I'll tell you what, I'll let you answer that. You could probably save thousands of lives by liquidating all your belongings that aren't essential to your existence and giving the proceeds to people who are starving to death all over the world.
You could be out saving lives right now, so apparently you value posting nonsense on the Internet more than you value human life.
I really should copy that reply and save it, it's so tiresome replying to people who just open themselves up for scorn by being so sanctimonious.
Nonsense. You're focusing on a small part of the overall discrepancy. That plus about 10 other factors are why the US is artificially high in infant mortality, especially in regards to quality of health care available.
OK, how about this one then? That got enough facts and numbers for you?
What would be interesting would be survival rates for all births by country. Every single child than emits from between a woman's legs would be counted, every thousand. And from that thousand the number that live to 5 years old.
Care to wager how the US would do against other nations in that comparison? My guess is it wouldn't be 45th. Or 19th. Or 5th. More like top 3.
See above. In fact, you're asking the wrong question. The "data and empirical evidence" the Cuba worshipers are trotting out has largely been discredited.
In fact, is there any data about Cuba's healthcare system that hasn't come from enchanted foreigners being led to the top end Cuban hospitals (for the elite), or from the Cuban government itself?
So where is the good, pro-Cuban data? I haven't seen any.
Infant mortality is not easy to collect. In the US, any child born living (even marginally) will be put in NICU and every measure taken to ensure they live. This counts _against_ infant mortality. Most countries declare the baby nonviable. Go do some research.
Expected lifespan is also subject to measurement error or outright lying (small shithole third world countries), but generally is highly impacted by health choices. Obesity, alcoholism, a sedentary lifestyle, stress, etc...
There is no problem with US infant mortality. We try _very_ hard to make every child survive. Paradoxically, this makes our numbers worse - most countries just say the baby was nonviable and don't count it as a death. We don't.
Re:And what about poor people with a handicap
on
What US Health Care Needs
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
No, poor people can go to government clinics. If you're poor, you should get minimum care - that's it. Any other suggestion just proves you fail at maths.
Let's look at world demographics - who's having the most babies? Poor people. You propose that the rapidly growing population of poor people the world over should get top notch medical care? Are there dragons in this fantasy land you've concocted?
I don't deny Cuba does a lot with what they have, which is shit. They are certainly at the top of the heap for a poor country. Besides, Cuba almost literally set out to be a nation of doctors. Kind of hard to do unless you're, you know...a dictatorship?
The problem is this myth that Cuba is a world leader in health care quality. They simply aren't. Let's address a few of the supposed Cuban wonders.
Infant Mortality
The measurement is shit. Furthermore, Cuba has a high rate of abortions - literally somewhere between 3 and 4 times the rate in the US [this is easy enough to google]. Aborting nonviable babies certainly helps you publish some propaganda about wonderful infant mortality rates.
Breast Cancer Survival
See the Concord study for some details on this. Cuba's numbers are shit, and nobody believes it. Also, it seems they don't count secondary causes, e.g. if breast cancer metastasized to other parts of the body and caused death.
It all boils down to common sense. Cuba is dirt poor. Sure, they've trained a lot of doctors but they are _poor_. They put on a dog and pony show to convince the world they have great care, but nobody can prove it. You have foreigners who visit and get enchanted, but no hard facts.
How about a nationwide census of hospital quality? Reliable (not state provided) survival rate data for major illnesses? Fucking _nothing_. Just glowing reports from foreigners who visited a few times and were wooed or from people who trust bad data provided by the Cuban government which is completely contrary to basic common sense.
You don't even need a black market. Ironically, universal health care puts a wider gap between the rich and the rest of us. I get stuck with shitty government care, if you're wealthy you can just walk into a top notch clinic with the best doctors (who know they can make more money privately) and pay in cash. The rest of us don't have that option.
At least with the current system (which is broken, I admit) the middle class also gets top notch care. In fact, for the most part even poor people in the US get top notch care, most states have aid programs available.
Our health care expenditure is higher because we have better care. The problem is it's not available to everyone, only the middle class and up get the best care, and it's very expensive because of our insurance system.
And please don't quote me infant mortality rates where the US uses a different system to determine infant mortality, or expected lifespans which are heavily dependent on cultural and external influences other than health care quality. Instead, go investigate cancer treatment success rates. Heart disease treatment rates. The list goes on.
We're an unhealthy country of pigs, but we have superior health care available. So the mortality rates kind of balance out almost. We just pay a shitload more.
