Political: Moderate, Centrist, and Progressive Thread

[bishopnl]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

As you can see the study is a targeted slice of the pie sampling. Not a statistic over overall deaths in either nation that might include homicide or traffic accidents. LOL

That's why I called the homicide deal "goofy" when compared to the health study.

And again, you are STILL missing the point. The point wasn't about homicides or car accidents. The point was that there are MULTIPLE reasons for lower life expectancy rate. You referenced a few of them yourself...diet and exercise. These do not have to be recommended by a physician...the fact is that anyone with a basic education or common sense can live a healthy lifestyle. Even if you exclude any deaths by non-natural causes, there are still multiple variables to consider, even besides diet and exercise. On average Americans work more hours and for a longer period than Europeans...work related stress might cause life expectancy to dip. Lifestyle choices might play a part. There are a variety of things to be looked at. The fact is that you, using your flawed logic, have looked at one factor and concluded that must be the cause.

Perchance have you looked at the WHO studies and concluded that their data ommitted all accidental deaths or any deaths by causes that weren't natural? These are the particular studies under discussion, not some study you saw somewhere else. So far, the WHO study is the only one referenced. I would be interested to know if this study excluded any person of any demographic that died by causes that weren't natural. Which, by the way, makes me wonder. If you exclude death by any cause which is not natural (disease or old age or whatever), how would that give the overall "life-expectancy of a country?"

Goofy is your entire premise, Chris.

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Sadly, many of our fellow conservatives have been conditioned to label and "hate" anyone who disagrees with them.

The truth be told...no philosophical or economic approach is absolutely right. In their eyes "conservatism" is absolutely correct without any possiblity of error...it's a religio/political form of idolatry. Their religion is "Conservative Christianity"...not "Christianity". The same can be said of the liberal ideologues. Their religion is a "Liberal Christianity" not just "Christianity".

But there will always be those of us who see the truth. Sometimes the liberals are right and sometimes the conservatives are right. Neither are right 100% of the time on every issue. And my latest skirmish here is based on the the fact that I believe the liberals are right regarding health insurance.

Since Republicans have had office for so long and done virtually nothing aboutu abortion or gay marriage...I'm not going to let them fool me with these issues. They don't plan on EVER addressing these issues. Why? Because they need them every election to manipulate the gullible. Same on the liberal side. The truth is that neither of these issues will ever be resolved. So I've chosen to move forward. I want to secure health insurance for my family. It's my primary issue this election.

Good point. They use prolife to get the vote but what is done? Bush did seem to uphold marriage between a man and a woman so I will give him credit for that. As far as health insurance goes...well nevermind.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Sadly, many of our fellow conservatives have been conditioned to label and "hate" anyone who disagrees with them.

The truth be told...no philosophical or economic approach is absolutely right. In their eyes "conservatism" is absolutely correct without any possiblity of error...it's a religio/political form of idolatry. Their religion is "Conservative Christianity"...not "Christianity". The same can be said of the liberal ideologues. Their religion is a "Liberal Christianity" not just "Christianity".

But there will always be those of us who see the truth. Sometimes the liberals are right and sometimes the conservatives are right. Neither are right 100% of the time on every issue. And my latest skirmish here is based on the the fact that I believe the liberals are right regarding health insurance.

Since Republicans have had office for so long and done virtually nothing aboutu abortion or gay marriage...I'm not going to let them fool me with these issues. They don't plan on EVER addressing these issues. Why? Because they need them every election to manipulate the gullible. Same on the liberal side. The truth is that neither of these issues will ever be resolved. So I've chosen to move forward. I want to secure health insurance for my family. It's my primary issue this election.

On one level this is just sad... but you are factuall wrong about republicans doing virtually nothing about abortion and gay marriage. the fact is, republicans have limited partial birth, and GWB appointed 2 guys to the supreme court that might be willing to drive abortion back to the legislators.

that is quite a bit. on the subject of Gay Marriage, how can you do something about something that doesnt exist? goofy.

I want secure health insurance too. I just dont want the government being involved in the process. they mess everything up.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Ferd

well, Ive asked that question and here is what i come up with.

