Printable View
That depends on your position.
The CNN poll.
41 percent think the bill is just right.
13 percent don't think it is liberal enough .
The remainder think it's too liberal
Do I think it is all it could be? No
Single payer would have been a smarter way to go. Reducing prices for the average health care consumers. However some people think that packages can only be sent via UPS while the US Postal service does the same thing for less.
but was it better then what obama initially tried to get passed?
It will be cheaper in the end:Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
1. emergency rooms will not be used by uninsured, which will reduce overall hospital costs.
2. former uninsured will now go to get checked regularly and advanced diseases will to some extent be prevented.
If the public option would have been got through it would really have become cheaper. In the end the Republicans tried to kill this bill because they want to destroy Obama. This was and is not about Healthcare any more.
If what's reduced is funding spent on waste and fraud then I can accept that, just as my wife would gladly accept a reduction in my McDonald's funding to help pay for more vegetables. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Your attempt to gloss-over the current situation is beneath you.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
This is not an isolated incident by a single nutjob and the "liberals" in this country have not behaved in any manner like what's going on now on a national level.
Republican leaders, not some isolated loon, are knowingly inciting and promoting violence, rage and terrorist acts from their followers.
Republicans leaders are standing in Washington, waving their followers signs, shouting out "babykiller!" and "you lie!" during official business, telling followers waving signs of gun threats that it's up to THEM to stop the dems, and posting maps online showing democratic politicians home addresses with rifle crosshairs over them.
Republican leaders are knowingly emboldening the actions of the extremists by their examples of incivility and demonizing the opposition.
The results of this are unprecedented in our lifetime and to try and sweep it under the rug is as despicable as the acts themselves.
No, there weren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
While there were alternative plans spoken of, none were proven to cover everyone (or even as many as this one) or reduce prices.
Besides, you should blame Bob Dole.
This is almost exactly the same plan he and the repubs proposed in response to Clinton's heathcare plan.
...or you could just as easily argue that our quality of care will go up as indicated by every other form of disease, health issue, life expectancy, and infant mortality as is shown in countries with single-payer systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Please post a link to the evidence that shows this.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
The only thing I could find was an opinion by two authors who wrote a paper under a grant by the SSA titled "Low Life Expectancy in the United States: Is the Health Care System at Fault? by Samuel H. Preston and Jessica Y. Ho".
I have read that paper and while their personal opinion agrees with you, even the heavily cherry-picked stats in the paper doesn't, so I'm guessing there must be another source for your assertion.
There are lies, damned lies ....and then there are statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Alternatives were widely discussed. The idea that the Republicans didn't have alternative ideas about this was simply a false Democrat talking point.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Alternative ideas included variations of:
Tort reform
Allowing interstate purchase of healthcare
Removing tax breaks for companies buying plans
Vouchers
Health Savings Accounts
CNN also shows a negative job approval rating for Obama: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...oval-1044.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Frets
Also, a majority think that the country is on the wrong track and that the health care bill should be repealed. It appears that the GOP will make large gains in the coming election: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...enate_map.html
If there was waste and fraud occurring in Medicare that could be "reduced", a bill wasn't needed to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
What is really occurring is that the new bill cuts the popular Medicare Advantage plan.
Yes they have. Do I really need to dig up the link showing the multitudes of death threats, Bush pictures with Hitler moustaches, etc.? You yourself have contributed to religiously bigoted sentiments on this site. Statements that could constitute violations of civil rights in some contexts such as a work-place. One impressionable young liberal I worked with told me (comfortably in front of several co-workers at a job) that he would "shoot Bush in the head" if he had the chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Democratic leaders have slandered troops, police, corporations, religions, demographics of poor and rich people alike, etc. All groups that have experienced prejudice, threats, vandalism, violence etc. that could be attributed to Democrats according to the same logic you're using.
Associating wrongful acts performed by some with other people or groups who had no control or involvement whatsoever is despicable because it risks inciting violence. That looks like it could be the case in the unfolding story about the gunshot that hit Republican Eric Cantor's office this week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Double-standard fallacy. Obama's plan has never been "proven" to cover everyone or reduce prices either. It has never been a requirement to prove what will happen. That simply isn't possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
The difference is that the alternative ideas being discussed do have a proven track record of the results we want in other applications. Obama's plan has a proven track record of not achieving the results he claims it will based on other failed applications of the same concepts.
