[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
No, I don't need to ignore this, since the aggregate health statistics of the population show that in general people are healthier in Canada.

And you can prove that this can be entirely attributed to the healthcare, rather than the more comfortable and healthy climate that pervades the entireity of Canada? Anyone can live longer and healthier when there's no festering hellhole for a good portion of the country to live in.

More importantly, how does this actually prove the superiority of the health care involved? Just because you can claim that people are healthier, whether or not it can be entirely attributed to the system, does not mean the system is better at dealing with things that actually MATTER. Besides, the Canadian system is based on what is essentially thievery. If crime didn't pay, why would anyone do it?

There is no need to ignore large segments of the population to arrive at this. You, on the other hand, would like to simply ignore the part of your population that can't afford health care.

The difference here is that the people who "can't afford" *ANY* health care whatsoever are clearly nonparticipants in the system. If they can't be bothered to actually scrape together the entry fee to participate, it's unreasonable to expect them to be counted. Take the Zaire example: Wealthy people living in Zaire leave the country for their treatment, because the health care system in Zaire is such that they cannot *GET* that treatment in Zaire, regardless of how much money they'd actually spend there.

Statistically significant means that the number of such cases is large enough that it has a noticeable effect on the health of the general population.

Why don't you name some frivolous treatments then.

I'd find you an example, but at the moment, google appears to be down. I'll get back to you on that if you remind me later. Then you, too, can be appalled that you actually paid for that.

And everyone benefits from a healthy population. A population with healthier people is a population that can be more productive.[QB]

You assume that this productivity comes for free, however, when, in fact, you're simply draining resources from the people who rightly earned it, to people who can't be bothered to get their own, so they can pay for their own needs.

[QB]Oh good grief. Keep on spreading that FUD Norfleet. I know that you are incredibly paranoid, but the violent crime rate is lower in Canada than the U.S.

I've heard this one before, but "lower" doesn't mean "doesn't happen", and rather have something I'm prepared to deal with happen more often, than to have something I'm not able to deal with happen less often, but still happen. The bottom line being that Canada is unsafe, whereas if someone tries to get me in the US, he'll have to come get some.

quote:

---

Oh, not at all. I don't believe people who fail are always lazy. Everyone has their own cause for failure, which can be summarized as consisting of some combination of apathy, incompetence, stupidity, and laziness.

You might want to avoid contradicting yourself when you write something.

---

I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying that laziness is simply one possible contributing factor to being a failure, and is not necessarily the only one. You don't have to be lazy to be a failure. Incompetence, stupidity, or apathy can substitute nicely.