WTO is the same people that want Lybia on the UN committee to oversee terrorism and such.

The WTO is the World Trade Organization. It’s the world’s largest body of free market thinkers working on a global economy for the coming world government. These are indeed globalists and most free market libertarian and republican types worship at their feet.

The WHO is the World Health Organization is a division of the United Nations staffed with participating members and physicians from many different countries including the US. But in my opinion the WHO is also very liberal in many ways. However, that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong 100% of the time, especially when studies conducted by other private and non-profit organizations find the same results.

It’s important that if you critique the WHO, which is justified in some cases, you understand that they are not the WTO. LOL

FAIR is made of of some of the most partisian people in America and they are pushing for a restriction by the government of first amendment rights to free speach. (Fairness Doctrine)

Please explain how the fairness doctrine restricts free speech. I’ve not really looked at the issue.

Some folks would believe the Devil himself over an honest liberal if he were a card caring Republican.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

The WTO is the World Trade Organization. It’s the world’s largest body of free market thinkers working on a global economy for the coming world government. These are indeed globalists and most free market libertarian and republican types worship at their feet.

The WHO is the World Health Organization is a division of the United Nations staffed with participating members and physicians from many different countries including the US. But in my opinion the WHO is also very liberal in many ways. However, that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong 100% of the time, especially when studies conducted by other private and non-profit organizations find the same results.

It’s important that if you critique the WHO, which is justified in some cases, you understand that they are not the WTO. LOL



Please explain how the fairness doctrine restricts free speech. I’ve not really looked at the issue.

Some folks would believe the Devil himself over an honest liberal if he were a card caring Republican.

I am very sorry. I typed WTO instead of WHO.... i was speaking of WHO.

good grief.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Please explain how the fairness doctrine restricts free speech. I’ve not really looked at the issue.

Some folks would believe the Devil himself over an honest liberal if he were a card caring Republican.

the devil himself is a card carrying liberal so even if he were a republican, we still would not trust him.

Fairness doctrine is absolutly the federal government restricting FREE SPEACH.

this is the only thing I can think of that absolutly will get me to march on washington. if the dems push this horrible attack on the American people I will go and protest.

Chris, IF you are serious, you have just dropped a peg in my estimation. this is the worst attack on American Freedom in the last hundred years!

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by bishopnl

And again, you are STILL missing the point. The point wasn't about homicides or car accidents. The point was that there are MULTIPLE reasons for lower life expectancy rate. You referenced a few of them yourself...diet and exercise.

The study showed that Canadians who have universal coverage visit the doctor more often. Therefore they are twice as likely to follow a physicians advice to diet and exercise. Most Americans don’t begin dieting or exercising until they’ve had their first major health problem. Typically that problem was undiagnosed for some time, typically due to more infrequent visits to the doctor. Statistically this was found to be primarily because most Americans didn’t have adequate health insurance on a consistent basis.

These do not have to be recommended by a physician...the fact is that anyone with a basic education or common sense can live a healthy lifestyle.

Studies show that most Americans who diet and exercise do not maintain it as a lifestyle unless they have a physician finally warn them of impending health problems. Again the numbers are in agreement with and reflect the lack of or availability of insurance being a primary factor in frequency of physicians visits, physicals, and preventative exams (prostate exams for example).

But hey…if you think “common sense” helps a loving mother who’s watching her husband die of cancer half way through treatments because his insurance company denied them coverage for the needed treatments, be my guest.

Even if you exclude any deaths by non-natural causes, there are still multiple variables to consider, even besides diet and exercise. On average Americans work more hours and for a longer period than Europeans...work related stress might cause life expectancy to dip.

You are correct here, especially if comparing with France. Stress related illness is very low in comparison to the United States. Our corporate task masters work us to death for profit. We’re “wage slaves”. LOL

Lifestyle choices might play a part. There are a variety of things to be looked at. The fact is that you, using your flawed logic, have looked at one factor and concluded that must be the cause.

Lifestyle choices are typically based on information. Canadians visit their physician and have preventative exams and physicians twice as much as Americans. Americans that didn’t visit their doctor as frequently didn’t do so typically because of cost.

