Dude, I already linked you to the Wikipedia entry that supports my claim. What else do you require?
You pointed to a blogspot blog.
Printable View
Dude, I already linked you to the Wikipedia entry that supports my claim. What else do you require?
You pointed to a blogspot blog.
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
More like another "FlashLackey chooses to ignore all recognized medical and scientific authorities because he found some blurb on an obscure rightwing blog by a couple of political policy researchers that fits his agenda" argument.
If you're going to be debunking stats and facts that are accepted by all or even a vast majority of experts and authorities in the field then don't be surprised if your audience wants something more concrete and corroborative than a single source, rightwing thinktank, or political blog.
Of course, in your defense, it's not really your fault... your arguments are just a natural product of belonging to and taking marching orders from a political party that doesn't believe in the stuff that the rest of us take for granted like manmade climate change, evolution, science, medicine, etc. ;)
I pointed out the problem with the source in your wikipedia entry and made an argument. You have not addressed that argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
What does a blog being on blogspot have anything to do with this? Do you think it's more difficult to write a wikipedia entry than it is to write a blogspot blog?
The source you cited relied on information from a lobbyist for socialized healthcare. WHO relies on subjective "fairness" ratings that essentially are designed to penalize nations that do not have socialized healthcare for that reason alone (not quality related). In other words, bias toward that system is built into their method. It would be like someone conducting a study to measure the effectiveness of all umbrellas including an effectiveness penalty for red umbrellas and then claiming that the study fairly ranks effectiveness for all umbrellas. The true effectiveness of red umbrellas would not be represented.
The irony here is that it is you who is choosing to ignore recognized authorities on these statistics (OECD) in preference of sources that have an active interest in reaching a specific conclusion. It's the Al Gore gimmick. Claim that there is consensus when there is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Again, before we move on, I want to clarify whether or not you are claiming that the numbers provided by OECD are not right? Also, do you understand the difference between average life expectancy and average life expectancy without including fatal injuries?
I gave you a concrete source that is widely recognize as an authoritative provider of national statistics (OECD). Additionally, I have made sound arguments for why the criteria used in your sources is not impartial and is inaccurate for measuring health care. You have made no sound argument in response. Probably because there isn't one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Well. Only the last part of this statement is accurate. Many who share your views "take for granted" that all kinds of things are true, without any real knowledge or understanding of those subjects, only because someone that appeals to them said it. In other words, they have faith in what a preacher tells them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
What argument? That you found a blogspot post and I used your oft-quoted Wiki?
There's no argument. You believe otherwise. Enjoy that stance. We don't share the same stance at all. Feel free to believe what you'd rather, it's allowed.
this thread definitely turned into a wtf...
If you want to agree to disagree, fine. But, don't pretend that there aren't arguments that you haven't responded to. They're right there for anyone to read, including yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Since you don't know the difference I'll make it short and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
A wiki, while not perfect, is subject to review and correction by a large pool of knowledge.
A blog is whatever the writer chooses to pull out of his ass at any given moment without being held to any standards whatsoever.
All I saw was a single link to a rightwing political blog, and we've already covered what a blog is above.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I didn't see any link to any information from the OECD.
The last part of that statement is completely bizarro world as well.
The Neo-con gimmick is denying there's a concensus against them when there is and running that denial through the vast rightwing echochamber of FOX "news", the hatetalk radio monopoly, and the corporate owned media until the minions such as yourself start believing it's gospel.
It's really not much different than evangelizing for the church... and is based on about the same level of evidence.
I'll have to see the numbers provided by OECD first.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
So far all you've provided is a political blog.
A political blog.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
You may think you have in your own mind, but so far I haven't seen any come out of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Unless you can provide concrete evidence to the contrary, and not just a political blog, I'm going to have to continue to go by the same sources that the rest of the world's professionals and experts use as an authority.
Btw, FL, infant mortality rate is another leading indicator used to determine the healthcare level of a country.
According to the 2009 estimates from the CIA World Factbook, the United States ranks 46th... a surprisingly far cry from the "We're #1" propaganda your rightwing wacko blog is trying to sell us.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2091rank.html
I can't wait to see you spin this one. :rolleyes:
This ranks us below several other countries with universal healthcare such as the United Kingdom (32nd), Italy (42nd), Sweden (3rd), Denmark (22nd), Spain (17th), Japan (4th), Greece (38th), South Korea (21st), Canada (36th), Norway (11th), Czech Republic (14th)... WTF?!? The Czech Republic???, Switzerland (16th), Portugal (30th), Luxembourg (26th), New Zealand (33rd), Your party's favorite the French (8th), Belgium (24th), Hell even Castro's little commie pinko island outranks the US (44th)... now that's really gotta be burning the britches of the rabid, radical far-right extremists... aka the FOX "news" believing christo-fascist zombie brigade... or as Bush calls them, the republican "base". :D
I could go on, but I think everyone gets the point... well, almost everyone.
;)
"The CIA is tainted too."
I'm calling it. Watch.
