• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rep. Allen West Says Up To 81 House Members Are Communists

Meh....good if you are white and have access to quality care...not so good if you are poor, black with little access to quality care......which I think is the point, right?



Findings


Global variation in cancer survival was very wide. 5-year relative survival for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer was generally higher in North America, Australia, Japan, and northern, western, and southern Europe, and lower in Algeria, Brazil, and eastern Europe. CONCORD has provided the first opportunity to estimate cancer survival in 11 states in USA covered by the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), and the study covers 42% of the US population, four-fold more than previously available. Cancer survival in black men and women was systematically and substantially lower than in white men and women in all 16 states and six metropolitan areas included. Relative survival for all ethnicities combined was 2—4% lower in states covered by NPCR than in areas covered by the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. Age-standardised relative survival by use of the appropriate race-specific and state-specific life tables was up to 2% lower for breast cancer and up to 5% lower for prostate cancer than with the census-derived national life tables used by the SEER Program. These differences in population coverage and analytical method have both contributed to the survival deficit noted between Europe and the USA, from which only SEER data have been available until now.

Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD) : The Lancet Oncology
--------------------------------------------------------------------



First Worldwide Analysis Of Cancer Survival Finds Wide Variation Between Countries

ScienceDaily (July 16, 2008) — Cancer survival varies widely between countries according to a worldwide study. More than 100 investigators contributed to the study.

And while the USA has the highest 5-year survival rate for prostate cancer than any of the 31 countries studied, cancer survival in black men and women is systematically and substantially lower than in white men and women.

Until now, direct comparisons of cancer patient survival between rich and poor countries have not generally been available. The CONCORD study is, to the authors' knowledge, the first worldwide analysis of cancer survival, with standard quality-control procedures and identical analytic methods for all datasets. It provides directly comparable data on 1.9 million adult cancer patients (aged between 15 and 99) from 101 cancer registries in 31 countries on 5 continents. The study covers cancers of the breast (women), colon, rectum and prostate, which comprise a majority of all newly diagnosed cancers in adults. The study includes analyses of cancer survival in 16 states and 6 metropolitan areas in the USA, covering 42% of the population -- four times as many as in previous studies.

Five-year relative survival for breast cancer (women) ranged from 80% or higher in North America, Sweden, Japan, Finland and Australia to less than 60% in Brazil and Slovakia, and below 40% in Algeria. Survival for white women in the USA (84.7%) was 14% higher than for black women (70.9%).

For colorectal cancer, five-year survival was higher in North America, Japan, Australia and some western European countries and lower in Algeria, Brazil and in eastern European countries. Survival for white patients in the USA was 10% higher than for black patients (60% compared with 50%).

For prostate cancer, 5-year survival was higher in the USA (92%) than in all 30 of the other participating countries. However, there was a 7% difference in survival between black and white men (92% compared with 85.8%).

Michel P Coleman, Professor of Epidemiology and Vital Statistics at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and lead author of the study, comments: 'The differences in cancer survival between countries and between black and white men and women in the USA are large and consistent across geographic areas. Most of the wide variation in survival is likely to be due to differences in access to diagnostic and treatment services, and factors such as tumour biology, state at diagnosis or compliance with treatment may also be significant.

'Population-based cancer registries are increasingly important in monitoring cancer control efforts, and in evaluating cancer survival. We hope that the information provided here will facilitate better comparison between rich and poor countries, and eventually enable joint evaluation of international trends in cancer incidence, survival and mortality'.First Worldwide Analysis Of Cancer Survival Finds Wide Variation Between Countries

So your plan is to adopt a socialized system, that your own post admits has a lower survival rate, for the sake of equality?

Is it possible the difference could be attributed to life style, or genetic between the ethnic groups? I think it is. What do you think?
 
No the reason I didn't look at infant mortality is because most countries don't use the same standard we do.

In cuba, a doctor could be punished, even lose his job for reporting an infant mortality, thus he simply doesn't report it.

In England and Canada, a baby that is too young, is simply left to die, and isn't counted.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Mail Online


Why? Because if they did, and it didn't live, it would be counted as an infant mortality. This way, it isn't counted.

