Why Private Health Care doesn't work

#301
#301
BearCat204 said:
So your sample group of people from earlier is "over 1,000" but you take in account millions with the 1 in 4? Makes sense to me
Click to expand...

people from 2000 years ago lived until they were 30. how many 30 year old do you know that get cancer? certainly not 1/4.
 
#302
#302
volinbham said:
Depends entirely on how the sample was chosen. If they are looking a mummified remains (intentionally mummified) then clearly these people did not live the same lifestyle (including nutrition) as the general population.

A random sample can have statistically power to draw inferences about a larger population. A non-random sample (as it sounds like this one is) has no statistical inference power beyond that sample - that is something virtually all statisticians agree upon.

Regardless, the whole notion is irrelevant if we are looking at health outcomes for health problems people currently face. There are several European countries with higher cancer incidence rates (regardless of how they view capitalism). All have lower survival rates than the U.S.
Click to expand...

Don't have a dog in this fight, but why would the mummified remains be non-random. I assume they are wealthier, but in that time would it matter? Not as if they could afford better cancer preventative healthcare. In fact, the incidence of cancer may be higher due to the wealthier people's diet.
Of course, people didn't live as long.
 
#304
#304
Ed12111 said:
Don't have a dog in this fight, but why would the mummified remains be non-random. I assume they are wealthier, but in that time would it matter? Not as if they could afford better cancer preventative healthcare. In fact, the incidence of cancer may be higher due to the wealthier people's diet.
Of course, people didn't live as long.
Click to expand...

Two potential reasons:

1) genetics - the wealthy are more likely to come from a much smaller gene pool than the population at large

2) nutrition - the wealthy would likely have different diets than the population at large.

Either difference could result in more or less cancer. However, since genetics and nutrition are linked to cancer you would want a sample that is representative on the entire population on these variables to extend the findings beyond the sample itself.

I briefly read the announcement of the study Gibbs is referring to and the author makes the claim "there is nothing in the natural environment that causes cancer". That's quite a sweeping statement generalized from a mummy study.
 
#305
#305
droski said:
i know you aren't rich.

you said as a human it is your duty to help those less fortunate. all i'm asking is what you yourself are doing
Click to expand...

Well, since you obviously don't believe me, why would you ask me what I'm doing. And if you ask me a question you have no intention of listening to that would make you a moron. You've done the whole I've got a lot of money you don't thing before. It looks about as cool as bragging how big your dick is over the internet.
 
#306
#306
volinbham said:
Two potential reasons:

1) genetics - the wealthy are more likely to come from a much smaller gene pool than the population at large

2) nutrition - the wealthy would likely have different diets than the population at large.

Either difference could result in more or less cancer. However, since genetics and nutrition are linked to cancer you would want a sample that is representative on the entire population on these variables to extend the findings beyond the sample itself.

I briefly read the announcement of the study Gibbs is referring to and the author makes the claim "there is nothing in the natural environment that causes cancer". That's quite a sweeping statement generalized from a mummy study.
Click to expand...

Hmm. That does sound dubious.
 
#307
#307
Ed12111 said:
Well, since you obviously don't believe me, why would you ask me what I'm doing. And if you ask me a question you have no intention of listening to that would make you a moron. You've done the whole I've got a lot of money you don't thing before. It looks about as cool as bragging how big your dick is over the internet.
Click to expand...

you are obviously under 21. only way you are rich is if daddy gives you nice allowance.
 
#308
#308
utgibbs said:
Relatively common will have to be defined a lot more rigorously.

Studies of over 1,000 ancient Egyptian mummies have found a handful of tumors (most benign) when cancer accounts for well over 1 in 4 deaths today. It has risen dramatically in children as well, suggesting it's not just because of longer lifespans enjoyed in the modern world.

We begin to get into politics even here. Science, if harnessed for human needs rather than the needs of Capital is capable of so much. Driven by Capital however, it can create cancer, lead burdens, a Sixth Great Extinction, and geo-engineer the atmosphere to endanger us all.
Click to expand...

There is some good reason to call into question the study of 1,000 mummies and extrapolate an extremely low to nonexistent cancer rate in the ancient world.

1) Diet and lifestyle are factors in cancer. What kind of individual in Egyptian society was mummified, the upper class who were afforded better diet and lifestyle by their status in society.

2) Young and old people with tumors or ailments were seen as weak and often hidden from society, certainly not given the luxury of expensive burial rites like mummification.

As I understand it there is only one type of cancer that can be studied with any degree of certainty as it pertains to the mummified body and that is bone cancer. I do not know with certainty if this is fact but I believe it is correct.
 
#309
#309
droski said:
you are obviously under 21. only way you are rich is if daddy gives you nice allowance.
Click to expand...

