Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-09-2012, 04:26 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,418,303 times
Reputation: 4190

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewJerseyMemories View Post
I cannot tell you how much I agree with this. We need universal healthcare. I fought with my Republican friends about this. I told them that it was ridiculous for companies to have to provide healthcare for their employees. You would think that since they are so pro-business, they would understand what I was talking about! But no, they screamed that I was a socialist and should move to Europe!
If companies did not have to pay for staggeringly expensive healthcare, they could hire more full-time workers.

Anyway, I think that is really want Obama wants (universal healthcare), but he knows that it would never pass right now, so it's just a step in the right direction.

A truly compassionate country wouldn't let people DIE because they cannot afford healthcare. Or force people into bankruptcy because they cannot pay their medical bills.
Uh, those companies in Europe still have to pay - it is a payroll tax on both the employee and the employer. I'm an advocate of a national plan but don't kid yourself about the cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-09-2012, 04:29 PM
 
1,733 posts, read 1,822,399 times
Reputation: 1135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
....and all of them are failing.

Reality sucks...

Mircea
I can quite see why you'd think it does.

Nations that use insurance based health care to deliver UHC: Germany, Switzerland, Japan, the Nederlands. Nations that use for-profit insurance: Switzerland, the Nederlands.

How are these countries failing? Switzerland? Germany? Is your definition of "Failing" something like "Doing spectacularily well"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
....in the 27 Euro-States there are 2.6 beds per 1,000 people

...in the US there is one bed for every 179 people (as of January 3, 2012) there are 1,746,938 fully staffed hospital beds in the US.

You want to be able to afford UHC like Euro-States do? Then you need to reduce the number of hospital beds that you have.
That reality thing is sucking for you again isn't it?

Here are the real numbers.

The US has 30 hospital beds per 10 000 people. The European countries vary...but all but one have more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
For several years I've been saying that if you want an health care system, um, you know, like Europe, you'll have to close 60% of your hospitals. That's how I came to that conclusion (well one of the ways -- I always look at other angles).
Except...the EU have more hospitals, and more hospitals per person than the USA. The US has 5754 hospitals. That is about 1 per 54 000 people. The EU has one per 33 000 people. That is over 15 000 hospitals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That may or may not be true, and you haven't proven your case.

Do you think a Ford Pinto or a Yugo costs less than a Mercedes Benz?

Well, hold that thought.......is a Ford Pinto the same as a Mercedes Benz?
Well, its not something I have to prove. Its a fact. In, you know, reality.

Do a google search for "countries", "healthcare expenditure" with "per person" or "gdp" added on to it.
It doesn't take more than that.

And in terms of the car, the UHC countries have the brand new Mercedes, and the US the clapped out pinto you know. The car salesman saw the US coming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
2/3 of Canadians have private health insurance in addition to UHC.

50% of Danes have private health insurance in addition to UHC.
Actually, its 30 % of Danes -for spectacles, co-pay drugs and dentistry. Less than 5 % for anything else. As for Canadians, its spectacles, co-pay and dentistry again. (Insurance Logic: Risk management strategies; Milewsy, Scottsman, Gottesman)

I mean, I can see why you have a problem with reality.

Last edited by Grim Reader; 11-09-2012 at 04:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 04:33 PM
 
1,733 posts, read 1,822,399 times
Reputation: 1135
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
Uh, those companies in Europe still have to pay - it is a payroll tax on both the employee and the employer. I'm an advocate of a national plan but don't kid yourself about the cost.
Actually, that depends very much on the country. Bismark-model countries like Germany, Switzerland, Nederland etc. Yes, you're right. Beveridge-type nations like the UK, the Nordics, etc the employer has no healthcare costs at all (Unless hes doing work with some really dangerous-to-your-health substances).

National Insurance model countries, I don't think there is any burden on the employer. Canadians or Taiwanese would know best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 05:22 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
1,702 posts, read 1,919,704 times
Reputation: 1305
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
For all of those Republicans who are saying that ObamaCare hurts businesses...I agree. I have always agreed. It helps insurance companies, but does nothing to control the costs of Health Care. The solution...the next step - Universal Healthcare.