Our system tries to save every baby, no matter how young, and if it dies, it's counted. Almost no other nation does that.

Further, we save babies from Canada routinely.
Canada's Expectant Moms Heading to U.S. to Deliver | Fox News

So, we even make Canada look good. These kids would die if they were left in Canada. But because they can come here and get good care, they live. Our system, makes their system, look good.

And the evidence goes on and on. Cherry pick whatever. You just can't handle the truth.

You've presented no evidence whatsoever that other countries use a different standard for infant mortality. The standard is not different in the many many studies that have looked at the problem.

If you prefer, you could look at life expectancy by country, where the US ranks 38th ... one place behind ... CUBA. :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Are you going to pretend now that there are different standards for death?
 
You've presented no evidence whatsoever that other countries use a different standard for infant mortality. The standard is not different in the many many studies that have looked at the problem. If you prefer, you could look at life expectancy by country, where the US ranks 38th ... one place behind ... CUBA. :lol:List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAre you going to pretend now that there are different standards for death?
The UN and WHO within the UN are a joke!
...Seven of the places ranking ahead of the U.S. in 2004 had a population under 50,000, including Montserrat and San Marino, while another 10 had populations under 500,000, including the U.S. Virgin Islands and Andorra. (Andorra topped the ranking with a life expectancy of 83.5 years.) Such places have so few deaths each year that their mortality numbers are subject to big swings. Meanwhile, 18 of the 41 places ranked ahead of the U.S. by just a year or less, a small difference.Comparing the latest data with two decades ago also obscures that the U.S.’s ranking hasn’t budged much in recent years — it was 41st in 1997, by the AP’s ranking method. (And keep in mind, as I wrote in a recent post, that life expectancy is more complicated than the popular perception that it predicts how long someone born today is likely to survive.)snipThe Census’s own data included far fewer countries in the 1980s (just 133 in 1984, compared with 222 in 2005), which helps account for the U.S.’s big decline from 11th in that decade. (This caveat wasn’t mentioned until the 18th paragraph of the AP story).snipThere are other differences between the data sets. Each agency has its own statistical models and supplements data supplied by countries, where available, with its own considered judgment. This can result in some discrepancies — not so much for the U.S. and other large countries with reliable health statistics, but for some nations alongside the big ones near the top of the rankings. The WHO, for instance, shows a shorter life expectancy for Albania (by about five years) and Andorra (three years), and a longer one for Monaco (two years) than does the Census Bureau.“We wouldn’t pay too much attention to [life-expectancy data from] Andorra and Monaco,” Mie Inoue, a Geneva-based WHO statistician involved in producing the agency’s life expectancy numbers, told me. “There are very few deaths, so there are lots of fluctuations, so the result wouldn’t be very reliable.” Added Thomas McDevitt, chief of the population studies branch within the Census Bureau’s population division, “For small areas, constructing life tables is a challenge.”The Trouble With Ranking Life-Expectancy Numbers - The Numbers Guy - WSJ
The simple fact here is that the UN numbers on anything have to be questioned with a very skeptical eye. They are skewed numbers, and related to agendas within the body that have something to gain from ranking countries like the US lower than say Monaco.j-mac
 
Last edited:
Mr. West's allegation reveals only his own historical illiteracy. Communists held certain beliefs that defined their political movement. Communists are not found in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Congress would do better with people who are not as ignorant of history or the facts as Mr. West, regardless of their party affiliation.


Yes, you obviously know so much more than Congressman West, which is so totally demonstrated by the achievements in your life being so vast as to have you on a nameless, faceless message board, bitching and moaning about someone that actually serves their country, and makes the news....Yeah, you're right.....:roll:


j-mac
 
Yes, you obviously know so much more than Congressman West, which is so totally demonstrated by the achievements in your life being so vast as to have you on a nameless, faceless message board, bitching and moaning about someone that actually serves their country, and makes the news....Yeah, you're right.....:roll:

j-mac
Military experience doesn't necessarily translate to knowledge regarding other subjects, as evidenced by a quick glance at some of West's previous statements.
 