That would be true if any of those things actually were better in countries with single-payer. However, they are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
I already have. Why should I bother re-substantiating a point to a person who has already seen the evidence but chooses to deny it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
The problem with your statement is that you can't "re-substantiate" something that you've never substantiated in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Unless your definition of "substantiating" means to repeat a falsehood often enough until people start believing it's true.
I did already substantiate that point, on this site, in a conversation with you.
That's one of the larger ironies of liberal politics. They are constantly advertising themselves as being supported by evidence and science. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. From the environment, economics, gun law, charity, health care, when life begins, you name it. They are on the wrong side of the evidence on nearly every major issue.
If someone is determined to believe that the earth is flat, there isn't much that anyone can do to change their mind.
thats for sure.
Thank you Samuel Rowbotham. ;)
So what you're saying is that you don't have a link that hasn't been debunked before.
No. The link that I last provided to actual evidence remains substantial. That's the funny thing about facts. They tend to remain what they are.
If you want to continue having faith that deaths from auto accidents and murders are indicative of health care quality, that's your deal.
The link you provided was to a rightwing political blog that had a link to a single paper that did statistical backflips, cherry-picked figures, ignored basic facts and methodology that any credible economist would use, in order to arrive at a preconceived political talking point that no other expert or legitimate economist agrees with.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Didn't you ever even consider why your "actual evidence" never made it past being a political blogpost and contradicts every official statistic by recognized experts in the realworld?
Even if we were to suspend all disbelief and join you in neoconservative fantasyland where facts don't matter, people who get get into automobile accidents never go to a hospital, people who are injured by another never make it into the healthcare system, and insurance coverage isn't a factor in treatment for either group, you are still only arguing the point that we are on equal life expectancy with single-payer countries that spend half as much on healthcare as we do.
That may be something you think is worth crowing about, but I don't.
If you and I ate at a restaurant together, both ordered the exact same meal, but they handed me a bill for $50 and handed you a bill for $100, I doubt you would be so happy.
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
If you want to continuing getting your "facts" from political blogs that use deeply flawed, dishonest methodologies and unsubstantiated conclusions instead of the actual numbers and methodologies used in the realworld by the experts then that's your deal.
....and he calls me Samuel Rowbotham. LOL
This comment is a personal assertion with no basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
You are not an economist, let alone a credible one. You have shown no flaw in anyones methodology or even demonstrated that you are aware of any basic facts or methodologies yourself.
Stomping your feet is not making an argument.
I didn't wonder that because "Life Expectancy" and "Life Expectancy adjusted for accidents and other non health care related fatalities" are two different qualities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
The bottom line is that evaluating health care quality based on pure "Life Expectancy" is flawed because it doesn't account for factors that are not related to health care quality. Accidents and murders are only the tip of the ice-berg. An intelligent analysis should also be adjusting for involvement in wars, rates of lifestyle choices such as over-eating and smoking, etc. It doesn't take a "recognized expert" (whoever these unspecified phantoms are that you have in mind) to understand this.
If health care quality factored in equally regarding treatment after auto accidents and violence, removing them from all countries statistics should yield the same results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
And I don't contest that we pay too much for health care. The system does need reform to control cost. However, it's false that we have lower quality of health care than countries with single-payer systems. Cost and quality are two different things.
I'm not happy about the difference in price we paid for the meal. But, I am happy that I had the bone-in fillet instead of the chicken you had (no matter how much you insist that it was the same meal).Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Indeed. Your reaction in this case further demonstrates the comparison. "See! LR said so! LOL"Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
:D
It is almost painful to watch you twist and contort so while trying to maintain face even though you know you're as wrong as I do.
No basis, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Here is your original link to the rightwing blogspot blog:
http://politicalcalculations.blogspo...in-united.html
Here is the link to The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank founded in 1943) that your rightwing blogger references which is the entire foundation of your claim:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061017_O...esentation.pdf
I will let those with eyes to see, and minds to reason, decide for themselves.
Actually, I have whether you choose to admit it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
David understood immediately the flaw I spelled out in the methodology your study used.