Take employers out of the mix...reduce their costs, which will make them more internationally competitive and bring down the costs of health care.

Win, Win. Who is with me. This is what we have wanted from the very beginning. Obamacare is a start, but probably the real next step is a public option for people who want to opt out of employer provided health insurance to govt. provided health care.
I'm with you and I'm in pharma.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Denver
9,963 posts, read 18,499,454 times
Reputation: 6181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Fail -- UHC does not automatically control the costs of health care and the medical services cost-sharing plan providers that fraudulent continue to refer to as "insurance" companies are not the problem.

Here is one of the problems....

The Christ Hospital
2139 Auburn Ave.
513-585-2000
thechristhospital.com

* Additional Features: All-private birthing suites and post-partum rooms; feng sui and hydrotherapy birthing suites; nursing staff with an average 20 years experience; new interactive TV system; dine-on-demand room service; updated infant security system; no restrictions on visitation hours (some limitations may be in place during flu season); neonatologists on call 24 hours; Special Care Nursery with individualized bed space that can be personalized

Atrium Medical Center’s Family Birth Center

1 Medical Center Dr., Middletown
513-424-2111
atriummedcenter.org

* Children permitted in delivery room with mother’s approval. Additional Features: Board-certified doctors and nurses experienced in obstetrics, neonatal care, including nursery and fetal monitoring. Contemporary birthing suites include flat-screen TVs, On-Demand movies and bathrooms with showers and jet tubs. Babies may stay in nursery or “room†with mom; fold-out sofas for overnight guests. Prenatal services and childbirth education classes available.




2/3 of Canadians have private health insurance in addition to UHC.

50% of Danes have private health insurance in addition to UHC.

The percentage of people European countries with UHC who are purchasing private insurance is growing yearly.



You cannot pay for Medicaid.

When you demonstrate that you are capable of putting forth a viable plan with specific measures to preserve Medicare, then perhaps people will take you seriously, instead of just a bunch of hot air.

Quit talking and start chalking...

Mircea



Uh, I realize not everyone can be a constitutional scholar, but please.....would you do yourself and everyone else a favor and read the Constitution?

That would include the Amendments, specifically to wit the 14th Amendment.

The issue with the 14th Amendment is that it uses the word "person" instead of the word "citizen."

The legal concept is "statutory construction"......

"In a statutory construction case, the beginning point must be the language of the statute, and when a statute speaks with clarity to an issue judicial inquiry into the statute's meaning in all but the most extraordinary circumstance is finished." Riva v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 61 F.3d 1003, 1007 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U.S. 469, 475, 120 L. Ed. 2d 379, 112 S. Ct. 2589 (1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the court need not consult legislative history and other aids to statutory construction when the words of the statute neither create an ambiguity nor lead to an unreasonable interpretation. Riva, 61 F.3d at 1007 (quotations omitted). In searching a statute's text to determine congressional intent, we attribute to words that are not defined in the statute itself their ordinary usage, while keeping in mind that meaning can only be ascribed to statutory language if that language is taken in context. Id. (quotations omitted).

In interpreting statutes, the Supreme Court has often recognized the rule "that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers." E.g., United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193, 201, 61 L. Ed. 2d 480, 99 S. Ct. 2721 (1979) (quoting Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 459, 36 L. Ed. 226, 12 S. Ct. 511 (1892)).

In recognizing the principle that a statute's language and purpose may at time differ, the Court has stated guidelines for reconciling the two:

There is, of course, no more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a statute than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes. Often these words are sufficient in and of themselves to determine the purpose of the legislation. In such cases we have followed their plain meaning. When that meaning has led to absurd or futile results, however, this Court has looked beyond the words to the purpose of the act. Frequently, however, even when the plain meaning did not produce absurd results but merely an unreasonable one "plainly at variance with the policy of legislation as a whole" this Court has followed that purpose, rather than the literal words. When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be no "rule of law" which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on "superficial examination."

United States v. American Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534, 543-44, 84 L. Ed. 1345, 60 S. Ct. 1059 (1940) (footnotes omitted), quoted in Church of Scientology v. United States Department of Justice, 612 F.2d 417, 422 (9th Cir. 1979); accord Burroughs v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, 686 F.2d 723, 727 (9th Cir. 1982).