Military experience doesn't necessarily translate to knowledge regarding other subjects, as evidenced by a quick glance at some of West's previous statements.


Well, if you are so much more qualified then why is it that you didn't run against him. With your own inflated ego, and self proclaimed import, surely you could have won like child's play.

j-mac
 
Well, if you are so much more qualified then why is it that you didn't run against him. With your own inflated ego, and self proclaimed import, surely you could have won like child's play.

j-mac
No inflated ego here, West just doesn't strike me as terribly knowledgeable. Being elected as a representative doesn't necessarily mean you're overly qualified or intelligent just take a quick glance at the folks who currently comprise congress.
 
So your plan is to adopt a socialized system, that your own post admits has a lower survival rate, for the sake of equality?
Keeping a private health system, with private insurance, with the only real change is mandated private insurance purchase.....is socialism? Weird.

Is it possible the difference could be attributed to life style, or genetic between the ethnic groups? I think it is. What do you think?
Apparently you purchased and downloaded the Lancet report, analyzed the report/data.....and came to a completely different result than the experts. Interesting....care to share your results?
 
You've presented no evidence whatsoever that other countries use a different standard for infant mortality. The standard is not different in the many many studies that have looked at the problem.

If you prefer, you could look at life expectancy by country, where the US ranks 38th ... one place behind ... CUBA. :lol:

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you going to pretend now that there are different standards for death?


Infant Mortality Myths and Mantras
 
Ah, a Discovery Institute writer....OK!

All of the Nordic countries, Canada and the US use the same WHO standards, so it still doesn't change our really bad infant mortality rate.

The major reason we have such a bad rate is again due to access to prenatal care for poor mothers.
 
You've presented no evidence whatsoever that other countries use a different standard for infant mortality. The standard is not different in the many many studies that have looked at the problem.

This is so widely known to everyone who bothers to look it up, I didn't think people here would be so ignorant.
Very well
PJ Media » The Doctor Is In: Infant Mortality Comparisons a Statistical Miscarriage
Low birth weight infants are not counted against the “live birth” statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates.

That's just one quote. Any questions?

If you prefer, you could look at life expectancy by country, where the US ranks 38th ... one place behind ... CUBA. :lol:

Shooter Asks To Speak With Victim Before Homicide, CPD Says | NBC 4i
So a guy walks up to a house, knocks on the door, asks to see someone, and then shoots them dead.

In your world, that's a health care problem? The Hospital should have done something, right?

Child's death on freeway unites mourners, supporters - Los Angeles Times
Two cars collide in an accident, and a little girl was killed.

In your world, that's a health care problem? The doctors should have been at the road, waving people down to prevent the accident, right?

Then you have cultural differences. We have people that weight 400 lbs, and still shove more food in their face. We have people who smoke knowing it could give them cancer. We have people who drink themselves to death. Further, there are genetic differences. Women in Japan have a fraction of the breast cancer incidence rates we do.

All of that, to say this: If there is any statistical measurement that has no bearing at all on health care, it's life expectation and mortality rates.
There are simply too many factors that the Heath Care system has absolutely no baring on whatsoever.

You have some dumb women, hooked on crack, gives birth 5 months early, and of course the child dies, and the leftist run around "see! our infant mortality is higher!". Yeah, and as soon as we have doctor squads running around strapping down women, to prevent them from doing things to ruin their baby, we'll have that problem nipped in the bud.

Another way to look at it, is this: If we changed the health care system, would any of those factors change? Oh gee, I can't shoot this guy, because we have socialized health care!. Wait wait! I can't eat 5 triple McFatty Burgers a day, because we have socialized health care! Hold on, I can't accidentally hit that other car, because government is ruining health care now!

If that sounds completely moronic and idiotic, it's because it is.
Yet, when a leftist cites life expectancy rates and mortality rates, that is exactly what you are saying.
 
Last edited:
Ah, a Discovery Institute writer....OK!

All of the Nordic countries, Canada and the US use the same WHO standards, so it still doesn't change our really bad infant mortality rate.

The major reason we have such a bad rate is again due to access to prenatal care for poor mothers.

