WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,091
- 2,180
how many of em do we support? how many billions in additional welfare to we send to Mexico.. ???
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Were number 37! USA USA USA!!
- Thread starter Cal
- Start date
how many of em do we support? how many billions in additional welfare to we send to Mexico.. ???
- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,880
- 145,200
- 2,615
well then enlighten us,, what percentage of the population of Mexico resides in the US of KKKA illegally? doyathink?
Starting point ...Mexico has 100 million people
how many of em do we support? how many billions in additional welfare to we send to Mexico.. ???
None
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,091
- 2,180
Starting point ...Mexico has 100 million people
how many of em do we support? how many billions in additional welfare to we send to Mexico.. ???
None
we don't?
- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,880
- 145,200
- 2,615
how many of em do we support? how many billions in additional welfare to we send to Mexico.. ???
None
we don't?
Show me billions in foreign aid
Last edited:
- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,880
- 145,200
- 2,615
hey willow you ran your blowhard mouth and said it was half , now prove it
Willow doesn't prove anything. When asked for proof here is what you get from Willow..
The lone argument of a feeble mind
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,091
- 2,180
hey willow you ran your blowhard mouth and said it was half , now prove it
prove it ain't/
Douger
Rookie
- Banned
- #189
YouTube - "We're Number 37" - Paul Hipp
Go America!!!
What a clever way of getting the message across..Wish someone would have shown this @ Blair House yesterday.
I reckon...................
Attachments
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,091
- 2,180
just as I thought, it's pure bullshit , like most of your posts
I'm proud to say my bullshit is "pure" and not tainted with kool aid!
- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,880
- 145,200
- 2,615
spin on willow, a lie is still a lie
She just throws numbers around arbitrarily.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story....right Willow?
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,091
- 2,180
spin on willow, a lie is still a lie
She just throws numbers around arbitrarily.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story....right Willow?
right! rightwingerguy.. now back to the problems at hand, if canada has to wait wait wait wait wait wait to get in to get medical care and their population is 30 million what's gonna happen in the US of KKKA with a population of 350 million and "uncounted" illegals????
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,091
- 2,180
so, the kool aid drinkers have no answers to a basic question. why did the canadian bolt for the US of KKKA shithole number 37 for his heart surgery when he had the best of the best in his National Health Care System in Canada,, and what, if canada has to wait wait wait wait and wait for health care in a country of 30 million , will happen in a country of 350 million?
we shall wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait for a logical answer. and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait some more.
we shall wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait for a logical answer. and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait some more.
CMike
Zionist, proud to be
- Oct 25, 2009
- 9,219
- 1,172
- 190
Once again, the study is flawed
An Ill-Conceived Health-Care Ranking - WSJ.com
Among all the numbers bandied about in the health-care debate, this ranking stands out as particularly misleading. It is based on a report released nearly a decade ago by the World Health Organization and relies on statistics that are even older and incomplete.
Few people who cite the ranking are aware that some public-health officials were skeptical of the report from the outset. The ranking was faulted because it judges health-care systems for problems -- cultural, behavioral, economic -- that aren't controlled by health care.
"It's a very notorious ranking," says Mark Pearson, head of health for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the 30-member, Paris-based organization of the world's largest economies. "Health analysts don't like to talk about it in polite company. It's one of those things that we wish would go away."
...Prof. Murray, now director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, says that "the biggest problem was just data" -- or the lack thereof, in many cases. He says the rankings are now "very old," and acknowledges they contained a lot of uncertainty. His institute is seeking to produce its own rankings in the next three years. The data limitations hampering earlier work "are why groups like ours are so focused on trying to get rankings better."
A WHO spokesman says the organization has no plans to update the rankings, and adds, "We would not consider it current."
And yet many people apparently do. The 37th place ranking is often cited in today's overhaul debate, even though, in some ways, the U.S. actually ranked a lot higher. Specifically, it placed 15th overall, based on its performance in the five criteria. But for the most widely publicized form of its rankings, the WHO took the additional step of adjusting for national health expenditures per capita, to calculate each country's health-care bang for its bucks. Because the U.S. ranked first in spending, that adjustment pushed its ranking down to 37th. Dominica, Costa Rica and Morocco ranked 42nd, 45th and 94th before adjusting for spending levels, compared to the U.S.'s No. 15 ranking. After adjustment, all three countries ranked higher than the U.S.