1. When do I get to guess about you?

2. If your parents are wealthy and you are young pretty hard not be wealthy yourself.

3. Why should it matter?
 
#310
#310
Ed12111 said:
1. When do I get to guess about you?

2. If your parents are wealthy and you are young pretty hard not be wealthy yourself.

3. Why should it matter?
Click to expand...

1. be my guest i'm an open book.

2. many rich parents dont' give their grown kids money

3. life expereinces effect views. the question is whether you've had sufficient life experiences to be this much of a douchebag re your opinions.
 
#311
#311
Ed12111 said:
I want you to re-read your post then my post and see what's wrong.
Click to expand...

Ed12111 said:
Hopefully they will do what we decide they should do. If you believe the two are seperate, I'm not sure how this debate would be about they will do as that would be guesswork.
Click to expand...

Your saying that you hope they will do, what we decide they should.

Later you say it would be guess work to try and figure out what they will do.

Correct?
 
#312
#312
droski said:
1. be my guest i'm an open book.

2. many rich parents dont' give their grown kids money

3. life expereinces effect views. the question is whether you've had sufficient life experiences to be this much of a douchebag re your opinions.
Click to expand...

Your 2 is incompatible with your original 2 but whatever. You live in Southern California and work as a financial planner. Even though you contribute nothing to society, and make a living giving dubious advice to the wealthy leeching off their money. You have a very high opinion of both your job and yourself because you make money, and profits are the perfect indicator of worth. You didn't go to UC Berkeley, but use him as an avatar. Major was probably business and personality is typical douchebro.
 
#313
#313
BeecherVol said:
Your saying that you hope they will do, what we decide they should.

Later you say it would be guess work to try and figure out what they will do.

Correct?
Click to expand...

I said you said it was guesswork since you claimed what government do and what we want them to do are not the same.
 
#314
#314
Ed12111 said:
Your 2 is incompatible with your original 2 but whatever. You live in Southern California and work as a financial planner. Even though you contribute nothing to society, and make a living giving dubious advice to the wealthy leeching off their money. You have a very high opinion of both your job and yourself because you make money, and profits are the perfect indicator of worth. You didn't go to UC Berkeley, but use him as an avatar. Major was probably business and personality is typical douchebro.
Click to expand...

I work as a portfolio manager. Not the same thing as a financial planner. My advice has been very good and that is audited. Wealthy investing their money creates jobs. I contribute far more to society than you, I assure you. I went to UC Berkeley and graduated with a degree in economics in 1999. CFA charter awarded in 2008. Any other questions?
 
#315
#315
droski said:
I work as a portfolio manager. Not the same thing as a financial planner. My advice has been very good and that is audited. Wealthy investing their money creates jobs. I contribute far more to society than you, I assure you. I went to UC Berkeley and graduated with a degree in economics in 1999. CFA charter awarded in 2008. Any other questions?
Click to expand...

I can assure you you didn't go to UC Berkeley. See how that works. Portfolio managers are worthless.
 
#316
#316
Ed12111 said:
I said you said it was guesswork since you claimed what government do and what we want them to do are not the same.
Click to expand...

That got back to the point of giving it to them to decide. It seems like some think its a slam dunk that they get it right.

This is the government.
 
#321
#321
Ed12111 said:
I can assure you you didn't go to UC Berkeley. See how that works. Portfolio managers are worthless.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure he didn't just randomly hop onto the Cal bandwagon. He definitely went to Berkeley, man. He knows way too much about the school and campus as demonstrated in countless conversations to haven not. Unless you believe it's all an elaborate hoax to create a random persona. But then, again, why would he just randomly choose Cal, and not Stanford? USC? UCLA? Or some other douchier school with comparable national image?
 
#322
#322
IPorange said:
Pretty sure he didn't just randomly hop onto the Cal bandwagon. He definitely went to Berkeley, man. He knows way too much about the school and campus as demonstrated in countless conversations to haven not. Unless you believe it's all an elaborate hoax to create a random persona. But then, again, why would he just randomly choose Cal, and not Stanford? USC? UCLA? Or some other douchier school with comparable national image?
Click to expand...

I'm just joking around.
 
#323
#323
IPorange said:
Pretty sure he didn't just randomly hop onto the Cal bandwagon. He definitely went to Berkeley, man. He knows way too much about the school and campus as demonstrated in countless conversations to haven not. Unless you believe it's all an elaborate hoax to create a random persona. But then, again, why would he just randomly choose Cal, and not Stanford? USC? UCLA? Or some other douchier school with comparable national image?
Click to expand...

yes no one would willingly be a cal fan. trust me.
 
#324
#324
droski said:
people from 2000 years ago lived until they were 30. how many 30 year old do you know that get cancer? certainly not 1/4.
Click to expand...

Big increases in children, droski.... The longevity theory doesn't fly.

I did mention that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top