Which explains why women from Canada come to the US to get prenatal care.

A problem in Canada's hospitals is sending scores of pregnant women south of the border to have their babies.

Carri Ash of Chilliwack, B.C. was sent to the U.S. to have her baby after her water broke on Sunday, ten weeks ahead of schedule.

"And they came in and said 'you're going to Seattle,'" she said.

Ash's (Canadian) hospital couldn't handle the high-risk pregnancy. Doctors searched for another hospital bed, but even hospitals in Vancouver, B.C. didn't have a neo-natal bed.
Some Canadian mothers forced to give birth in U.S. | News | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News

Yeah, so where's your "access to prenatal care" now leftist?

Oh and about that poor mothers crap?
Poor infants fare worse despite Canada health care | Reuters
Even with Canada's system of universal health care, chronically ill babies from poorer families tend to do worse, a new study finds.

Really? You mean socialism doesn't result in the equality utopia it promises? AND woman have to come to the US to save their babies?

Sorry, Fail.

In fact, we're making Canada look good. If we were not here, to save those Canadian babies, that Canada can not help, they would simply die up there. So we're saving their kids, which makes their number look better.
 
Last edited:
Oh and about that poor mothers crap?
Poor infants fare worse despite Canada health care | Reuters


Really? You mean socialism doesn't result in the equality utopia it promises? AND woman have to come to the US to save their babies?

Sorry, Fail.

In fact, we're making Canada look good. If we were not here, to save those Canadian babies, that Canada can not help, they would simply die up there. So we're saving their kids, which makes their number look better.


So how does this compare to poor infants in the US? Is my question.
 
Which explains why women from Canada come to the US to get prenatal care.


Some Canadian mothers forced to give birth in U.S. | News | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News

Yeah, so where's your "access to prenatal care" now leftist?

Oh and about that poor mothers crap?
Poor infants fare worse despite Canada health care | Reuters


Really? You mean socialism doesn't result in the equality utopia it promises? AND woman have to come to the US to save their babies?

Sorry, Fail.

In fact, we're making Canada look good. If we were not here, to save those Canadian babies, that Canada can not help, they would simply die up there. So we're saving their kids, which makes their number look better.

This is pretty damned funny. :lol:

Health Beat: Sarah Palin Admits Going to Canada for Health Care-- Why?
 
So how does this compare to poor infants in the US? Is my question.

It compares like this:

Infant mortality rates, which refl ect the health of the mother and her access to prenatal and postnatal care, are considered one of the most reliable measures of the general health of a population. Today, U.S. government statistics rank Canada's infant mortality rate of 4.7 per thousand 23rd out of 225 countries, in the company of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Australia, and Denmark. The U.S. is 43rd--in the company of Croatia and Lithuania, below Taiwan and Cuba.

All the countries surrounding Canada or above it in the rankings have tax-supported health care systems. The countries surrounding the United States and below have mixed systems or are, in general, extremely poor in comparison to the United States and the other G8 industrial powerhouses.

There are no major industrialized countries near the United States in the rankings. The closest is Italy, at 5.83 infants dying per thousand, but it is still ranked five places higher.7

In the United States, infant mortality rates are 7.1 per 1,000, the highest in the industrialized world -- much higher than some of the poorer states in India, for example, which have public health systems in place, at least for mothers and infants. Among the inner-city poor in the United States, more than 8 percent of mothers receive no prenatal care at all before giving birth.
 
Hard to say. After Hoover, there were a few bad leaders, and then they had a massive clearing of the house, which included known spies. Who knows. After the crash in 1990, the Russian government couldn't really afford to carry out the types of covert ops they had before. That last spy ring, was arguably the most pathetic yet. There was more interest in that one girls facebook page, than what information they got, assuming that got anything.

Russia just doesn't have the wide spread left-tard support they had back in the day. Something about ruining your country until people were eating each other for lack of food, seems to sour people on your ideology.

If the Leftists lean of this they'll certainly support the SVR.

Michelle Van Cleave: Russian Spies Haven't Gone Away - WSJ.com
 
Which explains why "SOME" women from Canada come to the US to get prenatal care.
Fixed.