Perchance have you looked at the WHO studies and concluded that their data ommitted all accidental deaths or any deaths by causes that weren't natural? These are the particular studies under discussion, not some study you saw somewhere else. So far, the WHO study is the only one referenced. I would be interested to know if this study excluded any person of any demographic that died by causes that weren't natural. Which, by the way, makes me wonder. If you exclude death by any cause which is not natural (disease or old age or whatever), how would that give the overall "life-expectancy of a country?"

Simply by studying a scientifically chosen sample and comparing it to another scientifically chosen sample. You’ll figure it out eventually bro.

[bishopnl]

Tell you what, Chris. Link me to the particular study you are referring too, and we'll discuss it from there.

The particular study I'm referring to is the WHO study. This may not be the most recent version of it, but this is essentially the same one.

http://www.who.int/whosis/database/c...nguage=english

Listed on the site:

Rationale for use
Life expectancy at birth reflects the overall mortality level of a population. It summarizes the mortality pattern that prevails across all age groups - children and adolescents, adults and the elderly.

Definition
Average number of years that a newborn is expected to live if current mortality rates continue to apply.

As it is, I'm sick of arguing with you. I don't think you have any particular study in mind, and I have my doubts that you've even studied the WHO data. It might be amusing if it weren't so sad.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I am very sorry. I typed WTO instead of WHO.... i was speaking of WHO.

good grief.

Please offer sources on WHO's activities.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Ferd

On one level this is just sad... but you are factuall wrong about republicans doing virtually nothing about abortion and gay marriage. the fact is, republicans have limited partial birth, and GWB appointed 2 guys to the supreme court that might be willing to drive abortion back to the legislators.

Republicans have produced a limitation on partial birth abortions that has so far been seriously challenged because it didn’t meet SCOTUS standards. The legislation was drafted by purposefully disregarding the standards set by the SCOTUS. Many circuit courts are already showing cases challenging it’s Constitutionality. In addition the legislation, should it be ruled Constitutional only effects less that 1% of abortions procured. It’s a bone tossed to the gullible to keep ‘em barking for the Republicans on election day. However, I give him credit, even if it does save one life it’s a good thing and I stand firmly behind it. It just doesn’t impress me as much as it does you bro.

As as for the Supreme Court Justices…give me a break. Those cats aren’t going to do anything about abortion and in your heart you know it. The Republicans can’t afford to have this issue resolved….they need it to keep them values voters votin’ their values. I’m indignant because I believe my values are being used to try to manipulate me politically. I’ll give them my values vote when they stand and deliver. Right now I want to know I’ll have health insurance in 4 years for me, my wife, and my 18 month old son.

that is quite a bit. on the subject of Gay Marriage, how can you do something about something that doesnt exist? goofy.

I think GM is sick. But you know what…I’m not going to let them steal my family’s health insurance over it. Those who participate in GM are “doing” eachother….UHC, who is cutting my benefits after multiple quarters of record profits and giving CEO Dr. William McGuire 1.7 billion dollars in stock options will “do” your family and my family if we don’t stand up to them.

I want secure health insurance too. I just dont want the government being involved in the process. they mess everything up.

Next time your house is on fire…don’t call the municipal fire department. They’ll just mess it up. LOL
Water main break in front of your house? Don’t call the city water department…they’ll mess it up.

Did you know that the private health care industry spends over 30% of it’s overall costs primarily on paperwork, clerical, and records keeping? The government runs Medicare, guess how much they spend on the same service? Roughly 10%.

Also consider this… in 2004, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was more than double that in Canada: in the US, it totaled US $6,096; in Canada, US $3,038. Through all entities the United States spends more per capita than any other nation in the world, but is the only wealthy industrialized country in the world that lacks some form of universal health care coverage. Health insurance here in the U.S. is expensive, rapidly rising costs are affecting employers and consumers as well as the government, and a study in Health Affairs concluded that half of personal bankruptcies involved medical bills.

Frankly, the government can’t mess it up much worse than the private sector with their lobbying already has. LOL