The first is that, Chris, your comments regarding countries with universal healthcare having longer life expectancy rates, overlooks one of the common laws of logic as taught by university professors around the country. That is that correlation does not equal causation. Taking two common points of interest and assuming that one must cause the other is flawed logic. As has already been pointed out, homicide rates in the US are higher than in other countries. There are a LOT of reasons one could point too besides the health care system that might have an affect on life expectancy rates
Not only are homicide rates higher, but the rate of death by auto accident is higher here also than in many industrialized countries (partly influenced by a very high DWI rate). Between homicides and accidental deaths, the numbers are skewed to such an extent that we really cant draw any valid conclusion based on the life expectancy numbers. For advocates of Universal Health care to still use the "life expectancy" argument is either an indication of a lack of knowledge, or intellectual dishonesty.
__________________ http://endtimeobserver.blogspot.com
Daniel 12:3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever.
Not only are homicide rates higher, but the rate of death by auto accident is higher here also than in many industrialized countries (partly influenced by a very high DWI rate). Between homicides and accidental deaths, the numbers are skewed to such an extent that we really cant draw any valid conclusion based on the life expectancy numbers. For advocates of Universal Health care to still use the "life expectancy" argument is either an indication of a lack of knowledge, or intellectual dishonesty.
This is because we have:
1.) We raised the legal drinking age to 21 and created stigma with drinking. We say at 18 they can vote, die for our country, etc but not have a glass of wine or a beer? This also creats binge drinking and irresponsible drinking. They have to hide everything and that means hiding it from supports in their life that could help drive if they are drunk, etc.
2.) We have softer punishments for DUII in RELATION to these other countries who have lower death rates in auto wrecks.
So in other words, your way is the only right way?
Sorry, Chris, I'm not buying it. Government intervention is a fast track to disaster. The "guts" i have are going to be used standing up against facist liberal politicians who, rather than giving people back their hard earned money, want to take it with vague promises of "taking care" of people. In the meantime, Christians have shirked their God given responsibility of helping the needy b/c big daddy government is doing it for them. In my opinion, it's not just a wrong headed philosophy, it is an immoral one contradictory to God's chosen plan.
I’d rather the government take a smaller chunk of my hard earned money to pay for something I will use regularly than have a corporation take a larger chuck of my hard earned money to pay for something I have to ration and only use in dire circumstances as is the case with the higher premiums and HSAs.
Bishopl…you’ll let a corporation rob you, smile, give them a back rub, and ask for more. Sorry bro…I’m not that much of a pushover. But hey, the corporate powers that by own most conservative politicians (and even a sizeable number of liberal politicians). You’ll support whatever they tell you to. It’s election day and their call all their lap dogs to bark for them. “Roll over and bark sparky.” Woof, woof.
Sorry bro…I look at excessive fees, premiums, and limited benefits the same why you do taxes. The only thing is the taxes I’m willing to pay are far less than the premiums you’re ideology forces me to pay to keep the corporations in record profits ever quarter.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
I'm discovering that the lock steady conservatives get more goofy with each page of this debate. It's obvious they don't understand how a scientific study comparing samplings of matching demographics work. Homicide and auto-accidents are being considered as factors in a comparable study of matching samplings of between 1,000 and 10,000 adults from other countries compared with that of 1,000 and 10,000 Americans? This is outrageous.
I think the word "ignorant" is too dignified in this case...I think the word "goofy" applies. lol
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
The statistics are based on an overall statistical comparison of health. For example, they will take 1,000 Americans and 1,000 Canadians. Some studies might take more, some might take less. There has been more than one study on this. Regardless, each group is demographically the same. The overall life expectancy is higher among every 1,000 (in this example) Canadians and Europeans when compared to demographically matched grouping of 1,000 Americans. Some studies use smaller groupings and some may use more. The interesting thing is that statistically the data matches percentage wise regardless as to size of grouping. This has nothing to do with homicide rates bro. The study is perfectly scientific, verifiable, and has been duplicated in other studies conducted by other sources. It is your argument that is fallacious or ignorant at best dear brother. You should know better than this. I suspect you do know better seeing that you have an ideological agenda.
2 things i note about this. First, your earlier feigned indignation over my comments regarding liberalism must have clearly been contrived, seeing that you don't see a problem terming my comments as "ignorant." Calling me "dear brother" doesn't negate negative discourse. Don't get the wrong idea...I'm not offended. I frankly think that your arguments, despite your good intentions, are naive and indirectly based on immoral leanings (even if your intentions themselves aren't immoral). I just find it rather ironic that you get a bit upset about my comments regarding liberalism, and yet now are calling my own arguments ignorant.
Second, it's clear that you either still are misunderstanding what I am saying, or you are trying to obfuscate my point with a smoke screen in order to admit that your comments regarding life expectancy have no relevance or are just flat out incorrect.
