[GMAN]

Information for your review.

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very
interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations
International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years
after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%

England 46%

Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received
treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it
within six months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within
one month:
U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in
"excellent health":
U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%

I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare"
comparable to England or Canada .

Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans
must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."

SHIP HIM TO CANADA OR ENGLAND !

He is "elderly" himself but be sure to remember his health
insurance is different from yours as Congress has their own high-
end coverage! He will never have to learn to accept
"inconveniences"!!!

AND THE WINNER IS VERY INTERESTING!

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in
the private business sector prior to their appointment to the
cabinet. You know what the private business sector is... a real
life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.

T. Roosevelt........ 38%

Taft.....................40%

Wilson ................52%

Harding..................49%

Coolidge.............. 48%

Hoover................. 42%

F. Roosevelt......... 50%

Truman..................50%

Eisenhower........... 57%

Kennedy.............. 30%

Johnson.................47%

Nixon................... 53%

Ford..................... 42%

Carter.................. 32%

Reagan...................56%

GH Bush................. 51%

Clinton ................. 39%

GW Bush................ 55%

And the winner of the Chicken Dinner is:

Obama................ 8% !!!

This alone can explain the incompetence of this administration....! ! ! !! 8 %

Yep! That's right! Only Eight Percent!!!.. the least by far of
the last 19 presidents!! And these people are trying to tell our
big corporations how to run their business? They know what's
best for GM...Chrysler... Wall Street... and you and me?

How can the president of a major nation and society...the one
with the most successful economic system in world history...
stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one?..
or about jobs when he has never really had one??! And neither
has 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers! They've spent
most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit
jobs....or as "community organizers" when they should have been
in an employment line.

Just in case you have not seen these interesting statistics:

You may want to pass this on, we will NEVER see it in the

main street media!!!

[Ridge Runner]

Sounds like a set-up for another 3 page, loser, left wing, Hobo rant to me. :>)

[Rev.]

Originally Posted by GMAN

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very
interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations
International Health Organization.

I'd challenge you to produce the article that is cited in this drivel.

There is no such entity as the United Nation's 'International' Health Organization.

Here's some statistics from the World Health Organization that refute the made up statistics in this thing: http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS10_Full.pdf

[Rev.]

Originally Posted by Ridge Runner

loser

You shouldn't project your own shortcomings onto others. Especially as an administrator on this website.

[Ridge Runner]

Merry Christmas Rev.

[Roadhog]

... wow... I just saw the predictable, yet abnormal paradoxical view of reality, from a former admin.
Steeped in ironic contradiction, with a lame attempt of mockery,
the cut just didn't go as deep as I would have liked to have seen.

Ridge...he may be right... but did you even feel any breeze, from that useless jab? :lol:

[GMAN]

Originally Posted by Rev.

I'd challenge you to produce the article that is cited in this drivel.

There is no such entity as the United Nation's 'International' Health Organization.

Here's some statistics from the World Health Organization that refute the made up statistics in this thing: http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS10_Full.pdf

I am just the messenger. I found the information interesting. I have no idea what you are referring to with your link. I didn't see anything that had to do with the article, but I am not about to go through 177 pages to find what you are talking about.

[VitoCorleone99]

Originally Posted by Rev.

I'd challenge you to produce the article that is cited in this drivel.

There is no such entity as the United Nation's 'International' Health Organization.

Here's some statistics from the World Health Organization that refute the made up statistics in this thing: http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS10_Full.pdf

While I have no doubt that the article in question either doesn't exist at all or exists on the basis a handful of cherry-picked data, that WHO report really doesn't refute any of it. Even if we assume that every banana republic in the world reports accurately or that the WHO's methodology for correcting fishy numbers is absolutely perfect, neither of which seems likely to me, the report doesn't focus on the "statistics" cited in the chain mail. That's the beauty of statistics. Pick any viewpoint and there's a 90% statistical probability that somebody has numbers to back it up. (And there's a 100% statistical likelihood that I invented the 90% in the preceding sentence.)

The numbers in the original post, imaginary or otherwise, don't seem all that shocking to me. The main knock on our health care system is that it costs too much. It costs too much largely because we spend a bunch of money on stuff that we don't need, but that we think we should have. Choose whatever side you like on the debate (CYA tests for malpractice reasons or greedy profiteering companies or dumb consumers or whatever). It's a boring subject to me, but my point is that the country that spends more would likely have more diagnostic equipment. It would likely treat various chronic illnesses more quickly. It would likely have shorter wait times for specialists. None of that seems far-fetched. At the same time, that country might have the most car crashes and double bacon cheeseburgers and HDTV sets in front of comfy couches and so forth. Then some other set of statistics wouldn't look so good.

[Kentla93]

yep Cheney was part of the private business sector his postion in government worked out well for him, that stat could prove to be just as bad as the 8% obama has.. either way you look at it....
I think Obama may just be able to hang on for another 4 years as he just showed he is willing to work with all parties regardless of who he pisses off, the game aint over yet boys and with any luck Obama will begin his dream of taking over Amerika and handing it over to the incognido polish/muslim government with silver bells then we will all be forced to work in light bulb factories for 14 hours a day... I for one am looking forward to the complete take over of our country as we have not been able to handle what has been given to us...... Viva La Portugal

[Roadhog]

There is no end to these articles, once they go viral. They usually end up exposed as a hoax, propaganda, or what have you. They finally end up being a discussion on a message board. Numbers games are ripe for endless "debates." (arguments) Gman might be trying to draw in more posting activity. Ridge likes to rattle the cage. I like to turn it all into a zoo.

I remember seeing the article on the med figures back before Obamacare was made law. My BS meter spiked, so I didn't waste my time on it. I think many people are getting more sophisticated, and don't pay much attention to these political numbers games. It's so easy to take numbers and make them add up anyway you want. We get "misinformation" from both the left and right. Sometimes this is a deliberate attempt to mislead, and other times it's someones opinion of the facts, based on their own methodology.

In the case of the medical numbers, that time line was before Obamacare was made law. Makes you right away, see the motivation to persuade people against Obamacare. Fast forwarding to today, exposing Obamacare for what it really is, has become a wasted use of oxygen. Even the lefty's, who are not full blown commies, have remorse over this. Bottom line...we don't need a study to prove Obamacare is crap, and how it was made law, smells worse.

The numbers "study" on the Obama cabinet members who have private sector experience, came from a banker. I guess you can see the reason a banker might have an interest in this direction, as the Obama administration has been rabid anti-business. But again, the numbers are crap, and based one one guy's methodology. It seems this banker meant this as a private study. It went viral, and he has since, taken it off his website. But it's sweet low hanging fruit for factcheck and snopes.

Anyway, you see right away, the math doesn't add up. (kinda like truckers math) But that's only if you want to argue the methodology. This is where internet vacuum's are created. :lol:

I don't think anyone needs a study to prove Obama's cabinet has no clue what they are doing. I'd rant more... but today I'm watching eBay real close. I'm hoping to win tickets for a ride on the Shania Twain.