• 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

Fixed.

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

I would venture......NOT.

Let's pretend you are Canada, and I'm the US.

If you have to send your babies to me, and I save them from dying....

I really couldn't care less what your infant mortality rates are.

Sorry, but first, fix your system to the point you don't have to ship people to other countries, because I can clean up our infant mortality rates real fast. We'll just send all our high-risk pregnancies to Canada, and let them die. Then we can prance around like leftist idiots and celebrate our great infant mortality rates! Yay us!

You really don't get how moronic that is? You can't take care of the people you have, (even though you have a fraction of the population of the US), and yet you want us to praise your peachy statistics..... while you can't help your people... but you have a good number..... minus those sent out of the country.... but they don't matter, only the good numbers matter.
 
Which changes what exactly? Yes, that's pretty funny, posting something that doesn't disprove a single point I've made, but makes you look dumb for thinking you accomplished something. I am amused :lol:

Which proves that even a case-hardened wingnut like Palin had to admit that the traffic goes both ways. Some Canadians come to the U.S. for medical care for one reason or another, and some Americans go to Canada for health care for one reason or another. The bottom line is that Canadian health care is quite good, everyone is covered, and they pay far less per capita than we do.
 
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.

Cons point out that not everyone measures infant mortality the same way so we should just discard the whole infant mortality rates. To make their point legitimate, they (the researchers who do this sort of thing, not us, as we don't have access to all the information) should show how much it affects the statistics.

How many are born underweight or under a certain length each year? Is it enough to alter the rate by a few tenths or several full percentage points? To summarily dismiss the entire report because of the different methods used without further justification isn't quite enough.
 
Which proves that even a case-hardened wingnut like Palin had to admit that the traffic goes both ways. Some Canadians come to the U.S. for medical care for one reason or another, and some Americans go to Canada for health care for one reason or another. The bottom line is that Canadian health care is quite good, everyone is covered, and they pay far less per capita than we do.

Medical tourism is booming and not just to Mexico and Canada, but around the world, India, Singapore, Thailand, etc.
 
Which proves that even a case-hardened wingnut like Palin had to admit that the traffic goes both ways. Some Canadians come to the U.S. for medical care for one reason or another, and some Americans go to Canada for health care for one reason or another. The bottom line is that Canadian health care is quite good, everyone is covered, and they pay far less per capita than we do.

Which would make a great point if all reasons were equal, and if anyone ever denied that people leave the US to get care.

But neither are true.

People leave the US for care all the time... to save money. I don't have a problem with that. If you wish to take a chance on going to India to get a service for $5,000 less, that's just fine. It's part of the capitalist system if you think about it. That's free-market working. People leaving the US for care, for that reason, is no more important than me driving past 3 gas stations, to get to the one for 10¢ less a gallon.

That's not a big deal.

What is a big deal, is when you MUST leave your country, and MUST get care somewhere else, because your country can't help you. That's a system failure. When the system literally can't help you, to the point you have no other option but to leave, that's a bad system.

My son will die if he comes home from US - Local & National, News - Belfasttelegraph.co.uk
This lady from the UK, had a child who was born with a rare illness. The doctors in the UK told her to go home and enjoy the short time she would have with him.

She determined to come to a capitalist pay-for-service system, which ironically has a profit motive to provide more services...... and her child is still alive and recovering.
I have not found an update to whether or not they have returned yet.

But the point is this: I don't know or really care what Palin's reason was for going to a Canadian hospital, but I'm going to take a wild stab that it wasn't because she had been to every hospital in Alaska, and they told her to go home and die, like they do in the UK. It likely wasn't because they searched the entire state and couldn't find an open bed, like they do in Canadian provinces.

If you do, then cite your evidence, because I can sure site mine.

As for your hyperbole: Good care is a relative term. By any valid measurement US care is better. That doesn't mean Canadian care is bad. But ours is still better. Everyone being covered, is still a meaningless statement, if not everyone can get treatment. And we know not everyone can get treatment, because they have to come here to the US to save their lives. So saying they cover everyone, and people still die, is a bit pointless.

Again, I don't care how much we spend on care. I will choose expensive care that heals people, over cheap care that kills, any day. And Canadians that are forced into those situations, agree. That's why they come here to PAY for care, when they supposedly get it free. Apparently cost because a secondary factor when you are dying. Shocking I know.
 
Cons point out that not everyone measures infant mortality the same way so we should just discard the whole infant mortality rates. To make their point legitimate, they (the researchers who do this sort of thing, not us, as we don't have access to all the information) should show how much it affects the statistics.

How many are born underweight or under a certain length each year? Is it enough to alter the rate by a few tenths or several full percentage points? To summarily dismiss the entire report because of the different methods used without further justification isn't quite enough.

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but *seem* to be implying that the same statisticians are looking at all the data from every country. That's generally not true.

Each country compiles their own numbers, using their own systems, with their own guide lines. Most are not trying to make their statistics comparable to other countries. Most are simply trying to make their government look as good as possible, and often are willing to slightly bend those numbers to achieve that goal. You should read up on Thomas Sowell's story of working for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Or what Carter did to the US Geological survey.

