So according to your theory Sakyamuni had no soul left at the end. Basically it's better taking the blue pill, right? DC.
ive heard that red pills lead to testicluar atrophy. but on a more serious note, do you know someone called uki?
Did anyone read Malcolm Gladwell's blog entry about this? It is really interesting. Check it out. The text is pasted below (I didn't read through the thread, so hopefully no one else has mentioned this yet) ---------------------------------------------------------- U.S. versus U.K. Last week, in his New York Times column , Paul Krugman wrote about a study from the Journal of the American Medical Association , and the study is fascinating enough that it’s worth a second look. It was conducted by a group of epidemiologists at University College London (my parent’s alma mater!). The point was to compare the health of the United States and the United Kingdom. It’s an interesting question for a number of reasons, but principally because the United States spends $5274 per person, per year, on health care and the United Kingdom spends $2164, or substantially less than half as much. The question is—what do we get, in terms of health, that for extra $3100 a year? Comparisons between countries are pretty tricky. So the study takes a number of precautions. Obviously the United States has a much larger percentage of immigrants, particularly Latino, and a large and (relatively poor) black population. So the comparison is limited to non-Hispanic whites in both countries. Health also differs, dramatically, by socio-economic status, so that everyone in the study was broken up into one of three groups by income and education. It was also limited to men and women between the ages of 55-64, and the age distribution of the two countries was identical. So what do they find? The first conclusion is that Americans are really, really sick compared to the British. In every socio-economic group, for instance, the prevalence of diabetes is roughly double in the United States than it is in the United Kingdom. Rates of hypertension, heart disease, heart attacks, stroke, lung disease and cancer are also all higher in the United States. And not just a little big higher. Much higher. So, for example, 2.3 percent of the English have had a stroke, versus 3.8 percent of the Americans. Is that because Americans have unhealthier lifestyles? Not really. Levels of smoking, in the two countries, are pretty similar. Americans are much more likely to be obese (31.3 versus 23 percent). But then 30 percent of the British were heavy drinkers, versus 14.4 percent of Americans. (One of the curious facts in the study: in both the United States and the United Kingdom, the more money you make and the more education you have, the more you drink. There are roughly twice as many heavy drinkers in the best educated English cohort as there are in the least educated English cohort. So much for class assumptions about alcohol.) The study’s author did a statistical exercise, where they assumed that the British group had exactly the same lifestyle risk factors as their American counterparts. The result? Nothing much changes. Americans were still far sicker than the British. Krugman argues that this is evidence of how much more stressful living in America is than living in England. I think that's absolutely right. I would simply add that it is one more nail in the coffin of the notion that good health is something that can be purchased through fancy, high-tech drugs and doctors and hospitals,.I know the idea that health care is just another consumer good is pretty popular at the moment. But its very hard to read the JAMA study, see what our $5274 actually buys us--and still believe in that notion. Our health is in reality a function of the broader society in which we live--the pressures and conditions and environments in which we find ourselves. The next time we have a debate about, say, how much to tax the rich, or how to structure old age pensions, it would be nice if someone in Washington had the courage to make this point.
canadian health care is not *rationed* if you do not have a life threatening problem you have to get in line to recieve certain types of care and money does not buy you to the front of the line like it does in the states.
I think there is a serious flaw in that study because of the assumptions that they make. The assumptions you make in every study is going to lead you to where it ends up. The issue is the age group of the people studied. By focusing on those 55-64, you have people that were growing up in the 50's and 60's. A major difference between the two countries in that time frame is the amount of fast food that was available. McDonalds was popular in the US in the mid 50's but didn't invade Europe until 1971. 16 years of bad eating is a big difference in most people's lives. More importantly, the test group was in their teens in the US when fast food was popularized but adults when it became popular in England. By then, eating habits are already set. By using the age group that they chose, the study highlights the group where obesity really becomes the problem in the US. If they had chose the 25-35 age group, I postulate that they would see less of a difference.
Good points. I don't know how you compare the healthcare systems of two countries without making ridiculous assumptions.
I don't either. You can evaluate who spends more pretty easily, as well as some other factors like obesity, diabetes, quality of hospitals. However, the complicated things like the reasons behind obesity, why some are sicker than others, etc is far more complicated and difficult. It is far easier to say what is wrong with the study than to design one that gives the real answers.
If you have to get in line and the line is as much as 6 months to have a procedure, that is effectively rationing. You have limited the ability to provide the service, ie rationing. In the states, anyone, not just those with money, can have the services provided in a very quick timeframe. The reason is that we have built up a greater ability to provide the service, ie no rationing. The choice to limit the ability to provide service so that the service provider is at 100% utilization is very effective at reducing the cost at the expense of the possibility of people not being able to use some of the services. The choice to increase the ability to provide service such that there is always minimal waiting, means that the service provider is often at less than 100% utilization so that it is easier to fit people in at the expense of higher cost. Both choices have benefits and drawbacks and I wouldn't say that either is wrong. However, those that suffer under the drawback of either is more likely to be upset at that drawback. My experience with Canadian health care does not come from being a patient but rather my reading and discussions with employees at the 14 Canadian hospitals that I have visited in the last 5 months to install our technology for them. I can certainly be wrong because I don't have firsthand knowledge of what a Canadian patient goes through. If you have some factor that I haven't considered, please let me know. We can use any good ideas to improve our health care.
Americans may be sick, but we Brits are phat and wicked. I've heard tell that the Australians are street and fly, but I have no evidence on this matter. I'm down with the street lingo, cats.
"Way of the exploding fist" I'll have you know! The purist's karate game! (or the budget version of IK+... depends who you ask... ) But yes, even after >15 years, it's still the most accurate representation of the average karate match.