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: DanD who wrote (65154)	5/11/2008 12:21:07 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 544264

that had no idea why I could take all is money by playing a 9-10 suited against his pocket queens. I just rolled my eyes on that one. That's way outside any frame of reference I have. I gather that you won so congratulations. If I am going to be rebutted, I would prefer the accurate study I can understand that. But that's between you and Tim. Not my issue. Longevity seems to me one of many statistics that should be considered in the study on health care. Can't argue with that. My objection is the unjustified conclusions some people draw from the variation between countries in currently available data. The stakes are too high to allow the data to be misused. If we're going to study longevity, then IMO we should be categorizing why people died and counting that. Medical malpractice does not count the same as a hereditary disease or an available but neglected screening or the lack of a screening tool for that disease or the unavailability of a screening to the particular patient or just plain old age. I don't see the longevity of an entire population tells us much about health care, if anything. Anyway if you really really want an answer, here it is. Thank you for your civil, if belated, response. <g>