View Single Post
Old 08-13-2009, 04:15 PM   #180 (permalink)
dippin
Crazy, indeed
 
Location: the ether
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
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 ----------



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.
How do differing rates of homicide explain higher infant mortality? higher mortality to infectious diseases? Fewer hospital beds per capita available?

---------- Post added at 04:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 View Post
Sorry, these numbers are useless until you include taxation levels. You can't include how much you "pay directly for healthcare" and then exclude how much you pay in taxes for it. I'm not demanding that one produce the taxation number as well, I'm simply discounting the numbers provided as a partial picture to backup a pre-determined conclusion.


Data provided throughout this thread have shown how much the state spends on health.
dippin is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360