The question is.....does that change in any significant amount the infant mortality rates for either country?

I would venture......NOT.
 
Way to cherry pick the data. Is there a reason you didn't look at, say, infant mortality ... where the US ranks 34th -- one place behind Cuba?

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's amazing that Leftists still believe the propaganda Communist dictators put out there.

They have learned nothing. It's willful ignorance and they'll continue to defend it.

A Leftist will often believe a communist country is superior to their own, and readily explain why their own country should therefore be betrayed.
 
No inflated ego here, West just doesn't strike me as terribly knowledgeable. Being elected as a representative doesn't necessarily mean you're overly qualified or intelligent just take a quick glance at the folks who currently comprise congress.


In order to know where you are truly coming from I would need to know the answers to these questions...

1. Are you from West's district?

2. Did you vote for him in election?

3. in terms of congressional and senate candidates in the past what is your record? Demo's or Republicans?

j-mac
 
In regards to different countries using different standards to measure infant mortality, to make the point and dismiss it out of hand because it skews the rates, you need to go a step further and show the actual difference it makes in the statistical rates.

I found such a point in the article linked in post #712.

When Canada briefly registered an increased number of low weight babies previously omitted from statistical reporting, the infant mortality rose from 6.1 per 1,000 to 6.4 per thousand in just one year.

PJ Media » The Doctor Is In: Infant Mortality Comparisons a Statistical Miscarriage

It's just as I suspected, while it does make a statistical difference and could move a country's ranking a few places, in the overall scheme of things, not much difference.
 
In regards to different countries using different standards to measure infant mortality, to make the point and dismiss it out of hand because it skews the rates, you need to go a step further and show the actual difference it makes in the statistical rates.

I found such a point in the article linked in post #712.

It's just as I suspected, while it does make a statistical difference and could move a country's ranking a few places, in the overall scheme of things, not much difference.

That was one factor. How many others does Canada do differently?

Again, the point here is, all nations do not report things exactly the same.

You also seem to be ignoring the other factors as well.

We are unique in the world, as far as I am able to determine, in that we report every single birth without question. I would guess this is likely due to the fact that our private institutions have no political agenda requiring a change in the numbers.

Much the opposite of socialized system which routinely hide and misinform.
 
So how does this compare to poor infants in the US? Is my question.

I don't consider the question relevant. Again, we can achieve completely equality only removing all access to health care. China had equality in Health Care in China. There was none. They were paying tribal witch doctors. If you got sick, he's smash some berries on your face, moan some incantations and sent you home... hope you life.

But! It was equal! The richest guy got the same car as the poorest farm hand. Hurray for equality!

If that sounds dumb, it's because it is, as all leftism is.

Now, if you want to me still answer your question, I know it's better here, than there. Why? Because you people can't help your own, rich or poor. Thousands come to the US to get care, because their socialized hospitals can't help them.

When Canada can first take care of their own people, so they don't have to come to the US for care.... THEN we'll discuss the quality of the treatment.
 
Keeping a private health system, with private insurance, with the only real change is mandated private insurance purchase.....is socialism? Weird.

Apparently you purchased and downloaded the Lancet report, analyzed the report/data.....and came to a completely different result than the experts. Interesting....care to share your results?

As for the insurance, yes. You can have a privately owned hospital, and have privately owned insurance, and still have a socialized system. Some claim that the government must legally own something, in order for it to be "socialized". This is not true. You merely need to control it.

If I give you $10, and then tell you where you can't spend it, and where you must spend, do you really own the $10? Or am I owning it still, through controlling you?

Hitler said, he didn't need your cow or your factory, if he owned you. Hitler was right.

So, yes it's private insurance, dictated by the Federal government. Yes it's a private hospital, regulated in every aspect of it's operation.

As for the Lancet report, I've read it already. Nothing really new there. We're better off than nearly anywhere else in the world.

The only question was the difference between whites and blacks. It didn't come to a conclusion about that. A theory is not a conclusion.

The fact is, there are other factors that play a part in cancer than money.
 
Back
Top Bottom