Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Investor's Business Daily on Healthcare and Businessmen in Presidential Cabinets

From the ol' Email Bag!

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

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 2%
Canada 6%

I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to England and Canada .

Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the
inconveniences of old age."

SHIP HIS BUTT TO CANADA OR ENGLAND !

He is "elderly" himself but be sure to remember his health insurance is different from yours as
Congress has their own high-end coverage! He will never have to learn to accept "inconveniences!"

AND THE WINNER IS VERY INTERESTING!
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior
to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is? A real life business,
not a government job. Here are the percentages.

T. Roosevelt.........38%
Taft......................40%
Wilson ................52%
Harding................49%
Coolidge..............48%
Hoover.................42%
F. Roosevelt.........50%
Truman................50%
Eisenhower..........57%
Kennedy...............30%
Johnson...............47%
Nixon...................53%
Ford.....................42%
Carter...................32%
Reagan.................56%
GH Bush...............51%
Clinton.................39%
GW Bush..............55%
And the winner of the Chicken Dinner is: Obama....8%!

Is this because he wants to be the smartest one in the room?

Yep! 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?
GOD HELP US!!




"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

12 comments:

Christian Apologist said...

I am simply playing devils advocate here but statistics are terrible things.

ways the stats can be skewed. with universal health care more people would be diagnosed than before due to access to physicians. More ovarall use of doctors and equipement means the resources have to be spread around more leading to longer waiting times.

The final results on Obama's cabinet makeup are not in yet since he is still president and still has 2-6 years worth of cabinet appointments to go.

Barb said...

I don't think stats are always skewed and thus terrible --like the PP stat that showed the effect of the Great Society and the sexual revolution and value-neutral sex ed on teen pregnancy rates for blacks and whites. Like the stats that show that we still have a very serious HIV epidemic primarily among gay men --and 2ndarily among black women who sleep with MSWM.

I just read of a new study that said abstinence education has been more effective than value-neutral, "show-em-how-to-do-it" sex ed. after all --despite, yes, skewed reports to the contrary.

Perhaps the stats are right in this case --and more people are healthier longer and get preventative care here than elsewhere? Is there some value in delayed and rationed care for all? instead of the few who don't want to see the doctor and chose not to have health insurance? In the U.S. I really don't know people who can't get any care --expensive care for the poor and elderly also. regardless of their coverage. In fact, a huge percentage of the population is already on gov't care and getting everything needed for a lot of self-imposed diseases and conditions --with deficit spending. Expensive care will simply be delayed in a Canadian or British system --until you're over the hill and it's too late!

Longer waiting time is partly because doctors may not choose to work 120 hours a week under gov't supervision. We know we have a shortage of primary care docs now.

Obviously, Obama is not choosing business heads YET for his cabinet --at 8 per cent in his 2nd year. Perhaps he will hear the criticism and try to find people who ARE experts in business before he's done. Let's hope. So far, he's been good at elevating people who didn't pay their taxes.

Jeanette said...

What's MSWM?

Barb said...

Perhaps it's just MSM --I thought it was 4 letters but didn't find that way in google --it is a term used in media and medicine for "men who have sex with men" used to describe men who claim not to be homosexual in preference, but who have recreational sex with men. This is a crisis in the black community now --just google "men on the down low."
Even Oprah featured an author of that title.

steve said...

My boss already sent me those bogus GOP propaganda stats like a year and a half ago. You are way behind in your propaganda chain mail. You need to get with my parents because they get the freshest propaganda.

Why did God give us this insatiable sexual appetite during our youth, but then not have our brains fully developed enough to exercise judgement over these drives urges and hormones?

Seems like God is always setting us up for a failure. I mean he put 2 trees in th garden. The one with the low hanging apple, and then the other tree that he placed a guard around. Maybe he could have made the branches of the tree a little higher or something. Why even put the stupid tree there in the first place. It's like telling your kid - "Don't play with matches.. YOU'LL GET BURNED!", and then putting a lighter in his or her crib. The illogic gives me a headache.

Barb said...

Steve --waving your puny fist heavenward does no good.

Yes, sex is a hard drive for people to handle--especially youth -but it's very possible to find someone taught as you, marry her, and live sexually ever after!

It does help if parents and other adults help people resist temptation with proper chaperonage and teaching and examples-- if all the women were virtuous, men would have a lot of help in being virtuous themselves.

If all the tv shows for youth had the counsel of "7th Heaven" I heard the other day --in which the father reminded his fornicating college son that he has a "relationship with Christ" to consider and needed to ask God's forgiveness. He was sleeping with a girl and not necessarily sure he wanted to marry her either.

Perhaps there is a sense in which life is a game or a contest or a race to run --as St. Paul suggested. With "clouds of witnesses" cheering us to the finish line.

What makes you think the stats are bogus? proof?

steve said...

It's necessarily that the stats are bogus, it's that they are pointless. The corallary of the statistics is implying that only business people are qualified to run for public office. I don't know about you, but my constitution makes no such limitation on qualifications for president. I DO know that Pres Obama graduated with honors in the top 4% of his class at the difficult harvard law school, was the first minority president of the mostly conservative harvard law review, was a professor of constitutional law at Columbia Univ. That would make him uniquely qualified to be president because the government is mainly involved in the legislation, execution, and enforcement of laws. President Obama never said he was some kind of business savy person, that's why he has a cabinet. The propaganda email is a red herring showing a one sided point of view. GWB was the first MBA president with a lot of business experience, but we see where he left the economy.