Most HDHP plans negotiate highly discounted rates. You'd be paying what the insurance companies pay, not what you as a private cash customer might pay in most cases.
Buffet style insurance is a huge part of the problem. People don't see the costs of their health care, and they're accustomed to getting as much as they want (not need) for a set amount of money, much of which is paid "magically", "somehow" by their employer.
I'm not saying this is the entire problem, but it's a huge part of it. If you don't see the costs of your health care, you won't wisely use it. It's the same problem plaguing college tuition costs. "Oh, it's free money - either I'm getting a loan (free money!) or someone else is paying for it!". Yeah, until schools notice this and start charging $25k a year to attend because nobody cares - it's "free money".
My solution is a high deductible plan. If you can't afford it, the government picks it up for you. You pay the first $5k of your health costs out of pocket, the HDHP kicks in afterwords. If you're too poor for that, then they have government clinics for you.
I do agree they should take it very seriously, but his death was a done deal. It was decided, and he had exhausted his (too many) options to appeal it already. So this was not something that makes me think the State was not applying due diligence.
Besides, there's nothing really undignified about what happened as I think about it. Tweeting just seems undignified because it's "new media". When I think of it objectively I see nothing any more demeaning in it than if he had said it in a newspaper interview or on TV. His words weren't cruel or gloating in themselves, just judgmental. But then...the guy had murdered someone - I'd be judgmental too.
As the other poster replied, hardware capabilities are part of the puzzle. If their competitors have chips 50-100% faster, they will be able to do more things on their platform than Apple can. Facial recognition, realtime video editing, whatever gets enabled by having faster CPUs.
Apple is not a semiconductor company. Sure, they bought one but it's not their core competency. So like everything, they thought they could do a better job than everyone else at this too.
They're going to have to spend money keeping the A4 competitive with other ARM SoC offerings from companies who make them for a living. They're going to have to keep them competitive with the ever-improving Atom chips which are slowly encroaching on sub-watt territory held by ARM. Otherwise, their hardware will lag behind. They're already in a world of hurt with so many vendors ramping to release Android portable devices of all sorts form factors, now they have to compete in the CPU arena too?
I just don't see the point. It'll be interesting in 3 years to look back and see if this was a wise decision.
Yeah, I mean this thing doesn't work for 1000 people right out of the gate?! Useless! And this fusion discovery they just made, it only produces 1% more energy than it takes in?! Useless!!
Yeah, unfortunately that link has nothing to do with, well, anything. But it does have "3d" somewhere in it, so I assume that's what confused you and made you think they were anything alike.
I'm not a conservative, in fact most conservatives would label me a "librul". Most hippie left wing nuts would label me a "right winger". Since both sides are insufferable douchebags, I must be doing something right.
Sorry dude, your broad brush missed its mark. I think Palin (and most right wingnuts) are douches as much as most left wingnuts are. I believe in global warming, though not the chicken littleism, bandwagon jumping, and profiteering it has engendered.
I fully believe we should research new technologies. If they'd spent 3 trillion starting in 1980 to today on nuclear research, we would probably have most of the problems of nuclear power solved. Even as it stands it's the only viable solution right now. We just need to build on it.
That's why we need to spend a shitload of money on research. Breeder reactors, etc... It's going to cost money to solve this problem, I don't deny that. But it has to be solved at some point, and if we keep expecting some miracle like zero point energy mumbo jumbo or even fusion, we might find ourselves in a crisis in 50 years.
Who said or/or? I said wind and solar will possibly never meet a high percentage of our energy needs, not that they can't be part of the solution. Nuclear most certainly can, though of course at a high cost right now. Yet all I seem to here are hippie politicians talking about wind and solar.
Yes. I am absolutely for it. It could replace that coal power plant down the way that's spitting nuclear, gaseous, and particulate pollution into the air. If properly built, nuclear power is very safe.
Sure, it costs a shitload of money to build and properly maintain a nuclear power plant but all we're doing now is just pushing that cost into poor air quality, possibly global warming, foreign wars, a high dependence on the ups and downs of oil/natural gas prices, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
I'll tell you what, I'll let you answer that. You could probably save thousands of lives by liquidating all your belongings that aren't essential to your existence and giving the proceeds to people who are starving to death all over the world.
You could be out saving lives right now, so apparently you value posting nonsense on the Internet more than you value human life.
