We're number 37 !!!!!!!!!!!

[Big Black Dog]

I look for that number to go down once Health Care Reform become a reality.

 

[Munin]

I look for that number to go down once Health Care Reform become a reality.

If you ve noticed that most (almost all of them) of those other countries spend proportionally less on healthcare than the US does and all the countries ranked above the US have "socialized healthcare", so your reasoning is when the US start socializing it: the rating will go down?

 

[California Girl]

Do we really have to dig out those stats of how the US leads in life expectancy after things like heart surgery and cancers? You know all those numbers that the WHO didn't use.....

That, when combined with the 'self reporting' methodology leaves much room for skepticism when it comes to WHO stats. Governments reporting their own figures.... nope, no reason to doubt those.

 

[Alvin]

Do we really have to dig out those stats of how the US leads in life expectancy after things like heart surgery and cancers? You know all those numbers that the WHO didn't use.....

That, when combined with the 'self reporting' methodology leaves much room for skepticism when it comes to WHO stats. Governments reporting their own figures.... nope, no reason to doubt those.

I love this debate tactic. "<insert Country/Organization/Political Party> hates America"

I have the same question every time:

Why?

Please can someone for the love of...tell me why the WHO would find statistics which dilibratly make the US look bad?

Anyone?

 

[uscitizen]

This is all a failure of Americans to accept reality.
The USA is not tops in all things. Actually we are tops in very few things.

but my dog just has to be bigger than your dog and my daddy can whip your daddy!

 

[California Girl]

I see. The CIA is also lying to us? There data says the same.

Produce it.

Easy enough for someone with the average Liberal intellect. Pretty difficult for a Conservative, however.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Infant mortality rate:
total: 6.26 deaths/1,000 live births
country comparison to the world: 180
male: 6.94 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.55 deaths/1,000 live births (2009 est.)

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 78.11 years
country comparison to the world: 50
male: 75.65 years
female: 80.69 years (2009 est.)

That's because the CIA use the WHO for the stats. That doesn't make the stats themselves any more accurate. Idiot.

 

[Alvin]

That's because the CIA use the WHO for the stats. That doesn't make the stats themselves any more accurate. Idiot.

You'ld think they'd "sex" that one up too wouldn't you.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

I see. The CIA is also lying to us? There data says the same.

Produce it.

Easy enough for someone with the average Liberal intellect. Pretty difficult for a Conservative, however.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Infant mortality rate:
total: 6.26 deaths/1,000 live births
country comparison to the world: 180
male: 6.94 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.55 deaths/1,000 live births (2009 est.)

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 78.11 years
country comparison to the world: 50
male: 75.65 years
female: 80.69 years (2009 est.)

With the usual childlike liberal attention to details, your post- unlike mine, does not indicate what goes into those statistics.

Have someone with above average liberal intellect explain how those stats have a different

import once you understand what goes into the summary that you produce.


Review: when considering only those aspects which pertain to health care, and can be

controlled by healthcare, the United States has the longest life expectancy, and the best

healthcare in the world.

Consider the following as an indictment:

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

 

[California Girl]

That's because the CIA use the WHO for the stats. That doesn't make the stats themselves any more accurate. Idiot.

You'ld think they'd "sex" that one up too wouldn't you.....

Nope. They are meaningless stats. Any stats that are self reported cannot be taken as legitimate. It doesn't take much intellect to work out why governments might 'exaggerate' their figures.

 

[Alvin]

Produce it.

Easy enough for someone with the average Liberal intellect. Pretty difficult for a Conservative, however.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Infant mortality rate:
total: 6.26 deaths/1,000 live births
country comparison to the world: 180
male: 6.94 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.55 deaths/1,000 live births (2009 est.)

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 78.11 years
country comparison to the world: 50
male: 75.65 years
female: 80.69 years (2009 est.)

With the usual childlike liberal attention to details, your post- unlike mine, does not indicate what goes into those statistics.

Have someone with above average liberal intellect explain how those stats have a different

import once you understand what goes into the summary that you produce.


Review: when considering only those aspects which pertain to health care, and can be

controlled by healthcare, the United States has the longest life expectancy, and the best

healthcare in the world.

Consider the following as an indictment:

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

Mistake lies right there.

If that was true you would have to set your criteria with regards to what is and isn't healthcare very strictly to ensure that the US didn't come out on top. And then apply it to the entire group to produce the desired result.

 

[Alvin]

That's because the CIA use the WHO for the stats. That doesn't make the stats themselves any more accurate. Idiot.

You'ld think they'd "sex" that one up too wouldn't you.....

Nope. They are meaningless stats. Any stats that are self reported cannot be taken as legitimate. It doesn't take much intellect to work out why governments might 'exaggerate' their figures.