The study is both flawed and dated, but that does not necessarily mean that we are doing better on health care than the study indicates.
David Beemer More recent efforts to rank national health systems have been inconclusive. On measures such as child mortality and life expectancy, the U.S. has slipped since the 2000 rankings. But some researchers say that factors beyond the control of the health-care system are to blame, such as dietary habits. Studies that have attempted to exclude these factors from the equation don't agree on whether the U.S. system looks better or worse.
The WHO ranking was ambitious in its scope, grading each nation's health care on five factors. Two of these were relatively uncontroversial: health level, which is roughly the average healthy lifespan of a nation's residents; and responsiveness, which is a sort of customer-service rating encompassing factors such as the system's speed, choice and quality of amenities. The other three measure inequality in health-care outcomes; responsiveness; and individual spending.
These last three measures struck some analysts as problematic, because a country with unhealthy people could rank above a healthier one where there was a bigger gap between healthy and unhealthy people. It is certainly possible that spreading health care as evenly as possible makes a society healthier, but the rankings struck some health-care researchers as assuming that, rather than demonstrating it.
An even bigger problem was shared by all five of these factors: The underlying data about each nation generally weren't available. So WHO researchers calculated the relationship between those factors and other, available numbers, such as literacy rates and income inequality. Such measures, they argued, were linked closely to health in those countries where fuller health data were available. Even though there was no way to be sure that link held in other countries, they used these literacy and income data to estimate health performance.
Philip Musgrove, the editor-in-chief of the WHO report that accompanied the rankings, calls the figures that resulted from this step "so many made-up numbers," and the result a "nonsense ranking." Dr. Musgrove, an economist who is now deputy editor of the journal Health Affairs, says he was hired to edit the report's text but didn't fully understand the methodology until after the report was released. After he left the WHO, he wrote an article in 2003 for the medical journal Lancet criticizing the rankings as "meaningless."
...Prof. Murray, now director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, says that "the biggest problem was just data" -- or the lack thereof, in many cases. He says the rankings are now "very old," and acknowledges they contained a lot of uncertainty. His institute is seeking to produce its own rankings in the next three years. The data limitations hampering earlier work "are why groups like ours are so focused on trying to get rankings better."
A WHO spokesman says the organization has no plans to update the rankings, and adds, "We would not consider it current."
And yet many people apparently do. The 37th place ranking is often cited in today's overhaul debate, even though, in some ways, the U.S. actually ranked a lot higher. Specifically, it placed 15th overall, based on its performance in the five criteria. But for the most widely publicized form of its rankings, the WHO took the additional step of adjusting for national health expenditures per capita, to calculate each country's health-care bang for its bucks. Because the U.S. ranked first in spending, that adjustment pushed its ranking down to 37th. Dominica, Costa Rica and Morocco ranked 42nd, 45th and 94th before adjusting for spending levels, compared to the U.S.'s No. 15 ranking. After adjustment, all three countries ranked higher than the U.S.
An Ill-Conceived Health-Care Ranking - WSJ.com
Among all the numbers bandied about in the health-care debate, this ranking stands out as particularly misleading. It is based on a report released nearly a decade ago by the World Health Organization and relies on statistics that are even older and incomplete.
Few people who cite the ranking are aware that some public-health officials were skeptical of the report from the outset. The ranking was faulted because it judges health-care systems for problems -- cultural, behavioral, economic -- that aren't controlled by health care.
"It's a very notorious ranking," says Mark Pearson, head of health for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the 30-member, Paris-based organization of the world's largest economies. "Health analysts don't like to talk about it in polite company. It's one of those things that we wish would go away."
...Prof. Murray, now director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, says that "the biggest problem was just data" -- or the lack thereof, in many cases. He says the rankings are now "very old," and acknowledges they contained a lot of uncertainty. His institute is seeking to produce its own rankings in the next three years. The data limitations hampering earlier work "are why groups like ours are so focused on trying to get rankings better."
A WHO spokesman says the organization has no plans to update the rankings, and adds, "We would not consider it current."
