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.
Hmmm. Speaking of preventable deaths, I guess no one remembers the heat wave which killed thousands of senior citizens in France in the summer of 2003 when the entire country went on vacation. An atrocity like this would have horrified Americans....
if france is so great, be my guest and move out of the u.s. and move to france
lets put some perspective from that tragic event, shall we? the population of france is about.....60 million, and population of the u.s. is about....300 million, therefore, if u were to pro-rate this type of tragedy in the u.s. u would have a death toll of....about 74,000 ppl!!!, thats pretty bad folks for a country that "claims" to be the #1 country for preventable deaths? it kinda makes me wonder how many deaths would have happen if a similar event were to happen in the u.s. "given" that we were last?
Actually, they go to the very same point as the OP, namely the fact that the US health care system is less effective and less efficient than those in many if not most other developed countries. As your characterization of the OP as having been with regard to a single, solitary, and narrow study suggested that you were laboring under a rather considerable misconception on the matter, I thought you might benefit from having your consciousness broadened a bit.
That is simply not true. Only one variable is measured, that for a two-year period, and disqualifying an event which would have chanched the results.
This is one of the many places where you and I part ways. I am not content with consideration of my own needs alone.
Excellent deflection. I accept your concession of the point.
Well, fine. As silly as your argument is, let's penalize France by moving them down to 12th. Now Japan is 1st. The US is still 19th.
If your grandparents had died in the heat wave, you'd care less about numbers and more about people. But then you wouldn't be you.
Ah yes...the Bush Derangement Syndrome argument. Any argument based on facts that the faithful cannot defend against must have had its origins in a dark and pathological political bias against The Man and His Message. It is therefore to be disregarded out of hand. Powerful medicine, that...
I said "may be"; you mumbled about faithful minions and dark forces. Who in this scenario is the more likely deranged?
if france is so great, be my guest and move out of the u.s. and move to france
lets put some perspective from that tragic event, shall we? the population of france is about.....60 million, and population of the u.s. is about....300 million, therefore, if u were to pro-rate this type of tragedy in the u.s. u would have a death toll of....about 74,000 ppl!!!, thats pretty bad folks for a country that "claims" to be the #1 country for preventable deaths? it kinda makes me wonder how many deaths would have happen if a similar event were to happen in the u.s. "given" that we were last?
Someone else already did that math for you in an earlier post quite a while a go. Look it up. Totally debunks what you posted above. If you were to pro-rate it to the Chicago heatwave (which last I heard was still in the US), many more people would have died right here in the US. AND they had air conditioning, AND it didn't last as long as the heatwave in France. AND it it is much more probable to have a heatwave in Chicago than in France.
if france is so great, be my guest and move out of the u.s. and move to france
lets put some perspective from that tragic event, shall we? the population of france is about.....60 million, and population of the u.s. is about....300 million, therefore, if u were to pro-rate this type of tragedy in the u.s. u would have a death toll of....about 74,000 ppl!!!, thats pretty bad folks for a country that "claims" to be the #1 country for preventable deaths? it kinda makes me wonder how many deaths would have happen if a similar event were to happen in the u.s. "given" that we were last?
We're talking about a listing of health care based on preventable deaths. France rates higher than the US, so do 10 other countries.
France did not claim anything. The country was rated. So since a country is rated higher than the US we should either deny the fact or move there?
Please explain your reasoning as I'm apparently missing something in your comments.
France preventable problem healthcare vs US healthcare...not heat wave fatalities (a non-indicator BTW).
Certainly the heat deaths help -- because that takes out a whole lot of elderly who aren't counted now in deaths.
But -- what's very interesting is that the French have a considerably higher rate of smoking.
The USA has one of the lowest smoking rates of all countries but countries with much higher smoking rates have better longevitiy --- could we have been misled?
That is simply not true. Only one variable is measured, that for a two-year period, and disqualifying an event which would have chanched the results.
All you can do is copy and paste an earlier complaint already dealt with? The issue here is over whether news of the fact that the US health care system is less effective and less efficient than those in many if not most other developed countries has reached you yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Excellent deflection. I accept your concession of the point.
