"So" (implying that what follows is a point I was trying to make. No other reason to start the comment this way)
"when you're a large country... we shouldn't count the parts that weigh you down" (large country = USA, strawmanning me by saying that I was suggesting you should only count the rich areas of the US. I absolutely was not. And at the same time taking a jab at the US.)
"yet do include them in other stats" (implying selective bias, but this is a continuation of the same strawman)
"always the same whining and excuses, wanting to cherrypick the good parts" (he's VERY obviously saying that I am trying to cherry pick data to show the US is more healthy. I did no such thing.)
Explain how what he said could be read as in agreement with me. The first comment I was replying to was saying that the small states on the list were awesome. I pointed out that if you look at similar-sized similarly-affluent-and-urbanized areas of any developed country, that you would get similar results. Q5 comes along and says "large countries get weighed down- DEAL WITH IT!!"
1. petite countries = awesome
2. large countries have areas that are just as awesome
3. large countries suck. stop whining and making excuses. deal with it.
I'm assuming good faith on the part of Sami. Probably she just scanned the comment and didn't follow what was being said. But I have to assume bad faith on the part of bad baby. You're just trying to insult me as you always do. You probably didn't even read the exchange. Q5 is obviously not agreeing with me.
There are lots of differences. Calling one system "good" and implying the other is "bad" is, misinformed? Biased? Probably not idiocy.
Nearly guessed Israel just when the time's up.
However, I would point out that the medical care system here works so that it would prolong one's life as long as possible. If you think of QOL, I don't think it is something to be all happy about.
And our women's team is probably the best in the world.
And, considering that soccer is like the 20th most popular sport in the USA and nobody gives a crap, the men's team is outstanding. I mean in 2009 they beat Spain, the No. 1 team in the world. In 1998 they beat Brazil, also ranked No. 1 in the world. In 2010 their draw against England allowed them to win their group. They're not terrible. But they should be. Which makes them remarkable.
The number of participants in outdoor "soccer" in the US: 12 million.
The entire population of Belgium: 11 million
The entire population of Netherlands: 17 million.
Hence the suggestion that few play "soccer" in the US is not correct. There are more people playing it in the US than the entire population of the country ranked number 1 in the world.
Also, in most cases micronations rank high because the old people from other nations go there to live
Also notice that most of these countries are next to the sea. A fish based diet should help apparently. Notice how Spain and Italy rank so high compared to the rest of Europe even tho their income isn't on top.
Please include other spellings from Liechtenstein as many people could get that wrong
First of all look at USA crime
healthcare is not free
Monaco is very rich country