You are correct, poorly worded but those are the facts. You have my apologies. To get an accurate assesment you would indeed to take figures that make the demographics of race and urban populations the same and probably some other statistical points I'm missing. For example what is the percentage of asians vs asians in the us? What about hispanics? My point being that you would need to make everything equal to get an accurate comparison.
Even cherry picking only whites in the US the US cannot win in life expectancy. Picking by any state, the US cannot win by life expectancy. No state can beat Canada for life expectancy, not even the lilly white ones. What more do you want? Given that we've already cherry picked only whites in the US, and the US has lost, it doesn't matter how many asians (or hispanics) are in the US. And my point is that even cherry picking the top groups in the US, the US cannot win for life expectancy.
No I can. Asian-American women living in Bergen County, NJ, enjoy the greatest life expectancy in the US, at 91 years.
Hilarious. So cherry picking a race, and gender, and narrowing it down to a specific county can outperform Canada. There are so many problems with that I don't even know where to begin. First off, only 11.6% of Bergen country residents are asian. So you've had to take 10% of a county, and even then narrow it by gender and race and you're (presumably) using this as an argument about health care? You'd have been much more persuasive if you had done like I did and cherry picked the top group overall in the US and disfavored Canada and Canada still came out ahead. (Which it does.)
From a message board concerning O'Ninny's comments: + strangelet I'm a Fan of strangelet I'm a fan of this user permalink This was a response to a letter, which means he (O'Moron) had time to think about it. O'Reilly is a jerk, but he is not stupid. Therefore, what I think he was trying to say is "We have ten times as many people, which means we have a higher percentage of poor people, who of course have shorter life expectancies, because they DON'T HAVE ANY GODDAM HEALTH CARE. So of course our average is lower." and... top-spin I'm a Fan of top-spin I'm a fan of this user permalink The European countries spending about half per capita of the US on health care have a combined population larger than the US, yet better health care outcomes and higher life expectancy than the US.
Read the Harvard study I pasted. They said health care couldn't account for the differences. Do you think if we had the canadian system our life expectancy would suddenly be higher? Pure speculation. No one has even addressed my earlier point that the expectancy data comes from different sources, so you have no way of knowing if they used comparable methodologies.
Within the eight groups within the US. You see how you just contradicted your first paragraph? (I'll give you a hint: if it's speculation to say that a certain health system could account for differences in life expectancy, then it's also speculation for Harvard to say that it could not account for the differences. You want it both ways.) It's a fair question, but it doesn't matter, as you can see standardized estimates (which are trivially different) on the OECD website -- using identical methodology between countries. Canada still comes out ahead. So in this thread we've seen that it's not race (after comparing just whites to all of Canada), not which state a person lives in (comparing even the top state for life expectancy to Canada shows Canada ahead), what does that leave us? If it's not race, it's unlikely to be poverty -- that the US is so much poorer than Canada that differentiates life expectancy. Perhaps it's because Americans are fat versus the svelte Canadians? Here's the fattest states -- even the leanest state, Colorado, which has fewer obese than Canada loses out to Canada for life expectancy: http://calorielab.com/news/2008/07/02/fattest-states-2008/
Whatever the determining factor, it most certainly is not O'Reilly's assertion that Canada's life expectancy is higher than America because of the latter's larger population base contributing to its relatively lower life expectancy as a result of increased mortality rates vis-a-vis accidents, crimes etc; such increases being a necessary function and component of the higher prevailing population. O'Reilly neglects to mention the crucial roles played by demographics and healthcare in influencing, shaping and determining life expectancy.
No, you said even if I cherry picked I couldn't prove you wrong which that is exactly what I did. it's not merely a black and white issue, you have to take into account urban areas for polution levels, poverty and other data points. It has nothing to do with perceived free healthcare.
what's the murder rate in Canada? from what I understand, Canada has few ganstas ... same effect with infant mortality. Also, I bet Canadians drive slower, just a hunch, do fewer recreational drugs, smoke less, etc ... Not exactly a convincing argument for the government, especially this government, to take over health care. these guys are nincompoops. "More Coverage, Less Cost, No New Taxes, Keep your current coverage!" ... many here were, but I wasn't born yesterday.