Thomas, who was with Jesus and witnessed the events of Jesus's life was skeptical. Obviously Jesus wasn't offended by Thomas's skepticism.

Barb said...

that's why he has a cabinet.

Right --and that's why more than 8 per cent of the top people directing the spending of the national income ought to know something about how to stimulate the economy instead of how to spend us into oblivion.

Cash for clunkers was a terrible waste --in that they destroyed decent cars when the poor need cars to even seek jobs and to involve their kids at school.

Bailing out companies with our money while letting their failed heads keep exorbitant pay and perks was shameful. (But they want those companies to support their campaigns.)

All they know how to do is build that sense of entitlement and gov't dependency--it gets them votes!! It's why they want amnesty for illegals. Meanwhile, Obama promotes late term abortions like nobody before him --and threatens to weaken our national security by erroneously thinking our opponents in world philosophy are honorable people we can trust. When do we learn from history??? that we who are well-intentioned, liberty and peace lovers, need to be the strongest people on the planet.

Jeanette said...

Why did God put the tree there in the first place, Steve asks.

He gave us all free choice, including Adam and Eve.

Here's a bad analogy but here goes: Suppose I have my dog chained up and he or she can't get away any further than the chain will allow.

I tell everyone my dog loves me and I know so because he or she never runs away from home.

Now, what if I let the dog run free with no chain and no fence? I call the dog and he or she comes right back to me, wagging its tail, obviously delighted to see me.

Or it doesn't even run off but stays right there on the front or back steps watching every move I make, coming up to have me toss a ball or another toy to it.

I can then say honestly my dog loves me because he/she doesn't run away and stays by my side. That would be the dog's choice and not one forced upon him or her by me.

This is what God did in Eden. He didn't put chains on Adam and Eve so He could claim they loved and obeyed Him; He instead let them have the choice of running free to determine if they really loved Him and wanted His fellowship.

Turns out they didn't. That's why the fruit tree was put there. Even Jesus, God in the flesh, was tempted by Satan. He resisted but man, beginning with Adam and Eve did not.

I'm convinced God would have let them have access to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil later on after they had "proved" themselves, but they didn't prove themselves.

Don't blame God for that. Blame Satan for tempting them and them for giving in to that temptation.

Jeanette said...

Steve: "I DO know that Pres Obama graduated with honors in the top 4% of his class at the difficult harvard law school, was the first minority president of the mostly conservative harvard law review"

And how exactly do you "know" all this? Have you ever seen any of his Harvard Law Review articles? How about his transcripts from Harvard or even an acknowledgment from them that he went there?

How do you "know" he was in the top 4% of his class? I'd like to see the information you have that is irrefutable proof of all this since he has made sure all his school records from Occidental to Harvard have been suppressed from the American people.

As far as I know he just dropped out of space somewhere. No record of him from about age 6 in Indonesia to Occidental College, and all the time from the time he was in Indonesia has been suppressed.

Don't you find that a bit odd? If he were a Republican the press would have already dug up everything and anything on him, but not the "anointed one".

Please give us your sources so we can all "know for sure" all these things.

steve said...

Obama graduate Columbia University? Well the Columbia College newspaper thinks so:
http://www.college.columbia.edu/news/barack-obama-83-becomes-first-college-alumnus-to-win-presidency
Essay Obama wrote for the Columbia's newspaper:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamaessay.html
http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/jan_feb09/alumni_corner

Obama's senior advisor and teacher who actually graded his Columbia Sr. thesis:
“My recollection is that the paper was an analysis of the evolution of the arms reduction negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States,” Baron said in an e-mail. “At that time, a hot topic in foreign policy circles was finding a way in which each country could safely reduce the large arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at the other … For U.S. policy makers in both political parties, the aim was not disarmament, but achieving deep reductions in the Soviet nuclear arsenal and keeping a substantial and permanent American advantage. As I remember it, the paper was about those negotiations, their tactics and chances for success. Barack got an A.”

Professor of law at Chicago University:
http://catalogs.uchicago.edu/law-folder/law-fac.html

He is still listed as a professor of law at Chicago University. He is the 35th down under professor.

A statement by the University of Chicago School of Law:

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Before I jump into Harvard sources.. I really don't even have to provide any sources about his time at Harvard because I can use inductive reasoning and come to that conclusion.

Point 1: The glaring fact is that, as we see above, he did in fact teach constitutional law at Chicago University from 1992 to 2004. He is listed on their official web page as a professor of law - that is the undeniable fact. Point 2: In order to teach law at a graduate level, we have to conclude that Obama got a Doctorate somewhere. I don't think Chicago University would accept a diploma from a cracker jacks box. So we have to assume that he went to some graduate school and graduated from that school with a Phd. Because he did in fact teach at Chicago University and therefore must be in possession of a PHd, where does the preponderance of the evidence take us? Just where did Obama get his Phd? which I must remind you again, would be required in order to teach law at a university. Well Obama says he went to Harvard. But we shouldn't take his word for it. But what we can do is pretty much rule out every other graduate school in the country, because Colleges, being the money grubbing devils they are, would be falling all over themselves trying to claim the President as an alumni. Since no other college in the land is claiming Obama, we can rule out every other college besides Harvard - That is our Point 3.. No other graduate schools are claiming Obama, but he must have gotten a Phd from somewhere!

I wrote this a couple of days ago.. don't feel like finishing.

ranjan said...

Business intelligence healthcare
intelligence healthcare