|
Post by saskabronco on Oct 21, 2014 1:19:29 GMT -5
There are a lot of countries that put a lot of money into taking care of their citizens. Places like Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Denmark, Japan, Canada... All countries with more government involvement and generally pretty good government funded health care. USA is only the greatest country in certain areas... The health of it's people is definitely not one of those areas. Even Obama's attempt to get health care to people got so watered down by political BS that it is a poor excuse for public health care (though still better than nothing). Who had nothing? I have always had great health care. Until now. So your point is wrong. I lost my health insurance due to this. And I am forced to accept something else. The majority of Americans have better coverage now than before the ACA. And like I said, the ACA is a garbage plan compared to what most advanced countries have. No one would let him pass a single-payer health care model that the democrats wanted so they had to go out and rewrite it to be the POS it is now. A lot of Americans had nothing, but have something now. Just because it didn't work for a very small group of people doesn't mean it's a failure.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Oct 21, 2014 1:20:50 GMT -5
Because those are variables that are unpredictable, and I'm sure those averages change from year to year. Who's to say the United States won't be below that average in the future? (Which, I'm not saying that happens, but it's theoretically possible.)
Life expectancy lists shouldn't include outside variables like that imo. Nobody "expects" to die from violence, or a car crash. They should only include people who die of natural causes. That gives a more accurate result as to how long you can expect to live until you die of natural causes.
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Oct 21, 2014 1:28:01 GMT -5
Because those are variables that are unpredictable, and I'm sure those averages change from year to year. Who's to say the United States won't be below that average in the future? (Which, I'm not saying that happens, but it's theoretically possible.) Life expectancy lists shouldn't include outside variables like that imo. Nobody "expects" to die from violence, or a car crash. They should only include people who die of natural causes. That gives a more accurate result as to how long you can expect to live until you die of natural causes. Life expectancy is the measure of how long a person can expect to live, on average. If there is a high risk of gun deaths and fatal accidents, those have to be included because those are risks. You can't pick and choose which deaths seem relevant. Every person who dies has to be part of the statistics if you want them to be at all meaningful.
|
|
|
Post by Morkim on Oct 21, 2014 1:29:20 GMT -5
Because those are variables that are unpredictable, and I'm sure those averages change from year to year. Who's to say the United States won't be below that average in the future? (Which, I'm not saying that happens, but it's theoretically possible.) Life expectancy lists shouldn't include outside variables like that imo. Nobody "expects" to die from violence, or a car crash. They should only include people who die of natural causes. That gives a more accurate result as to how long you can expect to live until you die of natural causes. #1 we have more cars per capita than the vast majority of the world, logically we will always be towards the top of that list. #2 lots of people expect or worry about dying because of violence. It depends on the area. If I lived in a war ravaged country or a gang heavy community, I might worry about it too. But you factor in those numbers because they're a factor. And are probably more consistent than you think. Most people don't expect to die.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Oct 21, 2014 1:40:28 GMT -5
Because those are variables that are unpredictable, and I'm sure those averages change from year to year. Who's to say the United States won't be below that average in the future? (Which, I'm not saying that happens, but it's theoretically possible.) Life expectancy lists shouldn't include outside variables like that imo. Nobody "expects" to die from violence, or a car crash. They should only include people who die of natural causes. That gives a more accurate result as to how long you can expect to live until you die of natural causes. Life expectancy is the measure of how long a person can expect to live, on average. If there is a high risk of gun deaths and fatal accidents, those have to be included because those are risks. You can't pick and choose which deaths seem relevant. Every person who dies has to be part of the statistics if you want them to be at all meaningful. The word "expect" is being used very loosely then. A risk just means that there is a possibility, nothing is absolute. If the average lifespan of people who die from natural causes is 85 years, and accidental/unfortunate deaths lower that same number to 75, is that really a true indication of how long most people will live?
