John Cuthber

"Biologically, all humans will forever be 31-years-old. " Bollocks. Nothing about any of the suggestions you made will make me less than 46. Among the many aspects of my biology is my memory and I have more than 31 years of memory. In any event, wiping out our ability to increase our population is dumb, given that some future circumstance may reduce our population to a point less than that needed for sensible biodiversity.

OK. Lest have a look at the graph again It's roughly in the middle of this page http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/redefining-health-care-debate-part-1.html It's the one that follows this text "Our next chart takes our first chart showing the 2005 OECD Nations' Health Care Expenditures per Capita vs GDP (PPP) per Capita, and simply adds some fifty data points for the individual U.S. states " And it shows just what it say it does. It's a plot of cash spent as a function of total cash available. If it were a case of "we spend more because we have more" then that would be true for individual states within the US and it would be true for other countries. So , for example, most of the US states are to the left of the point marked as Norway. That means they have less cash than Norway. So most of them would be expected to spend less than Norway. But they don't. They generally spend more than Norway does. Now, Norway is on the "trend line" it's expenditure is generally in line with most countries. The more they have, the more they spend. That's what the line on the graph indicates. The point that I made and that you entirely missed, is that almost every state in the US is above the line. The line is "normal" expenditure. The US as a whole might have more cash, but individual states don't, yet they spend more. It's quite clear form the graphs on that site. They explicitly say " it has been observed that the economic output of each of the U.S. states is comparable to that of other nations. " which I accept is fair enough. And it's obvious if you look at the graph that follows that assertion that relatively poor countries like Turkey have a small GDP and a small healthcare expenditure. Fairly rich countries like Luxembourg or Norway have quite a lot of more and spend quite a lot more. But the point is that the proportion of GDP spent is comparable. The real eye wateringly obvious fact is that the states of the US , though they have incomes comparable with other countries are all "above the line". The spend a lot more of their GDP than other countries do. This is true, even for states where the income isn't that great. I have said it before, and I'm saying it again. Based on the information that you have provided. The US spends roughly twice as much on healthcare as you would expect, and they don't get as good a service for it.

Sorry for the delayed response. My mother died last Friday, and I have been a bit busy. The watchdog concerned is the CDC- Have a look at post # 75. Anyway what I said was "It's quite a long and complex page and I really don't have time to rubbish each part of it in turn. I might come back to it when I get bored " However you may note that I had already taken the time to point out that the page you cited was full of errors. And, in respect of "You remember, the ones with all the little dots that you thought were price comparisons. " The text related to the graph says "We can see from this chart that the linear regression no longer does such a good job in describing the relationship between total health expenditures per capita and GDP (PPP) per capita for the set of data." Now, from my point of view as a consumer of healthcare the per capitum expenditure on it is the same as the price I pay for it. Were you trying to imply that I had misunderstood it?

LOL

It is unlikely that home made NaOH will be as good as the stuff you buy. They have had a lot more practice.

Yes, you can, but why do you want to?

% of patients waiting for surgery more than 12 weeks (year 1990) "And I've stated the reason that those NORMS ans STANDARDS cannot be applied to this argument. " and I have pointed out that the US's own health watchdog says that you pretty much can, in spite of the issues you raised. "And does that mean their data is manufactured or incorrect somehow. " It's impossible to tell because it's not subject to proper peer review in the way that WHO's data is. " I've already told you why the WHO's is incompareable to the argument." No. You have asserted it repeatedly. You have shown that the comparison is complex- but as I have pointed out, it is possible to make the comparison. When you do so you find that the US still pays roughly twice as much for a service that isn't as good. "Explain to me how the methods of the NCPA don't apply. " Last time you asked me to challenge some data I did. I pointed out that their use of statistics was deceitful. I don't propose to do it for each and every right-wing think-tank on the web. In particular, I don't intend to do it in this case because I don't actually know what their methods were. They cite some reports, but rather a lot of them seem to be from the Fraser Institute who also produce stuff like this http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=18141 so they can hardly be viewed as neutral. If you want to convince me then you need to cite evidence where there has already been proper independent peer review. I do that sort of reviewing at work and I'm not doing any more of it than I can help in my own time.

"It's kind of like with God, even if we find it improbable, there's nothing to actually prove how much or that it it is the case either way, so it's technically a 50/50 chance on it's own. " That's like saying that either you are a murderer or you are not- so it's 50:50. In particular, I could look at unsolved murders over the last year. I'm sure there are more than 20 of them. By your logic it's 50:50 that you committed the first of them and again 50% that you didn't. It's also a 50% chance that you committed the second of them. So the chance that you were not responsible for either is 50% of 50% i.e 1 in 4. If we take the other murders into account then there's only a 1 in a million chance that you didn't kill (at least) one of the victims. Are you going to admit to murder or admit that your maths is wrong?

I don't know about agreement. Is there any understanding?

"About as impartial and objective as the WHO. " OK, lets have a quick look at what they each aspire to do. First here's what the world health organisation does according to their website. "WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends." I have highlighted a few bits to show my personal bias (or at least that's what I will be told I highlighted- other views may differ) OK, now for the NCPA. Again this is a quote from their own website about what they do. "The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. Our goal is to develop and promote private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector." Now, for my personal tastes, being biassed in favour of evidence based policy seems better than being biassed against government.