In any case, once the statistics are released, organizations like the WHO, will compile those numbers, but they often do so on face value. Usually this is because they can't do anything else. The data from government controlled hospitals, to government reporting agencies, to the official statistics is questionable. But the government is obviously not going to make public raw data that could be used to contradict their own statements. So often the raw data is not published, or how that got that raw data, nor how they interpreted it to the official numbers.

So when you look at those numbers, you really don't know what went into them. If you think the statisticians are making adjustments between countries to account for differences, that's just not true. The WHO and others that compile such numbers, don't have the data to make such adjustments. The people at the government agencies, would never adjust their numbers higher for fear of being removed.

And some of the differences are quite interesting. Many have a limit on weight. If the baby is less than X weight, they are not considered alive. They are either abandoned completely, or helped, but if they die, it doesn't count. Other have a limit on time. If the baby is X weeks early, it's not alive. I have even read that some have a length limit. It must be such and such a length, or it is not counted. Some have special exceptions. Mother on crack, drunk or something, and the baby dies, that's not counted.

Then there are some systems where the incentives are such, that doctors simply don't report it. If they report a baby died, they could get into trouble. So instead, they just don't report it. This is the case in Cuba and a few other countries.

Another common problem is the sill-born loophole. Many countries, if the child dies within 24 hours of birth, they call it a still born. The reason of course is that a still born is not considered a live birth, and thus isn't reported on the infant mortality. Many suspect that Japan and a few others do this.

By the way, this is why survival rates are such good measurements. You either have cancer or you don't. You don't "sort of" have cancer. It's either yes or no. There's not much wiggle room there. Then you are either alive or dead in 5 years. Five years after you got the cancer, you are either in the ground, or alive and kicking. That's all there is too it. And of course, we rock on survival rates, and lead the world.

The Bottom line is, it seems like you need more justification to accept those infant mortality rates, than I do to dismiss them.

And we haven't even talked about the causes yet. Infant mortality isn't simply about an infant in a hospital. If your a crack whore, and pop out a kid, and take him home where your pimp ends up killing it, that's infant mortality, and has nothing at all to do with the health care system.

Nor do most of the other causes of infant death. For example obese mothers tend to have more risky pregnancies. Of course, being on drugs, or drinking alcohol, even smoking can cause you have a high risk birth. All of these are things the hospital couldn't possibly prevent.
 
If American liberals are communists, and Obamacare is socialist, then most of the countries near the top of that list are also communist/socialist by the same logic. It's also cherry-picked data.

I haven't seen anyone claim that Liberals ARE communists but there is not doubt that liberals often supported communism, and still do, despite its history.

Liberals are not only naive fools, the not very useful idiots, they are dangerous fools.
 
I haven't seen anyone claim that Liberals ARE communists but there is not doubt that liberals often supported communism, and still do, despite its history.

Liberals are not only naive fools, the not very useful idiots, they are dangerous fools.

I really don't know whether you're serious sometimes, or just being a POE.

But your partisan hackery gives you no standing to talk about who's a fool and who isn't.
 
I really don't know whether you're serious sometimes, or just being a POE.

But your partisan hackery gives you no standing to talk about who's a fool and who isn't.

Leftists cannot deal with facts. Their arguments have to be, must be, ad hominem.
 
Leftists cannot deal with facts. Their arguments have to be, must be, ad hominem.

This coming from a guy who has stated, plainly and clearly that if you're a liberal that you're destroying the country.

I find that insulting not because I'm a liberal or a "leftist" but because it's people like you that turn political discource into rampant stupidity.

No longer can we just disagree on the best approach to solving a problem, because if you don't agree with that policy or that solution it's "going to destroy the country".

Your partisanship knows no bounds.
 
This coming from a guy who has stated, plainly and clearly that if you're a liberal that you're destroying the country.

I find that insulting not because I'm a liberal or a "leftist" but because it's people like you that turn political discource into rampant stupidity.

No longer can we just disagree on the best approach to solving a problem, because if you don't agree with that policy or that solution it's "going to destroy the country".

Your partisanship knows no bounds.

More ad hominem.

This is inevitably what happens when your position is untenable.
 
This coming from a guy who has stated, plainly and clearly that if you're a liberal that you're destroying the country.

I find that insulting not because I'm a liberal or a "leftist" but because it's people like you that turn political discource into rampant stupidity.

No longer can we just disagree on the best approach to solving a problem, because if you don't agree with that policy or that solution it's "going to destroy the country".

Your partisanship knows no bounds.

It depends on if you are really a liberal or one who has been hijacked by the Stateists. Real liberals are fine, they believe in live and let live without many rules or restrictions, to be able to do as they see fit, but many in the Democratic party are not liberals, just as many Republicans are not conservatives. They want big government, with rules and regulations to strangle the freedom and liberty this country was built on.
 