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Oct 21, 2014 1:42:38 GMT -5
Because those are variables that are unpredictable, and I'm sure those averages change from year to year. Who's to say the United States won't be below that average in the future? (Which, I'm not saying that happens, but it's theoretically possible.) Life expectancy lists shouldn't include outside variables like that imo. Nobody "expects" to die from violence, or a car crash. They should only include people who die of natural causes. That gives a more accurate result as to how long you can expect to live until you die of natural causes. #1 we have more cars per capita than the vast majority of the world, logically we will always be towards the top of that list. #2 lots of people expect or worry about dying because of violence. It depends on the area. If I lived in a war ravaged country or a gang heavy community, I might worry about it too. But you factor in those numbers because they're a factor. And are probably more consistent than you think. Most people don't expect to die. If the numbers are consistent, that's one thing. But are they? And you made my point for me with your last comment. "Life expectancy" Maybe I'm just taking things too literally?
|
|
|
Post by Morkim on Oct 21, 2014 1:48:43 GMT -5
#1 we have more cars per capita than the vast majority of the world, logically we will always be towards the top of that list. #2 lots of people expect or worry about dying because of violence. It depends on the area. If I lived in a war ravaged country or a gang heavy community, I might worry about it too. But you factor in those numbers because they're a factor. And are probably more consistent than you think. Most people don't expect to die. If the numbers are consistent, that's one thing. But are they? And you made my point for me with your last comment. "Life expectancy" Maybe I'm just taking things too literally? Maybe you are. Define accidental death then. What would you figure to be the perimeters for your LE? Do people living on the coast that drown or die in a shark attack count? Tornadoes in Kansas? Earthquakes in Cali? Where do you draw the line, exactly? Just old people who die in hospitals? Do heart attacks count? See where I'm going Mo?
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Oct 21, 2014 1:55:20 GMT -5
Life expectancy is the measure of how long a person can expect to live, on average. If there is a high risk of gun deaths and fatal accidents, those have to be included because those are risks. You can't pick and choose which deaths seem relevant. Every person who dies has to be part of the statistics if you want them to be at all meaningful. The word "expect" is being used very loosely then. A risk just means that there is a possibility, nothing is absolute. If the average lifespan of people who die from natural causes is 85 years, and accidental/unfortunate deaths lower that same number to 75, is that really a true indication of how long most people will live? Yes, it is a true indication. If the average is lowered that much by accidental deaths, they must be at a seriously high rate and are a definite danger to the population. The way averages work, if the percentage of accidental deaths is very small, the number would not really impact the average. For the average to be change, even by just a couple years, that would take hundreds of thousands of deaths and would definitely be considered significant, statistically.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Oct 21, 2014 2:20:26 GMT -5
If the numbers are consistent, that's one thing. But are they? And you made my point for me with your last comment. "Life expectancy" Maybe I'm just taking things too literally? Maybe you are. Define accidental death then. What would you figure to be the perimeters for your LE? Do people living on the coast that drown or die in a shark attack count? Tornadoes in Kansas? Earthquakes in Cali? Where do you draw the line, exactly? Just old people who die in hospitals? Do heart attacks count? See where I'm going Mo? Probably people who die from non-health issues. If the USA LE includes people who die from earthquakes in Cali, when the majority of states haven't seen an earthquake in ages, how is it logical to lower the LE for the whole country due only to the one state that gets them frequently? I see your point though. I see Saska's point as well. It probably won't take many more posts from you and saskabronco to convince me that I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Juggs on Oct 21, 2014 8:57:49 GMT -5
I saw this played in two different journalism courses. I think the guys argument is shit. America is still the greatest country in the world. The statistics he cites are mostly bullshit, made up for dramtic effect for a canceled TV show. While his message of "patriotism doesn't mean you can't see the flaws in your nation" concept is certainly true, the speech loses all its value by being over-dramatic and misleading. If you polled every person in the world which country they would want to live in, I doubt very much that the USA would be anything but #1 overall. I know I would pick it over anywhere else. I looked up if the statistics were accurate and I found that they are very close, but I imagine they changed slightly because it's been a couple of years. You are right - America is still a great place to live in comparatively, but we are spiraling in the wrong direction. They're accurate only until you consider who moderates those statistics. In education, we test everyone. For standardized tests in the EU, they only test rich private school white kids. Minorities and the poor have a habit of "losing" their tests, while the USA has laws that require we submit every test to be considered. Life expectency, poverty and many other issues are the same. We count the "undesirable" people in our censuses and bring them in with open arms to the country, before you even consider problems with immigration. I think it makes america great that we take in people of all backgrounds, even if they weaken our standardized tests and life expectancy rates. Every country that beats us (with a few exceptions in Asia) are really only beating us in racism and corruption.
|
|