I think we have all accepted that there's something odd about Canada in this respect. Enlightened self interest isn't just a "feeling". It's the acceptance that I don't know if I'm going to be lucky or not with my health- but if I'm going to be unlucky, I want the biggest possible pot of money behind me. The government is the biggest insurer. Also they get economies of scale. Also, it's not just a gut feeling that the US system costs roughly twice as much. If someone asked me if they could borrow my mobile 'phone to make a call in an emergency I would let them. There's a simple enough reason for that. Like I said, If it's an emergency then (because of government mandate I think) the call will be free: underwritten by the service provider at the joint cost of all subscribers. I think that 911 or 999 calls are free on mobiles in the US too. This is nothing new. 'phone box/ public 'phones would let you make emergency calls for free.

Me too. If philosophy just means thinking about stuff then it's ubiquitous and we hardly need a word for it.

Erm...? You seem to have missed something At one level phones are like healthcare. The service providers are required to provide them for us for free use in emergencies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payphone They call them pay phones, but they are free for emergency calls. Centralised healthcare is a good thing for exactly the same reasons as 911 or 999 calls . I accept that a 'phone box is not a mobile phone, but my mobile supplier will let me dial emergency numbers even if I have no credit.

It's interesting that the US can't even agree with itself about the definitions. That's another minor point in favour of nationalised healthcare. The other parameters like under 5 year mortality are less influenced by this sort of thing and the US still does badly. The wiki page about infant mortality reminds us that even the US CDC doesn't think this is the cause of the US's poor performance. " in 2009, the US CDC issued a report that stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries. It also outlined the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.[11][14][dead link][15] The report concluded, however, that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking" Also, if you are going to use phrases from "legal English", learn what they mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations

It looks a lot like the "Glassy Furnace Slag" picture here http://www.fallingcreekironworks.org/17century.html

"Are the orbital paths of the planets really 'straight lines through curved space' or, as empirically observed, actually curved (elliptical) orbits?" If you can tell the difference by observation then the philosophy is moot. The right answer is right because it agrees with reality. If you cannot (for example, because they are mathematically equivalent) then the right answer is "Who cares?". The answer to the question is "either, or both, or neither* depending on your point of view." which is not really very much use. * for example, from my point of view, most of teh time, the most practical description of orbit of the earth is that it stays still: Martians will have a different viewpoint.

If "philosophy" includes everything then it's meaningless.

The fact that there are different definitions has already been discussed. Did you read the whole thread? Do you happen to know what cut off date the US uses for " gestion period"? It logically can't be zero, and if they take normal gestation- about 9 months- as the cut-off then they are missing out a lot of children who are born prematurely. The data you cited show that in the UK for example, the cut-off is 28 weeks.

Yes, that seems to have worked.

If someone told me they thought that chemistry was crap I would point out the things it has given us like nylon. Similarly, maths has given us some neat tricks with computers (ditto physics). Even art has given us stuff to look at. What has philosophy given us?

"And why should we set our standards by the rest of the world's? " Well, for a start, it's a significant part of the concept of democracy. More generally, it's because you should adopt the best standards and (in spite of your determined refusal to accept this) there is evidence that government owned healthcare is the best. To be blunt, you should do it because you recognise that it is folly to pay twice as much for a system that produces more dead babies. Also, don't forget that the countries with national healthcare systems decided to set them up and they decided to keep them. I can't bring to mind any country that decided to abandon the system because it didn't work. Just a quick reminder to the citizens of the US: from point of view of about 95% of the world's population, you are foreigners.

No they would not. "I read it in an old book" isn't a reason.

You ask "By who's standards? " WRT social healthcare. Well most of the Western world for a start. So, when you say "That way no one's ever justly punnished. I think this could be a whole new topic." I could ask the same question- whose idea of "justice"? Certainly not the Western world's. Have you seen what company the US keeps by maintaining the death penalty? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment The US is right up there with China, most of the "axis of evil" and a few other failed states. But, as you say that's another topic. Perhaps we should drop it. "Yeah, people are suffering all around me. That's the reason I have to type instead of talk, due to all the moans of bitter dispair I can't hear a f***in' word." Way to win an argument! swear and ignore the fact that, actually people do suffer. Your saying "Back from what? A socialists agenda? A greater utopian society where we're just one big happy family? Where it's no longer politically correct to want what's yours because someone else doesn't have it or wants it for free?" is a straw man since nobody is advocating that. If you can't win the argument without ignoring the facts, swearing and resorting to logical fallacy you oughtn't start to argue. And regarding your last comment. The daily mail and the telegraph are noted for their right wing bias so it's entirely possible they do make stuff up. But that's hardly the point. As odd as it may seem on a science website, I don't want you to find a few more anecdotes, I want you to accept that significance of a properly produced report like the on cited.

I'm glad to see that you noticed your original point didn't make sense, but I'm curious as to why you still posted it. Incidentally, bees and ants do even better in terms of forming a society but I have yet to see one wearing a purple dress and carrying a cross. (Other religions are also available for criticism)

Why?