11 Sep 10
1 edit
If they are known to have cancer, but can't afford to treat it, then their deaths will be in the numbers. It is only those who die from cancer and do not have it diagnosed that would be outside the numbers.
I believe that medical examiners in each state look at people who die to determine if there was some sort of foul play at hand. If the medical examiner finds the death to be cancer, even if undiagnosed, I would think it would go into the numbers.
11 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarYou think so do you? So people who are not treated for cancer, and then die, are included in the figures that are used by advocates of the U.S. system to demonstrate how "treatement [that] is far more aggressive with greater innovations" reduces morbidity? That's what you think whodey's "figures" mean, is it?
If they are known to have cancer, but can't afford to treat it, then their deaths will be in the numbers. It is only those who die from cancer and do not have it diagnosed that would be outside the numbers.
I believe that medical examiners in each state look at people who die to determine if there was some sort of foul play at hand. If the medical examin ...[text shortened]... finds the death to be cancer, even if undiagnosed, I would think it would go into the numbers.
11 Sep 10
Originally posted by FMFAnyone known to have died from cancer should be included in the numbers. We are not talking about survivablity with treatment, we are talking about death numbers here are we not?
You think so do you? So people who are not treated for cancer, and then die, are included in the figures that are used by advocates of the U.S. system to demonstrate how "treatement [that] is far more aggressive with greater innovations" reduces morbidity? That's what you think whodey's "figures" mean, is it?
11 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarThey should be included in the figures?
Anyone known to have died from cancer should be included in the numbers. We are not talking about survivablity with treatment, we are talking about death numbers here are we not?
"Should be included"? So are you - or are you not - supporting whodey's assertion?
What "socialized medicine" systems exactly are they being compared to?
What exact outcomes in "socialized medicine" are they being compared to?
Exactly whose morbidity v exactly whose morbidity?
whodey presented this before and it crumbled when he looked at the careful wording of the polemical piece he had been deceived by. He ended up withdrawing it.
And here he is presenting it again.
11 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYes, it was a private corporation AUTHORIZED by Congress, but 100% owned by private stockholders. What part of that can't you grasp? ALL business decisions that it made were done by its corporate officials. What part of THAT can't you grasp?
Outright lies? I assume you are speaking of Freddie Mac being the one that was not government run. Shall we then study Freddie's roots? This is from Wiki.
From 1938 to 1968, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was the sole institution that bought mortgages from depository institutions, principally savings and loans associations, whic ever, that the blame for the failure of the two giants have its roots in FDR's New Deal.
So nothing done by Freddie Mac has anything to do with "government entities" as you are ranting and raving about. This has been pointed out to you numerous times, but you still come back with the same crap even though it shows you are absolutely wrong.
12 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt was not just authorized, it was CREATED by Congress to give the guise of Fannie Mae having competition. In short, these two giants dominated the market and had special perks so that true private corporations could never compete against. They also had Congressional oversight. It would then stand to reason that government was responsible for their shortcomings. Otherwise, why have oversight? Then when they go belly up the tax payers must bail them out. That does not sound like a free market to me.
Yes, it was a private corporation AUTHORIZED by Congress, but 100% owned by private stockholders. What part of that can't you grasp? ALL business decisions that it made were done by its corporate officials. What part of THAT can't you grasp?
So nothing done by Freddie Mac has anything to do with "government entities" as you are ranting ...[text shortened]... s, but you still come back with the same crap even though it shows you are absolutely wrong.
Face it, Fanny and Freddie are the only two corporations that will not be able to pay back the American people for the bail outs. In fact, the American taxpayer continue to bail them out with trillions more dollars to shell out. They ARE and WERE the problem, yet government does nothing about them. Instead, the focus is all the other "bad" corporations that have or are repaying the American tax payer.