And yet many people apparently do. The 37th place ranking is often cited in today's overhaul debate, even though, in some ways, the U.S. actually ranked a lot higher. Specifically, it placed 15th overall, based on its performance in the five criteria. But for the most widely publicized form of its rankings, the WHO took the additional step of adjusting for national health expenditures per capita, to calculate each country's health-care bang for its bucks. Because the U.S. ranked first in spending, that adjustment pushed its ranking down to 37th. Dominica, Costa Rica and Morocco ranked 42nd, 45th and 94th before adjusting for spending levels, compared to the U.S.'s No. 15 ranking. After adjustment, all three countries ranked higher than the U.S.
The study is both flawed and dated, but that does not necessarily mean that we are doing better on health care than the study indicates.
David Beemer More recent efforts to rank national health systems have been inconclusive. On measures such as child mortality and life expectancy, the U.S. has slipped since the 2000 rankings. But some researchers say that factors beyond the control of the health-care system are to blame, such as dietary habits. Studies that have attempted to exclude these factors from the equation don't agree on whether the U.S. system looks better or worse.
The WHO ranking was ambitious in its scope, grading each nation's health care on five factors. Two of these were relatively uncontroversial: health level, which is roughly the average healthy lifespan of a nation's residents; and responsiveness, which is a sort of customer-service rating encompassing factors such as the system's speed, choice and quality of amenities. The other three measure inequality in health-care outcomes; responsiveness; and individual spending.
These last three measures struck some analysts as problematic, because a country with unhealthy people could rank above a healthier one where there was a bigger gap between healthy and unhealthy people. It is certainly possible that spreading health care as evenly as possible makes a society healthier, but the rankings struck some health-care researchers as assuming that, rather than demonstrating it.
An even bigger problem was shared by all five of these factors: The underlying data about each nation generally weren't available. So WHO researchers calculated the relationship between those factors and other, available numbers, such as literacy rates and income inequality. Such measures, they argued, were linked closely to health in those countries where fuller health data were available. Even though there was no way to be sure that link held in other countries, they used these literacy and income data to estimate health performance.
Philip Musgrove, the editor-in-chief of the WHO report that accompanied the rankings, calls the figures that resulted from this step "so many made-up numbers," and the result a "nonsense ranking." Dr. Musgrove, an economist who is now deputy editor of the journal Health Affairs, says he was hired to edit the report's text but didn't fully understand the methodology until after the report was released. After he left the WHO, he wrote an article in 2003 for the medical journal Lancet criticizing the rankings as "meaningless."
...Prof. Murray, now director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, says that "the biggest problem was just data" -- or the lack thereof, in many cases. He says the rankings are now "very old," and acknowledges they contained a lot of uncertainty. His institute is seeking to produce its own rankings in the next three years. The data limitations hampering earlier work "are why groups like ours are so focused on trying to get rankings better."
A WHO spokesman says the organization has no plans to update the rankings, and adds, "We would not consider it current."
And yet many people apparently do. The 37th place ranking is often cited in today's overhaul debate, even though, in some ways, the U.S. actually ranked a lot higher. Specifically, it placed 15th overall, based on its performance in the five criteria. But for the most widely publicized form of its rankings, the WHO took the additional step of adjusting for national health expenditures per capita, to calculate each country's health-care bang for its bucks. Because the U.S. ranked first in spending, that adjustment pushed its ranking down to 37th. Dominica, Costa Rica and Morocco ranked 42nd, 45th and 94th before adjusting for spending levels, compared to the U.S.'s No. 15 ranking. After adjustment, all three countries ranked higher than the U.S.
You're going to be #2 in hockey tomorrow...
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,091
- 2,180
But we pay more than any other industrialized country for our #37 ranking
The US is the only country where you can go bankrupt just for getting sick. 60% of personal bankruptcies are because of healthcare costs not financial mismanagement. And the majority of that 60% have healthcare
hey RW....would you rather have some serious surgery here or would you rather go to Oman who is no 8....its cheaper there and the vaunted WHO says they are what 20-30x better then us.....how about it RW....answer me....you said your a stand up guy....well stand up....
Great video, and obviously disturbing to the RW given their hysterical response. Nothing makes the RW fringe more upset than something or someone causing them to think.
Wry ....if our system is so bad....would you rather go to the USF hospital for heart surgery or go to no 8 Oman...its cheaper there plus the WHO says they are much better then us in medicine.....which one?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 398
- Replies
- 98
- Views
- 852
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 290
- Replies
- 146
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 52
- Views
- 169
- Replies
- 167
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 49
- Views
- 274
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8139
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 472
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-