In interpreting a statute, "we begin, as we must, with the express language of the statute . . . . Where, as here, the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, resort to legislative history is unnecessary." Rucker v. Davis, 203 F.3d 627, 636 (9th Cir. 2000); see Citizens Action League v. Kizer, 887 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1989)("In construing a statute, we look first to its plain meaning"). In rare cases where "the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intention of its drafters," an exception should be made to the general plain language rule. United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235, 242, 103 L. Ed. 2d 290, 109 S. Ct. 1026 (1989). However, the Supreme Court has cautioned against inserting words into a statute when the same words are present in other sections of the same statute. The Supreme Court has stated:

[Where] Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (5th Cir. 1972); See United States v. Wooten, 688 F.2d 941, 950 (4th Cir. 1982). Had Congress intended to restrict § 1963(a)(1) . . . it presumably would have done so expressly as it did in the immediately following subsection (a)(2). See North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 521, 72 L. Ed. 2d 299, 102 S. Ct. 1912 (1982); United States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768, 773-774, 60 L. Ed. 2d 624, 99 S. Ct. 2077 (1979). In the latter case, id., at 773, the Court said: "The short answer is that Congress did not write the statute that way." We refrain from concluding here that the differing language in the two subsections has the same meaning in each. We would not presume to ascribe this difference to a simple mistake in draftsmanship.

Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 78 L. Ed. 2d 17, 104 S. Ct. 296 (construing the forfeiture provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a)(1)).

We read statutory terms in light of their plain meaning. Baum v. Madigan, 979 F.2d 438, 441 (6th Cir. 1992). "'Statutory words are uniformly presumed, unless the contrary appears, to be used in their ordinary and usual sense, and with the meaning commonly attributed to them.'" Ibid. (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 486, 37 S. Ct. 192, 194, 61 L. Ed. 442 (1917)).

Okays, so very clearly we use the plain language meaning and "person" means "person."

Since the 14th Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law, you cannot deny legal or illegal immigrants any benefits of any laws.

My suggestion, amend the Constitution and re-write the 14th Amendment to say "citizen."

Good luck with that....

Mircea



....and all of them are failing.

Reality sucks...

Mircea







I'd like to rep you all, but I have to spread the love around, so instead I'll just do a group hug, and if you're lucky a reach-around.

Ghost-repping...

Mircea



Neo-cons? Which ones? You mean like Neo-Con Susan Rice, who was hand-picked by Obama to be on his White House Staff, but who is now the US Ambassador to the UN....uh, because Obama nominated her.

I would be elated if you actually knew what a neo-con was. I tell you what, why don't you ask Neo-Con Tony Lake....who used to be Blow Job Bill's Chief of Staff for his White House Staff, and then was Obama's foreign policy adviser during the 2008 Election Campaign.

Will you do that?

I know it won't be easy for you to admit that you have no idea what a neo-con is.

You can start with Leon Trotsky...when he was living in Mexico City....and his link to the Young People's Socialist League.....and their links to Neo-cons.

Factually...

Mircea



Won't work. ...


$5 Trillion Price Tag for Public Pensions - Yahoo! Finance


Boy was I ever wrong...I thought you owed about $3.2 TRILLION in public pensions.

Nope, it's $5 TRILLION.

Maybe if you all hold hands and sing Kumbaya $5 TRILLION will magically fall out of the sky. But if it doesn't...you're welcome to stay in my barn.

Wondering how you're gonna pay for that....

Mircea



Actually, it costs about the same.

Medicare spends $13,000 annually, although those are generally over 65 (people on SSDI automatically qualify for Medicare).

For Medicaid, the average is $6,775 per person, but the biggest costs are 15 and under and 45 and over.

Analyzing...

Mircea



I would like to see that data. I wasn't aware of that, and if what you say is true, then you have some real serious problems....financially....but then we already knew that.



No, none of them can provide a break-down of anything, because they are totally clueless, and even that wouldn't be so bad, except they are willfully ignorant in addition to being clueless.