This coming from a guy who has stated, plainly and clearly that if you're a liberal that you're destroying the country.

I find that insulting not because I'm a liberal or a "leftist" but because it's people like you that turn political discource into rampant stupidity.

No longer can we just disagree on the best approach to solving a problem, because if you don't agree with that policy or that solution it's "going to destroy the country".

Your partisanship knows no bounds.

Liberals are destroying the country. WTF do you think parasites and moochers and leeches do to the host ?

"Free stuff" ain't FREE !!!
 
Liberals are destroying the country. WTF do you think parasites and moochers and leeches do to the host ?

"Free stuff" ain't FREE !!!

The government is under control by mind control waves from sputnik...

this is why the senate is communist...

this guy needs launched out of a cannon and into a federal building face.
 
It depends on if you are really a liberal or one who has been hijacked by the Stateists. Real liberals are fine, they believe in live and let live without many rules or restrictions, to be able to do as they see fit, but many in the Democratic party are not liberals, just as many Republicans are not conservatives. They want big government, with rules and regulations to strangle the freedom and liberty this country was built on.

It seems genuine Liberals, those of the old school who truly believed in human rights and freedoms coupled with a free economy, were highjacked by the left over the years until and we now we find ourselves in the present situation of very strong distinctions between the two parties. The Left has repeatedly been discredited for their politics and fiscal policies, their racial and class warfare, and this has led to the genuine Liberals, the smarter ones, having to move to the Conservatives.

As we see repeatedly, when Liberals are confronted with their own history, their economic failures, their choosing the wrong sides in international disputes, they resort to their usual personal attacks. And that is understandable. Where else can they go?

This is just another recent finding, one which is always readily apparent, that perhaps deserves a thread of its own.
What the Public Knows about the Political Parties | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
 
Last edited:
The government is under control by mind control waves from sputnik...

this is why the senate is communist...

this guy needs launched out of a cannon and into a federal building face.

See what I mean? This is what passes for left wing humor.
 
See what I mean? This is what passes for left wing humor.

I love how when you insult liberals it's ok but when they do it back you cry foul. Typical conservative and why noone of value takes you seriously.

A ranting Con on a internet message board foaming at the mouth. Laughable and pathetic.
 
I love how when you insult liberals it's ok but when they do it back you cry foul. Typical conservative and why noone of value takes you seriously.

A ranting Con on a internet message board foaming at the mouth. Laughable and pathetic.

Where did i ever cry foul, Leftist?

This is just another leftist ad hominem attack, demonstrating yet again that this is the only way you can attempt to compete on a debate board. Survey says - leftists are not very intelligent people- a fact know to debate board participants everywhere.
 
Where did i ever cry foul, Leftist?

This is just another leftist ad hominem attack, demonstrating yet again that this is the only way you can attempt to compete on a debate board. Survey says - leftists are not very intelligent people- a fact know to debate board participants everywhere.

You're doing it right now LOL. Crying Ad Hominem when you are doing the same to liberals. Typical Con.

Oh yeah, a survey, omg well that must make it factual :lamo

Nice try Con, go sell your **** to someone who will buy it.
 
You're doing it right now LOL. Crying Ad Hominem when you are doing the same to liberals. Typical Con.

Oh yeah, a survey, omg well that must make it factual :lamo

Nice try Con, go sell your **** to someone who will buy it.

Clearly you do not understand the difference between attacking an ideology, or a group connected by it, and an "ad hominem".

Grant accurately described what you and a couple others have done in attacking the poster, and not the post.
 
What humor? This guy calls half the US government Communist.

This is an excellent example of why, year after year and poll after poll, Leftists fail to do well on their general political knowledge tests. Allen West did did not call "half the US government Communist". Half of the US government would involve far more than 80 people. But you didn't know that, did you?

Real governments have people like this ejected.

You mean real communist governments?
 
Clearly you do not understand the difference between attacking an ideology, or a group connected by it, and an "ad hominem".

Grant accurately described what you and a couple others have done in attacking the poster, and not the post.

Clearly you do not understand that when Grant insults entire groups and when they respond, Grant whines and cries behind "Ad-Hominem" is a weak ass response.

Hey but go right ahead and cram your head further up his rectum, you trying for the title "Lord of the Brown Ring"?
 
Clearly you do not understand that when Grant insults entire groups and when they respond, Grant whines and cries behind "Ad-Hominem" is a weak ass response.

Hey but go right ahead and cram your head further up his rectum, you trying for the title "Lord of the Brown Ring"?

You don't understand the term "ad hominem", despite the definition being readily available on the internet, and yet you want to debate the term.

Perhaps you can have someone explain to you why Leftists are always, always, the most dull-witted members of any society.
 
This is an excellent example of why, year after year and poll after poll, Leftists fail to do well on their general political knowledge tests. Allen West did did not call "half the US government Communist". Half of the US government would involve far more than 80 people. But you didn't know that, did you?



You mean real communist governments?

I meant functional governments...

does the US have a functional government?



Case closed.
 
Back
Top Bottom