Re: Interesting!!!

SaPeIsMa

unread,

Dec 5, 2011, 8:27:14 PM12/5/11

to

1. A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting
statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health
Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after
diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment
within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six
months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent
health":
U..S. 12%
England 02%
Canada 06%

Check this last set of statistics!!
2.The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in
the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.

Here are the percentages.
T. Roosevelt................... 38%
Taft............................... 40%
Wilson.......................... 52%
Harding......................... 49%
Coolidge....................... 48%
Hoover ......................... 42%
F. Roosevelt...................50%
Truman......................... 50%
Johnson........................ 47%
Nixon............................ 53%
Ford............................. 42%
Carter........................... 32%
Reagan..........................86%
GH Bush....................... 51%
Clinton .......................... 39%
GW Bush...................... 55%

And the winner is:

Obama................... 08%

This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration:
only 8% of them have ever worked in a job not supported by tax money!

That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19
presidents!
And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their
business? They know what's best for GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, and you and
me?

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most
successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business
when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had
one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest
advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or
non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an
employment line.

Chom Noamsky

unread,

Dec 5, 2011, 8:44:14 PM12/5/11

to

On 12/5/2011 5:27 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
> 1. A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting
> statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health
> Organization.

A Google search suggests there is no such organization called the
'United Nations International Health Organization'. Just to be sure,
can you can provide a verifiable link to the original source of this survey?

David Johnston

unread,

Dec 5, 2011, 9:01:50 PM12/5/11

to

While SaPeIsMa has recently taken up being an asshole about semantics,
I'll ignore that and just say the organization he had in mind was the
World Health Organization.

Erik©

unread,

Dec 5, 2011, 9:16:28 PM12/5/11

to

Chom Noamsky wrote...

There's a discussion about this supposed article on Snopes.com
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=54884

Apparently this 'survey' has been floating around the net for a long time now.
http://paulswansen.com/?p=808

SaPeIsMa

unread,

Dec 5, 2011, 9:33:48 PM12/5/11

to

"David Johnston" <Da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:jbjt2c$41e$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 12/5/2011 6:44 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote:
>> On 12/5/2011 5:27 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>> 1. A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very
>>> interesting
>>> statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health
>>> Organization.
>>
>> A Google search suggests there is no such organization called the
>> 'United Nations International Health Organization'. Just to be sure, can
>> you can provide a verifiable link to the original source of this survey?
>
> While SaPeIsMa has recently taken up being an asshole about semantics,

Funny how "semantics" can change truth into lies and vice-versa
Apparently you like semantics when they cover your lies and half-truths,
and in your lexicon, people who show up your lies and half-truths are
"assholes"

Well, I'd rather be called an (honest) "asshole" by a liar, since being a
liar, the odds are good that said liar is lying about it..
:-)

> I'll ignore that and just say the organization he had in mind was the
> World Health Organization.

Oh dear
Semantics, semantics
Funny how you ignore it when convenient and are offended when not.

David Johnston

unread,

Dec 5, 2011, 10:52:12 PM12/5/11

to

On 12/5/2011 7:33 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> "David Johnston" <Da...@block.net> wrote in message
> news:jbjt2c$41e$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 12/5/2011 6:44 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote:
>>> On 12/5/2011 5:27 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>> 1. A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very
>>>> interesting
>>>> statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health
>>>> Organization.
>>>
>>> A Google search suggests there is no such organization called the
>>> 'United Nations International Health Organization'. Just to be sure, can
>>> you can provide a verifiable link to the original source of this survey?
>>
>> While SaPeIsMa has recently taken up being an asshole about semantics,
>
> Funny how "semantics" can change truth into lies and vice-versa

Yes it is. For example you knew perfectly well that I wasn't saying
that Obama was personally shooting people, but you pretended not to
understand that.

>
> Well, I'd rather be called an (honest) "asshole" by a liar, since being
> a liar, the odds are good that said liar is lying about it..
> :-)
>
>
>> I'll ignore that and just say the organization he had in mind was the
>> World Health Organization.
>
> Oh dear
> Semantics, semantics
> Funny how you ignore it when convenient and are offended when not.

Actually I was doing what you should have done, refraining from
quibbling about phrasing and looking at what you meant. Although since
you've never seen the article you mentioned and it probably doesn't
exist, maybe I shouldn't have bothered.
>

yp

unread,

Dec 5, 2011, 11:39:29 PM12/5/11

to

On Dec 5, 9:16 pm, Erik <e...@null.ca> wrote:
> Chom Noamsky wrote...
>
> > On 12/5/2011 5:27 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
> > > 1. A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting
> > > statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health
> > > Organization.
>
> > A Google search suggests there is no such organization called the
> > 'United Nations International Health Organization'. Just to be sure,
> > can you can provide a verifiable link to the original source of this survey?
>

> There's a discussion about this supposed article on Snopes.comhttp://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=54884

>
> Apparently this 'survey' has been floating around the net for a long time now.http://paulswansen.com/?p=808

I think that these "statistics" are total bullshit. For example, the
statement related to diabetics is idiotic.

"Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment
within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%"

In all these countries, if a patient is diagnosed with diabetes, he
receives treatment, namely a prescription of drugs or insulin,
immediately, not within six months. I was diagnosed with a mild form
of diabetes 2 and my doctor gave me a prescription for it on the spot.

Chom Noamsky

unread,

Dec 6, 2011, 12:15:55 AM12/6/11

to

That's fine, then he can provide a link to the WHO survey that supports
the claims made. My own research shows that health outcomes are
generally about the same between Canada and the US, with some areas
doing slightly better and some slightly worse. However, all the
comparative statistics I've come across include only those who have
health insurance, and considering so many Americans are uninsured, any
US statistics are obviously biased.

Barry Bruyea

unread,

Dec 6, 2011, 9:22:33 AM12/6/11

to

I was diagnosed with Type 2 and got my prescription the same day and a
schedule for follow up at a Diabetes clinic the following week.

M.I. Wakefield

unread,

Dec 6, 2011, 9:46:13 AM12/6/11

to

"Barry Bruyea" wrote in message
news:u69sd7dc3rqrjlq3h...@4ax.com...

Given the level of activity over my diagnosis, I find it hard to imagine
anyone going 48 hours without treatment.

Neil

unread,

Dec 6, 2011, 10:04:41 AM12/6/11

to

You call that 'treatment' you're pushed along with a prescription for
mild diabetes 2.
I was diagonised with diabetes 2 many years ago ..... I was taught
proper diet and exercise and twice a year I have lab work done to check
sugar, triglicerides, cholesterol.
then spend time with the diabetic nurse ( no she's not diabetic) to go
over my condition.
When I begin to slip up on diet or exercise it is noted and I Get back
to sugar control.
But then you and I are two different cases and what is apt for you does
not apply to my case

Erik©

unread,

Dec 6, 2011, 10:09:14 AM12/6/11

to

Neil wrote...

Is that what she calls it?

yp

unread,

Dec 6, 2011, 10:28:47 AM12/6/11

to

No, I had most of those things also. But what I want to say is that
the doctor didn't wait and prescribed for me a low dosage Actos pills
right away. He also prescribed the glucose measuring strips and I got
the glucose monitor from the pharmacy free of charge to monitor my
sugar level on a regular basis. The doctor also prescribed for me
regular blood tests that were reported to him so that he could adjust
the dosage. He also arranged for me to have an appointment with a
specialised dietician. All that was done quickly and efficiently here
in my province of Quebec and I presume that it's not worse in the
other provinces. The only problems may be in the the North,
particularly in the aboriginal settlements, but that is another story.