Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (65065)	5/11/2008 1:17:27 AM
From: DanD	Respond to of 544121

You linked to an quoted people suggesting another method. That hardly amounts to much evidence that the original study was faulty. You mean like the author of the study you sited? Prof. Ohsfeldt acknowledges that regression was chosen for its relative simplicity for what he called his “little book project.” And he agrees that some deaths that his book attempted to remove from the life-expectancy tables might be dependent on health-care systems. The other quoted person was Carl Haub, a demographer at the Population Reference Bureau in Washington, D.C. And the article was from the Wall Street Journal, from a recurring column focused on how people lie with numbers. Faulty may be to strong a word. But I feel it is not the best answer to the question. And call me crazy, but studying how long people live and why they die is germane to the health care debate. Dan D.