Your point as you call it was never at issue. You just dragged it in so as to have something to say. The US health care system is not to be judged by whether <saganista>, as one in more than 300 million, happens to have access to first-rate medical care. Someone even in the most utterly god-forsaken land is likely to have such access. Out of desperation, you are taking the idea of argument from the outliers to a new extreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
If your grandparents had died in the heat wave, you'd care less about numbers and more about people. But then you wouldn't be you.
If you cared at all about people in these parts, the fact that even after penalizing France as you had requested, the US remains in such a place as 19th among developed countries in this and many other such studies of the efficiency and effectiveness of national health care systems would bother you a little more. But seemingly you would rather put your personal politics ahead of people and your ideology ahead of reality. The facts must not be allowed to disturb the cozy constructs of your imagination. How else to explain your continuing state-of-denial responses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
I said "may be"; you mumbled about faithful minions and dark forces. Who in this scenario is the more likely deranged?
How would you characterize the point you were seeking to make if not as an attempt to evade the factual implications by suggesting the facts to have been of political rather than scientific origin, and therefore deserving of dismissal out of hand? The churlish nature of such right-wing arguments hardly does their partisans any service...
That wasn't the point of the discussion.
The point is that there was a study, based on the findings of the study, France had the least number of presentable deaths and the US ranked 12th in that study.
This has nothing to do with France, except that they were rated higher than the US. 10 other countries were also rated higher than the US.
Will this discussion vilify those countries as well?
All you can do is copy and paste an earlier complaint already dealt with? The issue here is over whether news of the fact that the US health care system is less effective and less efficient than those in many if not most other developed countries has reached you yet.
No, the issue is about national rates of "preventable" death. That reached me a long time ago; it has yet to make a dent on you.
Quote:
Your point as you call it was never at issue. You just dragged it in so as to have something to say. The US health care system is not to be judged by whether <saganista>, as one in more than 300 million, happens to have access to first-rate medical care. Someone even in the most utterly god-forsaken land is likely to have such access. Out of desperation, you are taking the idea of argument from the outliers to a new extreme.
My point is "not at issue" to you because you can't refute it. There is no disgrace in such an inelegant evasion. I used you as an example, hoping to appeal to your grasp of reality. I am both gratified and regretful to have succeeded so well.
Quote:
If you cared at all about people in these parts, the fact that even after penalizing France as you had requested, the US remains in such a place as 19th among developed countries in this and many other such studies of the efficiency and effectiveness of national health care systems would bother you a little more. But seemingly you would rather put your personal politics ahead of people and your ideology ahead of reality. The facts must not be allowed to disturb the cozy constructs of your imagination. How else to explain your continuing state-of-denial responses?
Oh, I don't know -- let's just say that the number 19, which just so happens to be the ultimate in a series which ranks the US last, seems to have been elevated to mystical significance. Ever wonder why? Why not 20? Or 25? Or even 30? Is it possible that some other countries may have been left off the list? Let's also suppose that attempting to compare the entire health-care systems of countries as dissimilar as Portugal and the US might be just a wee bit more complicated than the methodology of the London School of Hygeine is able to bring to bear in a two-year study by two researchers whose immunity to polio, for example, and probably their median-level dental health, are the result of US medical research and development. Might those two phenomena, among the many others out there which are congruent and equally plausible, convince you that my motivation might be slightly less ideological and more reality-based?
Quote:
How would you characterize the point you were seeking to make if not as an attempt to evade the factual implications by suggesting the facts to have been of political rather than scientific origin, and therefore deserving of dismissal out of hand? The churlish nature of such right-wing arguments hardly does their partisans any service...
That constitutes part of my argument. Given the level of America-bashing extant in the world today (almost, yes, "churlish" in its negativity), it would hardly seem as far-fetched as you claim. The other part of my argument is summarized above: the study is limited, it does not take into account the factors I have cited many times in this thread, and it ignores the leading role taken and held by American medical research over the past 80-odd years...
Last edited by Yeledaf; 01-13-2008 at 05:13 PM..
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.
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.
, thats pretty bad folks for a country that "claims" to be the #1 country for preventable deaths? it kinda makes me wonder how many deaths would have happen if a similar event were to happen in the u.s. "given" that we were last?
