Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian
Apparently my rhetorical style made my point unclear.
A difference of 5.5 per 100 000 is just over half of a percentage point within the context of the overall statistic. Even if we completely discount homicides we still end up with an overall mortality rate of approximately 1074.5 per 100 000 (inflated from 108 per 1000 to correlate with the homicide statistic). This is still significantly higher than the figures for Canada (720 per 100 000) or the UK (790 per 100 000).
Homicide rates have absolutely no relevance here.
|
The homicide rate for people born in 2009 is most likely zero.
The homicide rate in 2010 for people born in 2009 is also close to zero.
The homicide rate in 2011 for people born in 2009 is also close to zero.
Etc.
Etc.
does your analysis take into consideration the cumulative impact of the difference between the two countries?
Secondly, if we look at probabilities of homicide, from the source cited below it shows the lifetime odds of death in the US in 1996 by homicide is 1:169 or 592 in every 100,000. That is .6%.
Here is a link to the data:
Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters
I don't have comparable data for Canada, but if it is 1/3, the rate for Canada would be about .2%. One of the keys is when these homicides occur. compared to an 80 average year life span, if the homicides occur in the years of let's say 18 to 25 it would have a bigger impact than if they occurred 48 to 55.
Again if we take the time to dig into the numbers there is clearly a difference between male and female life spans. Many factors contribute, one could be the difference in homicide rates between males and females. If, this is a factor- this factor would have nothing to do with health care. The same could be true in the comparison of Canada and the US
You can dismiss homicide rates, I don't. I would want a detailed mathematical analysis before reaching the conclusion you have come to.
---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Just for the record, it now appears that Palin was for "death panels" before she was against them, given the proclamation she signed last year:
Yep...just what the House bill proposes.
Yet,....being the hypocritical hack that she is, for some reason she feels to the need to keep stoking the fires and spreading her ignorance.
|
This is interesting but there are really two different issues on the table regarding "death panels (I agree this is a bad way to describe the issue), there is what you refer to, and there is what I am concerned about. See my post #90 and what preceeded it on this issue.
Quote:
It is not a "death panel", I think they are called Quality Improvement Organizations or QIOs. Among other things QIOs investigate and resolve issues relating to non-coverage and appeals for coverage reconsideration. If you have an issue, you present your case to one of these panels.
Medicare pays claims that are "deemed medically necessary." And the medically necessary procedures are subject to treatment and care based on a set of "approved charges". If you are poor and you have a doctor that does not accept these charges, if you face a life or death issue with lets say using some some cutting edge "experimental" procedure or drug, you may have no options other than death. So the question is what criteria is used and what criteria will be used under Obama's plan.
This is a legitimate concern. The issue is being ignored, Obama's platitudes and dismissive attitude is disturbing.
|