Thank you. I already know the differences between blogs and wikis. They are both hit and miss. From the perspective of any given debate, a specific wiki entry or blog post is only as good as it is sourced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
A poorly sourced wiki entry, like the one Gerbick referred to, is not made better than a well-sourced blog post by the fact that wiki entries can be changed by someone else who may or may not be more knowledgable.
Then you haven't read the blog and you do not know what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
I suggest that you go back and read it. You will find that the source for the data that I quote here was OECD.
So, once again, your partisan issues aside, do you find anything inconsistent between OECD numbers and those cited in that blog? Do you think that OECD is not an authority on national statistics?
Can you please specify one subject where you believe this has happened and then substantiate that it's true?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
The numbers on the blog are from OECD, as cited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Please substantiate that "the rest of the world's professionals and experts use" what source specifically, for what purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Otherwise, I will consider this, as I pointed out, an example of someone speaking on faith.
I not only read it, but I also searched OECD's site and database of statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Since you haven't provided any links to backup your claims, other than the single political blog, I'll have to assume you haven't found any evidence either.
I didn't find that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
No, the numbers cited on the blog were supposedly collected by some political policy researchers for OECD.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
For all I know the blog is lying, or OECD threw the faulty "research" in the trash.
Do you have some official OECD link to back up the blog?
According to both of these sourced articles, the way that different countries report live-births varies significantly:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
http://confutata.wordpress.com/2009/...ant-mortality/
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547...iveHealth.html
Infant mortality rates are flawed measurements of healthcare quality for the same reason that life expectancy rates that include non-healthcare related accidental deaths are. Many non-healthcare related factors influence child mortality rates. For instance, education of the mother, race and birth-weight.
I did provide links to back up my claims. You are making the claim that those sources are wrong but have not provided any evidence showing that they are. The burden of proof is on you to support that claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Where are you getting that they collected the numbers for OECD?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Those same two Iowa professors have been used in prior tobacco usage cases. As per any economist or researcher can do, the data once you remove the most important part - such as death from fatal accidents (which includes the main killers in the US such as car accidents and smoking) the numbers are indeed "better".
Not sure if that's scientific or not. But Ohsfeldt and Schneider are not OECD. They interpreted the data:
However it seems as if that "standardized mean" is just an average whereas not all factors are weighed the same.Quote:
Two University of Iowa researchers, Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider, reviewed the data for the nations of the OECD to statistically account for the incidence of fatal injuries for the member countries. The dynamic table below presents their findings, showing both the average life expectancy from birth over the years 1980 to 1999 without any adjustment (the actual "raw" mean), and again after accounting for the effects of premature death resulting from a non-health-related fatal injury (the standardized mean).
The data isn't apples to apples per country. Autos, DUI's, smoking kills the majority in the US. AIDS would be the #1 killer in most countries in Africa, for instance. And in Europe... ok, I don't know.
Regardless, the information isn't all encompassing nor is that second table from the OECD. It was derived from interpretation of an "standardized mean" that's derived from OECD data and manipulated somewhat.
The OECD data kept the US at 42nd at best - but mostly due to this paragraph, it shows how the data skewed the results:
Mind you, this states and supports what FL is "saying"; however death is death in my book.Quote:
This low ranking in life expectancy is often pointed to as being the result of the deficiencies of the health care system in the U.S. The problem with this thinking however is that it does not account for the fact that the U.S. has a disproportionate number of individuals who die as the result of fatal injuries compared to the other wealthy nations of the world. This does not reflect upon the quality of health care in the U.S., in that these events almost universally occur independently of the condition of health of the individuals who die as a result of these factors.
The raw numbers show the US pretty low. You want to take out the main killers in the US, then you'd have to do so in all instances. See above for an example.
Thank you for the reasonable response. I generally agree with what you've written here. Though, smoking is not a fatal injury. [The standardized mean that they cite means taking the chance per capita occurrance of fatal injuries, which is high in the US, and removed that amount of occurrances from the raw life expectancy figure.]Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
I also agree that over-all life expectancy is important. Just that our healthcare system is not the cause of people driving drunk more often, committing more homicides, etc. Those issues certainly should be dealt with as problems. They're just more related to things like law enforcement, the war on drugs, education, etc. than to health care.
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Hmmm, Central Intelligence Agency... or partisan extremists pushing a political agenda... I think I'll stick with "A".
This is a perfect example of "Classic FL reasoning", if the propaganda FL needs to believe doesn't match the facts, then the facts must be wrong.
So your argument is that the US has greater infant mortality not only due to worse healthcare, but also substandard education, lack of nutrition, and racial inequality?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
OK, I can agree with that, and believe we should work on fixing those areas as well as healthcare.
Glad we could find one thing to agree upon. :thumbsup:
is this the thread about the dead fetus in the fridge?
Bah, consider yourself lucky. This is the closest to being on-topic that any political thread destruction has ended-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
Dead baby in fridge ~ Infant mortality & Life expectancy
:p
i just think its funny this turned into such a heated debate. Did we even get into the dead baby jokes?
What's the difference between a dead baby and my leftovers?