Then why didn't the US?

 

[uscitizen]

That's because the CIA use the WHO for the stats. That doesn't make the stats themselves any more accurate. Idiot.

You'ld think they'd "sex" that one up too wouldn't you.....

Nope. They are meaningless stats. Any stats that are self reported cannot be taken as legitimate. It doesn't take much intellect to work out why governments might 'exaggerate' their figures.

true, so how much do we exaggerate our figures?
Are we lower than 37?

 

[L.K.Eder]

1. america is #1.
2. if somehow america is not #1 the stats are lying and #1 remains valid.
3. if the list lists undesirable traits, america is #1 as seen from the other side of the list.
4. america is #1

 

[Truthmatters]

There is a no fact zone that requires the denial of any study, field of science, court documents, statistics or diocumentation that doesnt support what htey already believe.

 

[Toronado3800]

Political Chic, I would have spread some rep to you for the 1st reply about the accuracy of the statistics. It was the well thought out and worded challenge and made a similar point to mine about our miserable diet

(I swear I ate a whole Imos Pizza the other night. Thank god I'm 6'+ or this 220 lbs would be difficult to carry)

Another good point I believe from another was the "well Ted Kennedy didn't go to xxxx country for his treatment".

On a side note, I'm looking for statistics on infant mortality of African Americans compared to Caucasians of the same income level. I'd love to compare it based on age and other life choice factors but I'll settle. This ranking of us as 14th if you remove Americans of African heritage was interesting. Genetic or social/economic? I dunno.

Infant mortality report neglects the most important detail - AmyTuteurMD - Open Salon

The authors mention the impact of race on prematurity, but they never adjust for it. The CDC Wonder website gives us access to the same database that MacDorman used in the study. Therefore, we can adjust for race. Doing so, would put the US 14th in the rankings.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why would ANY study remove part of the population and think that number reflects the country as a whole?

 

[Joe Steel]

Do we really have to dig out those stats of how the US leads in life expectancy after things like heart surgery and cancers? You know all those numbers that the WHO didn't use.....

Let me help dig 'em out.

Just spin.

The imagined short-comings of the WHO report affect everyone. The net effect is a wash.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chic, I would have spread some rep to you for the 1st reply about the accuracy of the statistics. It was the well thought out and worded challenge and made a similar point to mine about our miserable diet

(I swear I ate a whole Imos Pizza the other night. Thank god I'm 6'+ or this 220 lbs would be difficult to carry)

Another good point I believe from another was the "well Ted Kennedy didn't go to xxxx country for his treatment".

On a side note, I'm looking for statistics on infant mortality of African Americans compared to Caucasians of the same income level. I'd love to compare it based on age and other life choice factors but I'll settle. This ranking of us as 14th if you remove Americans of African heritage was interesting. Genetic or social/economic? I dunno.

Infant mortality report neglects the most important detail - AmyTuteurMD - Open Salon

The authors mention the impact of race on prematurity, but they never adjust for it. The CDC Wonder website gives us access to the same database that MacDorman used in the study. Therefore, we can adjust for race. Doing so, would put the US 14th in the rankings.

"I would have spread some rep to you for the 1st reply about the accuracy of the statistics. It was the well thought out and worded challenge and made a similar point to mine about our miserable diet"

Yes, I tried to give you a rep as well, and it was denied.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do we really have to dig out those stats of how the US leads in life expectancy after things like heart surgery and cancers? You know all those numbers that the WHO didn't use.....

Let me help dig 'em out.

Just spin.

The imagined short-comings of the WHO report affect everyone. The net effect is a wash.

You must read more carefully.

The point is that the criteria used by WHO hardly rate healthcare, and, thus are more along the lines of a polemic, than a conclusion.

 

[California Girl]

Do we really have to dig out those stats of how the US leads in life expectancy after things like heart surgery and cancers? You know all those numbers that the WHO didn't use.....

That, when combined with the 'self reporting' methodology leaves much room for skepticism when it comes to WHO stats. Governments reporting their own figures.... nope, no reason to doubt those.

I love this debate tactic. "<insert Country/Organization/Political Party> hates America"

I have the same question every time:

Why?

Please can someone for the love of...tell me why the WHO would find statistics which dilibratly make the US look bad?

Anyone?

The WHO don't deliberately try to make the US look bad. The WHO don't 'find' the statistics, they send out the questionnaires to individual countries and gather the statistics. They don't give a shit. However, individual countries lie about their responses. Why do they want to make us look bad? They don't. They just don't want their own citizens to know the truth about their own statistics. It has absolutely nothing to do with the US, it has to do with individual governments wanting their own statistics to look better than they actually are.