's true -- a person can live without pizza, trips, a tv, and many other things. However that has nothing to do with healthcare.
Many people with US citizenship live in Canada. These people were recently organized by political parties in turn out to vote drives.
So he might vote.
Bigdave,
Did the "by your own admission" not tip you off? You're clearly coming to the party late. Do read the archive before you jump in because if you did, then you would know that I was very seriously ill in a socialized medicine system, half my family consists of doctors and surgeons who practiced both in socialized medicine and in the United States and I DO know exactly what I'm talking first hand. My position is not political. Kazz has said he's never been sick.
I'm also fine with publicly funding people who can't afford basic care. No problem. Nobody wants to see people make the choice between food and medical attention. A choice between medical care and booze, a 52 inch plasma and 5,200 square foot mansion because you chose not to buy health insurance is a different matter. I'm not against some public funding. I'm against government RUNNING health care. Not providing the funds for the bottom 10% of the population.
That's true -- a person can live without pizza, trips, a tv, and many other things. However that has nothing to do with healthcare.
It shouldn't, but it will. The healthcare proposal is a classic "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It relies on the most productive to continue to produce the wealth that is needed to be taxed to pay for everyone else. The wealthy will simply produce less wealth, which means that the tax surcharge to pay for this system will creep down to the people who are now saying they can't afford health insurance. Only, with this system they won't have the option not to buy it. So, in the end, they will still have to pay for this healthcare because nobody forgoes time with their loved ones to work the marginal hour to provide your kids with healthcare instead of theirs.
Quote from Angrycat:
Bigdave,
Did the "by your own admission" not tip you off? You're clearly coming to the party late. Do read the archive before you jump in because if you did, then you would know that I was very seriously ill in a socialized medicine system, half my family consists of doctors and surgeons who practiced both in socialized medicine and in the United States and I DO know exactly what I'm talking first hand. My position is not political. Kazz has said he's never been sick.
Actually you said that he hasn't been "seriously" ill therefore he doesn't know what kind of healthcare he has.
Additionally I have experienced healthcare in multiple countries, so argument by anecdote is simply not going to work.
I'm also fine with publicly funding people who can't afford basic care. No problem. Nobody wants to see people make the choice between food and medical attention. A choice between medical care and booze, a 52 inch plasma and 5,200 square foot mansion because you chose not to buy health insurance is a different matter.
Why is it a different matter? At what point did these two options require a choice? He's suggesting that there shouldn't be any important financial choices involved in, what is presumably a moral issue, of healthcare.
I'm not against some public funding. I'm against government RUNNING health care. Not providing the funds for the bottom 10% of the population.
That's not what this debate is about. The poorest 10%, for the most part, have coverage through Medicaid. It's the underinsured and uninsured working class who are struggling. Those with pre-existing conditions. Those who have to pay inflated premiums which double every five years.
It shouldn't, but it will. The healthcare proposal is a classic "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
So? You'll have to do better than red-baiting to convince me that this particular proposal is a bad one.
It relies on the most productive to continue to produce the wealth that is needed to be taxed to pay for everyone else.
That sounds very Ayn Randish.
The wealthy will simply produce less wealth, which means that the tax surcharge to pay for this system will creep down to the people who are now saying they can't afford health insurance. Only, with this system they won't have the option not to buy it. So, in the end, they will still have to pay for this healthcare because nobody forgoes time with their loved ones to work the marginal hour to provide your kids with healthcare instead of theirs.
Well the same argument was used that raising the highest marginal tax rates to the same levels as the 1990's would be harmful, and nothing has happened.
All that piss and vinegar...are you perhaps so angry because your gender is totally irrelevant to everyone who knows you? If so, then I can only imagine what a treat it must have been for you to make unsolicited comments about my genitals earlier in this thread.Quote from Angrycat:
No, I'm a woman, Thunderpoo...But, I apologize. I shouldn't have...made that totally irrelevant comment...
P.S. Are you the evil spawn of Ayn Rand? If so, then John Galt is waiting for you on an island he picked out in the middle of nowhere, where you will be able to weave baskets and barter with like-minded rugged individualists. Please join him. And who knows? Perhaps for once, your gender will not be totally irrelevant there.