My point was not and is not that homicide rates are solely responsible for life expectancy rates. It was, and is, that homicide rates, among other things, are factors in life expectancy rates, and yet it is a factor completely unacknowledged by those who support nationalized health care. There are a BILLION other factors (figuratively speaking) that affect life expectancy rates, so no study that you can point too can show that nationalized health care is the sole or even primary factor in longer life expectancy rates. Show me one study group who says they have definitively proven this, and I'll show you a liberal group that is full of it. You continue to insist, in spite of the fact that your argument doesn't stand up to logic or science, that there is a direct correlation between life expectancy rates and nationalized health care, without one speck of evidence to back you up. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. My suggestion is to take an introductory logic class at your local community college.
Quote:
Really, many don’t want to pay for the unjustified war in Iraq.
As far as Iraq, I've said here and other places that due to Middle Eastern mindsets, I don't think long term military occupation and continued war is going to solve the problem. I'm for finding an energy policy that will weed us away from our reliance on Middle Eastern oil, for eventual military withdrawal from Middle Eastern countries, etc. etc. And if the plan is to stay in Iraq, Congress should have and needs to officially declare war. I'm not in favor of this, seeing that I don't see much evidence it's possible to establish a stable, right thinking democracy in a predominately Muslim country. I'm also against pre-emptive strikes on Iran.
However, the military and it's direction thereof, is constitutionally under the control of the federal government. There's nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing people the right to healthcare, or giving the federal government the right to control all healthcare in the country.
Part of your problem, Chris, is that you want to believe that you're somehow a moderate centrist and conservatives can be whitewashed into one category. The fact is that just because a person is against nationalized health care doesn't mean they support intrusive foreign policy or are in love with the death penalty.
Quote:
You’re exactly right on the money here! However, I look at it as a mandate. The reason so many living in well to do house holds don’t have health insurance is because it’s so expensive.
yes, and a great deal of the blame can be laid directly on the shoulders of the federal government. Yet your answer is to give the government more control.
Quote:
I think we agree that something has to be done. And theoretical trickledown schemes aren’t going to work. We need to look at what has worked elsewhere modify it for our nation, and make it the best health care system on the planet.
We need to decide what will work best for us, not based on what has "worked elsewhere" but what will be best for America, and still be constitutionally correct. In 1776 we weren't bent on following after the other countries of the world...why should we be now? America doesn't need to look at Europe to lead her...IMO, Europe is disintegrating from within due to immigration policies, socialistic economic policies, etc.
__________________ "Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and
some have greatness thrust upon 'em."
~William Shakespeare~
Twelfth Night (II, v, 156-159)
I'm discovering that the lock steady conservatives get more goofy with each page of this debate. It's obvious they don't understand how a scientific study comparing samplings of matching demographics work. Homicide and auto-accidents are being considered as factors in a comparable study of matching samplings of between 1,000 and 10,000 adults from other countries compared with that of 1,000 and 10,000 Americans? This is outrageous.
I think the word "ignorant" is too dignified in this case...I think the word "goofy" applies. lol
Chris,
Your naivete and insistence on ignoring facts slapping you in the face amazes ME with every page of this debate. Do you need a picture drawn?
__________________ "Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and
some have greatness thrust upon 'em."
~William Shakespeare~
Twelfth Night (II, v, 156-159)
One thing is for sure, Chris can type lots of words!
LOL
I love to write. I'm a born writer. And by virtue of that I've learned to type quite well.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
One thing is for sure, Chris can type lots of words!
Yes, indeed. The perfect government employee...writes pages upon pages and still gets it wrong.
Unfortunately, I've wasted far too much time responding to this already, especially when it's doubtful he'll ever get it. You all have a lovely day....
__________________ "Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and
some have greatness thrust upon 'em."
~William Shakespeare~
Twelfth Night (II, v, 156-159)
Bishopl, how do you believe the statistical data was arrived at and then we can examine some of these studies in detail. Explain why you feel homicide rates have any bearing on the study seeing that none of the comparative demographic samples were murdered? LOL
Maybe I’ll explain it real simple again, this is only an example: Let’s say you take 1,000 Americans and 1,000 Canadians, each from the very same socioeconomic demographic. You examine their overall health and life expectancy in relation to morbidity as tracked over time. None of the sample taken on either side died of homicide. However, the Canadian sample lived on average an additional 5-7 years than the American sample. When examined in detail you find that Canadians had nearly twice the regular medical check ups, ate healthier diets as recommended by their physician, and had affordable access to needed prescription medications. Their American counterparts had far fewer regular check ups or doctor visits found directly in relation to coverage or the lack thereof. They didn’t eat according to their rarely visited physician’s recommended diet, and due to sporadic prescription drug coverage in relation to change of employment, change of insurance coverage, or change of location the American sample had less access to needed prescription medications. The conclusion would be that Americans don’t live as long because they have inadequate health care in relation to their Canadian counter parts. Especially seeing that they died from health problems untreated, under-treated, non-diagnosed that would have been preventable with regular check-ups and attention from a family physician.
Please explain how homicide is a factor in or example of the study?
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
Linear Mode
