Sheiky 0 Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 This clip is just too hilarious not to, and i'm surprised there hasn't been a thread on it already.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXpyQ6POqiwIf someone actually watched the show could they tell me that he actually said something after the clip ends which makes him sound less like a complete imbecile? It sounds almost too implausible that even someone as moronic as Bill OReilly could think this. Link to post Share on other sites
Jeepster80125 0 Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 This clip is just too hilarious not to, and i'm surprised there hasn't been a thread on it already.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXpyQ6POqiwIf someone actually watched the show could they tell me that he actually said something after the clip ends which makes him sound less like a complete imbecile? It sounds almost too implausible that even someone as moronic as Bill OReilly could think this.I don't know of any regular posters here who might have caught bill o'reilly's show. Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 We could have this tread run 1,000,000 pages correcting all the talking heads on every network Link to post Share on other sites
Dagata 0 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 USA has soldiers, soldiers fight, soldiers die, lowers life expectency.Canada has mountees the only injuries they see if when they fall off their pony and bruise their shin. Link to post Share on other sites
NickZepp 0 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 I think he means that more people the lower the life expectancy. Combine the countries of Canada, England, France, and Germany the major countries with universal healthcare right now and you still don't have USA's population. I really think the best way to try and get universal healthcare is to let the states decide because trying to get 300 million people on healthcare all at once will just destroy some states and companies and overload the doctors. Let each state decide of universal healthcare is best for them, but also have the national government put certain guidelines like allowing access to healthcare across state lines, and allowing it to transfer to jobs, have tort reform, those are things the national government needs to regulate for our healthcare. Trying to give everyone healthcare will just cost more in the end. That is what Massachusetts tried to do and they ended up in serious debt. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 I think he means that more people the lower the life expectancy. Combine the countries of Canada, England, France, and Germany the major countries with universal healthcare right now and you still don't have USA's population.this is the answer to a different question.. one that doesn't address the AVERAGE life expectancy, which isn't directly affected by the size of the country.the explanation you are looking for is roughly: for whatever reason, americans lead unhealthy lives compared to other advanced countries like germany or france. one explanation could be that our system isn't set up to make doctors care whether patients choose to be overweight or smoke or what have you. generally whenever this discussion comes up, I find it's best to offer a bet on which country will develop the cure for cancer. I'll then offer to let the other person have the field, then start laying odds. no takers to date. Link to post Share on other sites
Dagata 0 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 You are in New York City.There are 1 million people there.X amount of accidents happen per day.You are in New York City.There are 2 million people thereThere is going to be more than 2*X accidents per day because more people are occupying the same amount of space. That is the concept of larger populations having lower life expectancy. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 You are in New York City.There are 1 million people there.X amount of accidents happen per day.You are in New York City.There are 2 million people thereThere is going to be more than 2*X accidents per day because more people are occupying the same amount of space. That is the concept of larger populations having lower life expectancy.Only if the person is a mouth breather who doesn't understand the simplest of concepts. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Only if the person is a mouth breather who doesn't understand the simplest of concepts.I believe bill falls under this category Link to post Share on other sites
NickZepp 0 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 You can complain about the life expectancy being higher in Canada and that may be true but USAs life expectancy is still pretty high. Something like 78 years old or around there. For a country that doesn't really take care of itself like our population does that shows how good our doctors are. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 You can complain about the life expectancy being higher in Canada and that may be true but USAs life expectancy is still pretty high. Something like 78 years old or around there. For a country that doesn't really take care of itself like our population does that shows how good our doctors are.wow we indirectly agree on something.blaming US life expectancy just on health care is absurd. Americans eat poorly and exercise less than most countries. It is a testament to our system that we last as long as we do. Link to post Share on other sites
Naked_Cowboy 0 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 You can complain about the life expectancy being higher in Canada and that may be true but USAs life expectancy is still pretty high. Something like 78 years old or around there. For a country that doesn't really take care of itself like our population does that shows how good our doctors are.Canada also doesn't count premie babies who die as infant deaths, skewing the numbers up. Already been discussed in other places. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Canada also doesn't count premie babies who die as infant deaths, skewing the numbers up. Already been discussed in other places."sneak peak babies" is probably a more PC term. Link to post Share on other sites
Naked_Cowboy 0 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 "sneak peak babies" is probably a more PC term.If there were a strategy scorecard thread i'd give you +1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now