1] US uses the obsolete Hospital Model; Europe uses the Clinic Model

2] 2.6 beds per 1,000 people in Europe -- the 27 EU and EU wannabes -- while in the US there is one bed for every 179 people (as of January 3, 2012) there are 1,746,938 fully staffed hospital beds in the US -- to distinguish from the non-staffed beds.

As I have stated ad nauseum. it would be necessary for the US to close 60% of its hospitals.....if you want an health care system like Europe.

3] Limited coverage....the Euro-States cap annual spending and life-time spending; Obamacare bans, bars, proscribes, prohibits and criminalizes annual limits and life-time spending as of January 1, 2014.

4] Attitude......

The Christ Hospital
2139 Auburn Ave.
513-585-2000
thechristhospital.com

* Additional Features: All-private birthing suites and post-partum rooms; feng sui and hydrotherapy birthing suites; nursing staff with an average 20 years experience; new interactive TV system; dine-on-demand room service; updated infant security system; no restrictions on visitation hours (some limitations may be in place during flu season); neonatologists on call 24 hours; Special Care Nursery with individualized bed space that can be personalized

Atrium Medical Center’s Family Birth Center

1 Medical Center Dr., Middletown
513-424-2111
atriummedcenter.org

* Children permitted in delivery room with mother’s approval. Additional Features: Board-certified doctors and nurses experienced in obstetrics, neonatal care, including nursery and fetal monitoring. Contemporary birthing suites include flat-screen TVs, On-Demand movies and bathrooms with showers and jet tubs. Babies may stay in nursery or “room†with mom; fold-out sofas for overnight guests. Prenatal services and childbirth education classes available.


I keep saying that one of the major obstacles is that Europeans go to the doctor to get well, while Americans go do the doctor to feel good.

"Getting well" and feeling good are not the same thing. Getting well is objective, and can be measured, quantified and qualified.

"Feeling good" is subjective, and cannot be measured.

Euro-States do not have flat screen TVs, or jacuzzi, or on-demand movies or feng shui.

Those things are not free....they cost money.

4] Restricted services......Euro-States do not provide diet/weight loss, smoking cessation or any other number of services. Even alcohol and drug rehab is out-side the normal scope for many of the Euro-States.

5] Rationing.....Euro-States ration health care using a number of different means.

6] Co-pays.....remember, 21 of the 27 EU countries are nothing more than large US cities.....meaning those, um, you know, "countries" (snicker) have populations that are less than 9 Million people. The use co-pays, but as costs continue to rise......note that their UHCs are Ponzi-Schemes just like Mediare.....people are being forced to obtain private insurance to cover the co-pay.

That's just some of the differences.

There are many other social and cultural differences. Just as an example, Europeans can "afford" to pay higher taxes for health care, because they are not burdened by things like auto insurance, automobile payments, automobile maintenance and gasoline consumption.

Another cultural and social difference is living accommodations. Three things.....smaller housing means smaller utilities, less maintenance, less costs, plus Europeans share living accommodations with others...meaning many residences are multi-household, and then Europeans care for their own elderly, meaning you have many multi-generational households. The point being housing costs are less.

Differentiating....

Mircea



Are you going to restore the tax code to 1960s levels as well?

The impression one gets from your comment is that you are uninformed and not sufficiently knowledgeable --- because you don't understand the tax system, or that you are aware, but your intent is to spread disinformation and confuse people.

In 1964 (when the law changed) it was 77% over $400,000. You wanna tell people how many Americans earned more than $400,000 in 1964? I'll give you an hint....the average annual income was $4,576 per year.

Ooops.

In 1965, the average tax rate was 11.6%.

Ooops, again.

Why didn't you tell people that? What are you trying to hide from them? Why don't you want people to know the truth?

And cutting military spending will not fund a UHC.

Not amused....

Mircea



I already debunked you on that on another thread.

You will never achieve the necessary cost reductions because the obstacle is the American Hospital Association.....the very same Non-Governmental Organization that wrote much of Obamacare....and donated heavily to Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 Elections.



They are immutable.

They are immutable, because the issue is primarily centered on the human condition -- or rather human American condition, which is hedonistic selfishness and a desire to have everything "free."