I really should copy that reply and save it, it's so tiresome replying to people who just open themselves up for scorn by being so sanctimonious.
Nonsense. You're focusing on a small part of the overall discrepancy. That plus about 10 other factors are why the US is artificially high in infant mortality, especially in regards to quality of health care available.
OK, how about this one then? That got enough facts and numbers for you?
What would be interesting would be survival rates for all births by country. Every single child than emits from between a woman's legs would be counted, every thousand. And from that thousand the number that live to 5 years old.
Care to wager how the US would do against other nations in that comparison? My guess is it wouldn't be 45th. Or 19th. Or 5th. More like top 3.
Ahahaha. Troll indeed. Check parent out, simple statement of fact and it's a "Troll".
Here - mark this as a Troll too: Bad things happen to good people. "Oooh, I don't like that fact!!!"
See above. In fact, you're asking the wrong question. The "data and empirical evidence" the Cuba worshipers are trotting out has largely been discredited.
In fact, is there any data about Cuba's healthcare system that hasn't come from enchanted foreigners being led to the top end Cuban hospitals (for the elite), or from the Cuban government itself?
So where is the good, pro-Cuban data? I haven't seen any.
Infant mortality is not easy to collect. In the US, any child born living (even marginally) will be put in NICU and every measure taken to ensure they live. This counts _against_ infant mortality. Most countries declare the baby nonviable. Go do some research.
Expected lifespan is also subject to measurement error or outright lying (small shithole third world countries), but generally is highly impacted by health choices. Obesity, alcoholism, a sedentary lifestyle, stress, etc...
There is no problem with US infant mortality. We try _very_ hard to make every child survive. Paradoxically, this makes our numbers worse - most countries just say the baby was nonviable and don't count it as a death. We don't.
No, poor people can go to government clinics. If you're poor, you should get minimum care - that's it. Any other suggestion just proves you fail at maths.
Let's look at world demographics - who's having the most babies? Poor people. You propose that the rapidly growing population of poor people the world over should get top notch medical care? Are there dragons in this fantasy land you've concocted?
I don't deny Cuba does a lot with what they have, which is shit. They are certainly at the top of the heap for a poor country. Besides, Cuba almost literally set out to be a nation of doctors. Kind of hard to do unless you're, you know...a dictatorship?
The problem is this myth that Cuba is a world leader in health care quality. They simply aren't. Let's address a few of the supposed Cuban wonders.
Infant Mortality
The measurement is shit. Furthermore, Cuba has a high rate of abortions - literally somewhere between 3 and 4 times the rate in the US [this is easy enough to google]. Aborting nonviable babies certainly helps you publish some propaganda about wonderful infant mortality rates.
Breast Cancer Survival
See the Concord study for some details on this. Cuba's numbers are shit, and nobody believes it. Also, it seems they don't count secondary causes, e.g. if breast cancer metastasized to other parts of the body and caused death.
It all boils down to common sense. Cuba is dirt poor. Sure, they've trained a lot of doctors but they are _poor_. They put on a dog and pony show to convince the world they have great care, but nobody can prove it. You have foreigners who visit and get enchanted, but no hard facts.
How about a nationwide census of hospital quality? Reliable (not state provided) survival rate data for major illnesses? Fucking _nothing_. Just glowing reports from foreigners who visited a few times and were wooed or from people who trust bad data provided by the Cuban government which is completely contrary to basic common sense.
You don't even need a black market. Ironically, universal health care puts a wider gap between the rich and the rest of us. I get stuck with shitty government care, if you're wealthy you can just walk into a top notch clinic with the best doctors (who know they can make more money privately) and pay in cash. The rest of us don't have that option.
At least with the current system (which is broken, I admit) the middle class also gets top notch care. In fact, for the most part even poor people in the US get top notch care, most states have aid programs available.
Cuba is a perfect example of this.
Wait, people still think Cuba has this magical, awesome health care system? Wow.
Cuba has a dog and pony show. Shit for the vast majority of the population, and high quality care for VIPs and foreigners.
Our health care expenditure is higher because we have better care. The problem is it's not available to everyone, only the middle class and up get the best care, and it's very expensive because of our insurance system.
And please don't quote me infant mortality rates where the US uses a different system to determine infant mortality, or expected lifespans which are heavily dependent on cultural and external influences other than health care quality. Instead, go investigate cancer treatment success rates. Heart disease treatment rates. The list goes on.
