Woman Dies Days After Giving Birth,Medics Assumed She Couldn’t Afford ambulance

Yes. That means there are 480% more (plus or minus) white people on welfare. Math is not your friend.

That doesn't say percentage of whites on welfare. 38.8% of whatever current number on welfare happens to be is less than 39.8% of that same current number.

Apparently reading comprehension is not your friend.
 
They most certainly do.

Bull.. It is what it is .. Own it.. We don't care about women's health or infants.. We just don't want anyone to have an abortion. Is that hypocrisy "conservative"? Is it "Christian"?

Ask an Aussie about their ambulances or even their air ambulances.

There you go again expecting people to believe what you say because you say it then getting your granny panties twisted up when they don't.
 
THEY call it thinning the herd. Can't afford to be sick? Die.

Are you saying no one will die of a sickness if they have coverage?

If they can't afford coverage, consider it an opportunity for you to prove you care for them as much as you claim by personally funding it on their behalf. Your failure to do so means you don't care if they die.
 
Guess she won't be having any more kids by three or four different dads.

There was a black baby mama that had 5 sons. She named them all Tyrone, Jr. When someone asked her how she remembered which one was which she said "by their last name".
 
Well, let's begin with a look at what we DO have, shall we?

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.
“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...-compared-to-10-other-countries/#486bbd6f576f

Major Findings
•Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
•Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
•Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
•Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.
•Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.
A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.
The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.
The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.
One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.
"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/us-health-care-spending-is-high-results-arenot-so-good.html

Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064#t=article

Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities

One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.
The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154484/

Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey
A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.
"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072

US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...-50th-out-of-55-countries-for-efficiency.html

The U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.
The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.
Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.
Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-the-us-healthcare-system-20140617-column.html
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-developed-world/

One wonders why so many people want to immigrate here doesn’t one?
 
Gee, you must be horribly upset with those white people for being so inferior like that.

Are you saying 38.8% of a number is more than 39.8% of that same number? For those of you with reading comprehension problems, it doesn't say 38.8% of whites are on welfare.
 
Universal healthcare would not have prevented this

They obviously did not follow protocols and should be disciplined.

But it looks like the social justice mob wants even more?

Guess you want blood to spill over this?

For anyone to make the claim that healthcare coverage would prevent death would have to argue from the standpoint that no one with it has ever died.
 
What? I don't follow your math. Care to explain what you're trying to say?

Sure thing. This is what Volsrock posted:

"Percent of welfare recipients who are white: 38.8%
Percent of welfare recipients who are black: 39.8%


Considering blacks are only 13% of the population the difference is huge "

Just round those numbers up or down to 39% each. Currently the non Hispanic white population in the U.S. is 62-63% of the population. If you include Hispanic whites in that it is around 75%. Really simple math show quite clearly that there is roughly 480% more non Hispanic whites on welfare than blacks. Of course in you include Hispanic whites in there, it is even higher.
 
Are you saying 38.8% of a number is more than 39.8% of that same number? For those of you with reading comprehension problems, it doesn't say 38.8% of whites are on welfare.

I am saying you and Volsrock probably even have a hard time counting to twenty if you take your socks off. No surprise there.
 
Sure thing. This is what Volsrock posted:

"Percent of welfare recipients who are white: 38.8%
Percent of welfare recipients who are black: 39.8%


Considering blacks are only 13% of the population the difference is huge "

Just round those numbers up or down to 39% each. Currently the non Hispanic white population in the U.S. is 62-63% of the population. If you include Hispanic whites in that it is around 75%. Really simple math show quite clearly that there is roughly 480% more non Hispanic whites on welfare than blacks. Of course in you include Hispanic whites in there, it is even higher.

I think you are reading it wrong. It's not 39% of whites on welfare, it's 39% of welfare recipients are white.

There are an equal number of whites and blacks on welfare.
The white population is about 5 times bigger than the black population.
 
I think you are reading it wrong. It's not 39% of whites on welfare, it's 39% of welfare recipients are white.

There are an equal number of whites and blacks on welfare.
The white population is about 5 times bigger than the black population.

Exactly. More white people collect welfare than blacks. Total numbers.
 
Exactly. More white people collect welfare than blacks. Total numbers.
WTF? You must be dyslexic or something. No, dude, the stats are right in your fucking post. we agreed to call them both 39% for ease of discussion. Do you understand how fucking percentages work? Of the number of people who receive welfare, 39% are white, 39% are black. Equal fucking numbers of recipients! Equal!

The white population is about 5 times bigger than the black population, but there are an equal number of whites and blacks getting welfare. It's right in the post you fucking wrote.

Go learn some simple math, dude
 
WTF? You must be dyslexic or something. No, dude, the stats are right in your fucking post. we agreed to call them both 39% for ease of discussion. Do you understand how fucking percentages work? Of the number of people who receive welfare, 39% are white, 39% are black. Equal fucking numbers of recipients! Equal!

The white population is about 5 times bigger than the black population, but there are an equal number of whites and blacks getting welfare. It's right in the post you fucking wrote.

Go learn some simple math, dude

Which means more whites than blacks in raw numbers. 39% of whites is greater than 39% of blacks. Which also mean more money goes to whites. Cheers.
 
WTF? You must be dyslexic or something. No, dude, the stats are right in your fucking post. we agreed to call them both 39% for ease of discussion. Do you understand how fucking percentages work? Of the number of people who receive welfare, 39% are white, 39% are black. Equal fucking numbers of recipients! Equal!

The white population is about 5 times bigger than the black population, but there are an equal number of whites and blacks getting welfare. It's right in the post you fucking wrote.

Go learn some simple math, dude

"Percent of welfare recipients who are white: 38.8%
Percent of welfare recipients who are black: 39.8%


Hey, I am basing this on what was written by Volsrock. Pretty clear what he wrote. If he did it incorrectly, not my problem. However though, anytime you would like to discuss any type of math feel free. Lets see how well dropping out of H.S. worked for you.
 
Let me see if this helps.

Out of 100% of welfare recipients, 38.8% are White, 39.8% are Black, and the other 21.4% are others. :good4u:

It doesn't say that 38.8% Percent OF WHITES or 39.8% OF BLACKS are on welfare.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top