Why didn't you tell people that 2/3 of Canadians pay for private health insurance as well?

There's 30 Million people in O Canada!.

Are there 30 Million people in the US? Nope, there's 314+Million....total fail for you. Study Economy of Scale and get back to us.



I would prefer you do it, since you don't understand it.

I can sum up the issue very quickly....

You want a single-payer plan, but you don't want to do the things Euro-States did in order to be able to afford a single-payer plan.

Had you bothered to do any research, and if you understood what you were reading, you should have found out that...

....in the 27 Euro-States there are 2.6 beds per 1,000 people

...in the US there is one bed for every 179 people (as of January 3, 2012) there are 1,746,938 fully staffed hospital beds in the US.

You want to be able to afford UHC like Euro-States do? Then you need to reduce the number of hospital beds that you have.

Begging your pardon, but I'm not exactly convinced you're competent, so I'll do the math for you.

2.6 beds per 1,000 people.

314,000,000 / 1,000 = 314,000 * 2.6 = 816,400 total beds.

1,746,938 beds
--816,000 beds
-------------------
930,538 beds to be eliminated.

or 53% of your current hospital beds.

Now, does everyone understand where I get the 60% figure from? For several years I've been saying that if you want an health care system, um, you know, like Europe, you'll have to close 60% of your hospitals. That's how I came to that conclusion (well one of the ways -- I always look at other angles).

But 53% is not 60%!

You're right...but then I talking about closing 60% of your hospitals....which would result in the loss of 53% of your beds.

My bad, maybe I should have explained that last year or year before last or whatever so that people understand.



Um, no, sorry, you're the one who wants something you cannot possibly have, so you need to do more than just talk crap.



I showed you one of the reasons why it costs less.

I you prepared to lose more jobs?



We tag team.

So...uh, .....look....why don't you do some research and then perhaps we can have a discussion on an equal level.

Not impressed....

Mircea



That may or may not be true, and you haven't proven your case.

Do you think a Ford Pinto or a Yugo costs less than a Mercedes Benz?

Well, hold that thought.......is a Ford Pinto the same as a Mercedes Benz?

Some people...

Mircea



When you people stop lying, and start engaging in reasonable debate based on facts and not propaganda and disinformation we'll consider giving it a rest.

You compare two or more things that are similar.

You cannot compare two things when they are totally and completely dissimilar. In case you missed it......

The Christ Hospital
2139 Auburn Ave.
513-585-2000
thechristhospital.com

* Additional Features: All-private birthing suites and post-partum rooms; feng sui and hydrotherapy birthing suites; nursing staff with an average 20 years experience; new interactive TV system; dine-on-demand room service; updated infant security system; no restrictions on visitation hours (some limitations may be in place during flu season); neonatologists on call 24 hours; Special Care Nursery with individualized bed space that can be personalized

Atrium Medical Center’s Family Birth Center

1 Medical Center Dr., Middletown
513-424-2111
atriummedcenter.org

* Children permitted in delivery room with mother’s approval. Additional Features: Board-certified doctors and nurses experienced in obstetrics, neonatal care, including nursery and fetal monitoring. Contemporary birthing suites include flat-screen TVs, On-Demand movies and bathrooms with showers and jet tubs. Babies may stay in nursery or “room†with mom; fold-out sofas for overnight guests. Prenatal services and childbirth education classes available.


You thought European hospitals have jacuzzi and flat screen TVs? You thought wrong.

You think those things are "free?" Well, they aren't. They cost money. And who pays for jacuzzi and flat screen TVs?

Everyone does through higher health care costs, and then you have the unmitigated gall to blame "insurance" companies for raising their rates because you have jacuzzi and flat screen TVs.

More to the point, if you want UHC like Europe, then you're going to have to make your health care system, like Europe, which means getting rid of jacuzzi and flat-screen TVs, and then closing 60% of your hospitals so that you become......like Europe.

Are you or are you not willing to close 60% of your hospitals so that you can afford UHC like Europe?