We're an unhealthy country of pigs, but we have superior health care available. So the mortality rates kind of balance out almost. We just pay a shitload more.
Most HDHP plans negotiate highly discounted rates. You'd be paying what the insurance companies pay, not what you as a private cash customer might pay in most cases.
Buffet style insurance is a huge part of the problem. People don't see the costs of their health care, and they're accustomed to getting as much as they want (not need) for a set amount of money, much of which is paid "magically", "somehow" by their employer.
I'm not saying this is the entire problem, but it's a huge part of it. If you don't see the costs of your health care, you won't wisely use it. It's the same problem plaguing college tuition costs. "Oh, it's free money - either I'm getting a loan (free money!) or someone else is paying for it!". Yeah, until schools notice this and start charging $25k a year to attend because nobody cares - it's "free money".
My solution is a high deductible plan. If you can't afford it, the government picks it up for you. You pay the first $5k of your health costs out of pocket, the HDHP kicks in afterwords. If you're too poor for that, then they have government clinics for you.
I do agree they should take it very seriously, but his death was a done deal. It was decided, and he had exhausted his (too many) options to appeal it already. So this was not something that makes me think the State was not applying due diligence.
Besides, there's nothing really undignified about what happened as I think about it. Tweeting just seems undignified because it's "new media". When I think of it objectively I see nothing any more demeaning in it than if he had said it in a newspaper interview or on TV. His words weren't cruel or gloating in themselves, just judgmental. But then...the guy had murdered someone - I'd be judgmental too.
Live a decent life, maybe you can die with dignity. Murder people, and someone may tweet your death. What's the problem?
As the other poster replied, hardware capabilities are part of the puzzle. If their competitors have chips 50-100% faster, they will be able to do more things on their platform than Apple can. Facial recognition, realtime video editing, whatever gets enabled by having faster CPUs.
Apple is not a semiconductor company. Sure, they bought one but it's not their core competency. So like everything, they thought they could do a better job than everyone else at this too.
They're going to have to spend money keeping the A4 competitive with other ARM SoC offerings from companies who make them for a living. They're going to have to keep them competitive with the ever-improving Atom chips which are slowly encroaching on sub-watt territory held by ARM. Otherwise, their hardware will lag behind. They're already in a world of hurt with so many vendors ramping to release Android portable devices of all sorts form factors, now they have to compete in the CPU arena too?
I just don't see the point. It'll be interesting in 3 years to look back and see if this was a wise decision.
Yeah, I mean this thing doesn't work for 1000 people right out of the gate?! Useless! And this fusion discovery they just made, it only produces 1% more energy than it takes in?! Useless!!
Yeah, unfortunately that link has nothing to do with, well, anything. But it does have "3d" somewhere in it, so I assume that's what confused you and made you think they were anything alike.
I'm not a conservative, in fact most conservatives would label me a "librul". Most hippie left wing nuts would label me a "right winger". Since both sides are insufferable douchebags, I must be doing something right.
Sorry dude, your broad brush missed its mark. I think Palin (and most right wingnuts) are douches as much as most left wingnuts are. I believe in global warming, though not the chicken littleism, bandwagon jumping, and profiteering it has engendered.
I fully believe we should research new technologies. If they'd spent 3 trillion starting in 1980 to today on nuclear research, we would probably have most of the problems of nuclear power solved. Even as it stands it's the only viable solution right now. We just need to build on it.
That's why we need to spend a shitload of money on research. Breeder reactors, etc... It's going to cost money to solve this problem, I don't deny that. But it has to be solved at some point, and if we keep expecting some miracle like zero point energy mumbo jumbo or even fusion, we might find ourselves in a crisis in 50 years.
Who said or/or? I said wind and solar will possibly never meet a high percentage of our energy needs, not that they can't be part of the solution. Nuclear most certainly can, though of course at a high cost right now. Yet all I seem to here are hippie politicians talking about wind and solar.
Exactly.
You probably don't mean that the way I chose to interpret it, though. The point is oil has a tremendous cost besides just what you pay at the pump.
Yes. I am absolutely for it. It could replace that coal power plant down the way that's spitting nuclear, gaseous, and particulate pollution into the air. If properly built, nuclear power is very safe.
Sure, it costs a shitload of money to build and properly maintain a nuclear power plant but all we're doing now is just pushing that cost into poor air quality, possibly global warming, foreign wars, a high dependence on the ups and downs of oil/natural gas prices, etc...