Re: for those who care about comparative data on the health services


"abelard" <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:olae85ltq6r8optr3o6f44urtaud77dblc@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:30:19 +0100, "Don diddi da"
<privacy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"abelard" <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9o9e8595opvdcmd3u3iirqq8ehom1ii108@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:15:26 +0100, "Don diddi da"
<privacy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"abelard" <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2vvd8556ub2gtm9v9735521pktb02gk1n4@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:18:34 +0100, "Don diddi da"
<privacy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"abelard" <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:al9d85tbjcerrm1dc1c0u2c0ect99i38me@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:31:03 +0200, abelard <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_annex_en.pdf
see annex table one
1997 figures....i don't know if there have ben any updates...
governments tend to hate comparisons and don't cooperate well

A 12 years old, out of date report compiled under Tory Health spending.
It's 2009, the 21st century lardy, get your arse in to gear and get some
latest peer reviewed articles and reports.
;-)

so, you pick on one of several reports...you don't use the site
linked....

and offer nothing........

well done
fully up to your usual mindless posts

Well lets take a look.

First link, 9 years old.
Second link 2008, ok, what specifically are you claiming this says?
Third link 10 years old.

Fourth link, crappy site which isn't peer reviewed hence can't be taken as
reliable
Or maybe you are just after increasing your hit count!

:-)


Don't have time to go through all your rubbish since you don't speak
specifics but one of the other reports was from 2000

and that's just one thread....

and yet you whine and produce.........nothing

In two threads I am part of you have used out of date info.
Still waiting for you to deny that the US spends more as a percentage of GDP
then we do and

dealt with already...go find it you lazy bum

Err no, you have no specifics only links to articles from teh last century.
No specifics.

individuals spend twice as much as we do yet life expectancy his higher here
and infant deaths are lower here.

dealt with several times already...go find it you lazy bum

No, you have evaded a direct response, mearly pointing to crappy websites like yours with no specifics.
If you have apoint spell it out lardy, don't be lazy with your argument

No point producing more untill you have accepted the above facts.
You need to absorb and understand those facts for a start

you know nothing..that is entirely the only reason you produce nothing

I've produced more than you, still waiting for a response to the article regarding US healthcare which showed people were left and infected with dirty equipment.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: for those who care about comparative data on the health services
    ... governments tend to hate comparisons and don't cooperate well ... latest peer reviewed articles and reports. ... dealt with several times already...go find it you lazy bum ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Rumor Central: Manny for Beltran
    ... If it's straight up what specifics would there be ... I use the term "straight up" somewhat loosely here as the reports do ... not mention other considerations such as money exchanges, ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: SMS 2003 Reporting
    ... the specifics. ... My own opinion is that reporting needs can be very customer-specific, ... and generally it's not too difficult to create SMS web reports (with a ... create the reports you need. ...
    (microsoft.public.sms.misc)
  • Re: Service Pack for Delphi 7
    ... Craig Stuntz [TeamB] wrote: ... > Nor are the reports which deal with something else. ... > someone presses you for specifics your case falls apart. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)