It's a simple question, and yes, "this shyte again!" and again and again until you get the honesty, courage and integrity to admit that you have to make major changes to your health care system which will be very traumatic, affecting large numbers of jobs.

So let's dispense with the nonsense and deal with the facts.

Repetitiously....

Mircea
You must work for an insurance company.

Every thread based on UHC induces your verbal diarrhea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 09:28 PM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
5,800 posts, read 6,567,920 times
Reputation: 3151
Mircea---Another wonderful post.

Thank you!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Denver
9,963 posts, read 18,499,454 times
Reputation: 6181
To me Australia's UHC seems to be the best fit for the US, everyone is covered but you can still use private insurance if you can afford it.

Going to Hospital in Australia: nib Health Insurance Explained - YouTube

Seeing a Doctor in Hospital: nib Health Insurance Explained - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 09:37 PM
 
12,436 posts, read 11,948,683 times
Reputation: 3159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marv101 View Post
Mircea---Another wonderful post.

Thank you!
So you are the one that reads them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 10:05 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,483,709 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader View Post
Did you notice the "lifespan" bit of the second graph in the post directly above yours? UHC countries mostly have better average lifespans than the US, and the gap is widening. And not only that, other measures of health care quality exists: HALEs (years of life spent in good health) DALYs (Years lost to ill health) amendable mortality (number of people under 75 who die each year, who would have survived with appropriate healthcare)...the US does badly in all of them.
oh please yours and the who's lifespan (life expectancy) has been debunked a dozen times

life expectance is more about genetics and life style, than health care

we have a longer life expectancy than them as a whole

the number one place for life expectancy of asian women....USA


not to mention that life expectancy is more about genetics and LIFE STYLES (ie hamhocks, fried twinkies, and fried chicken, mcdonalds, fatbacks certainly dont help)

most other places..they walk/bike
most other places dont have 4 tv's to a house


posting about life expectancy..means actually very little to medicine

difference between us and the highest is....3.3 years ...is that realivily low (79yrs-82yrs)

and the reason...

is not health care


its....


LIFE STYLE (especially EATING, and EXERCISE), and democraphics (ethnics)
demographics, to include eating habits, GENES, TEEN PREGNANCIES, traffic, cancer, etc..ALL effect those numbers


yes I said traffic accidents....you think that the 2x amount of traffic accidents (of the world) is NOT going to lower the top level???



btw

asians have the HIGHEST life span...and FEMALE ASIAN AMERICANS have the highest life expectancy IN THE WORLD

its demographics


if you compared country "A" to country "B"...and said "A" has an average age of 38..and "B" has an average age of 51...which country do you think would be more PRODUCTIVE and HEALTHY

its the demographics


its like the life expectancy list

the USa has an AVERAGE life expectacny of 78.9 (number 30 something on the list)

but if you break it down further

in the USA, the asian american female has a life expectancy of 86(the HIGHEST in the WORLD)(((higher than the 82 in the actual country of japan)))
..whites are around 83...hispanics around 76...and blacks have a LOW LIFE expectacy around 66m/68f....giving us the AVERAGE of 78.9.....if you took the (12-15% population) of blacks of that list..we would have one of the top three life expectancies in the world....

demographic plays BIG ROLES

funny japan is higher than any of the european countries...in life expectancy..and the 3rd lowest in infant mortality....connected...hmmmmm....certainly genetic


we also have the HIGHEST teen pregnancy ...which leads to low baby weight, and high infant mortality.....and the hightest DEMOGRAPHIC with teen pregancies...the african americans (especially southern AA)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 10:07 PM
 
Location: Los Awesome, CA
8,653 posts, read 6,133,169 times
Reputation: 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
For all of those Republicans who are saying that ObamaCare hurts businesses...I agree. I have always agreed. It helps insurance companies, but does nothing to control the costs of Health Care. The solution...the next step - Universal Healthcare.

Take employers out of the mix...reduce their costs, which will make them more internationally competitive and bring down the costs of health care.

Win, Win. Who is with me. This is what we have wanted from the very beginning. Obamacare is a start, but probably the real next step is a public option for people who want to opt out of employer provided health insurance to govt. provided health care.
I would prefer single payer...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:28 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top