Victims of violent crime and auto accidents do go to our hospitals and are part of our healthcare statistics.
Their insurance (or lack of), treatment and care does determine whether some of them live or die so for your study to say that all deaths from violence and accidents are "non-healthcare related" is obviously false.
Did their methodology take that into account?
Did they only count victims of crime and accidents that died without receiving any medical care?
Did they account for the cases of uninsured victims that died in a 15 mile ambulance ride to the county hospital because the private hospital that was 1 mile away refused to take them?
According to their footnotes, the answer is no.
I couldn't agree more, so maybe you should stop doing it and start applying a little critical thinking to your source material.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I know you're capable of it considering how much you use it on any "liberal" source I may post.
You would never let me get away with using such an obviously flawed, biased, and uncorroborated source without tearing it to shreds.
So now after all that, you decide that none of this matters. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
lol
Yes, I agree that in a perfect world we would be able to decipher all the metrics and factors to be able to determine exactly how our system ranks against others... but that's impossible so we use common metrics that have been agreed upon by the leading economists and experts in the field to best represent a fair comparison.
...and by "recognized experts" I mean those that have been recognized by the official bodies that compile and govern these statistics as being the most qualified to do so. (not no-name bloggers and authors for political thinktanks)
I think we can probably agree that the people who have been placed in charge of compiling the official statistics for the CIA Book of World Facts as well as official stats from other government institutions around the world could be considered "recognized experts", right?
Just as quality and accessibility are two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I don't dispute that we have some of the best healthcare money can buy in the USA.
Unfortunately, the vast majority cannot afford it and therefor do not receive it.
HahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I seriously doubt that David's words were because of who typed them, but rather because, much like a "flat-earther", you choose to ignore the 99.9% of actual peer-reviewed data and official statistics in favor of the 0.1% of whatever unfounded political paper you can find that agrees with your preconceived notion.
Damn, it's been a while since the last argument...
There's a saying about people who argue on the internets... but damned if I ever learned from it.
I'm sort of P.O.'d at the idea that I'd have to buy health insurance. Even though I do buy health insurance.
Hanratty makes a point that his company is going to report his health plan as taxable income, which is a good one. I'm wondering what it will do to a freelancer like me, on an independent plan. From the talking points, it looks like it could be a decent safety net; like if I have a bad year, I might qualify for a tax break / subsidy / whatever, and I could buy my insurance on their exchange. Does anyone know how that actually is supposed to work? Like, say I have a private Blue Cross plan and I have a down year where I make less than 80k. Will I get some kind of tax refund?
Actually, as I'm typing this, I'm kind of answering my own question. "Yeah right"...
I can assure you that there is no twisting going on over here. Although, I can understand how desirable the thought may be for you in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Where in those links does it show that you were correct in asserting that the authors "did statistical backflips, cherry-picked figures, ignored basic facts and methodology that any credible economist would use, in order to arrive at a preconceived political talking point that no other expert or legitimate economist agrees with"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
That's right. Nowhere.
Which leaves us with the simple observation that they are conservatives. Your implied argument has become, "It can't be true because it came from conservatives." Which is about as unscientific and logically flawed a view as it gets. I believe that this type of argument has lead to more than one book burning in the world's history.
No. That argument is obviously wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
First, hospitals, by law, are required to treat individuals in an emergency, regardless of coverage. So, someone brought in due to violence or accident would be treated. That said, many people that die in car accidents or homicides do so before they get to the hospital.
Second, there are many ways that people die that have nothing to do with the quality of their health care. Therefore, including them in a statistic for the purpose of evaluating quality of health care greatly diminishes the accuracy of the evaluation (as demonstrated by the authors you linked to above). When comparing nations for this purpose, it is even more dubious since the rates that people die in these non health-care related deaths is quite different between countries. To not account for these differences is to make the provably false assumption that all citizens in every country die of the same things at the exact same rates.
I have to chuckle at your bravado regarding critical thinking when you make statements like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Their methodology was to start with the data used for the WHO rankings that some people use to claim that Life Expectancy means the US has poor quality of health care. In other words, you are criticizing the very argument that you apparently have faith in. Of course the WHO didn't use data that takes any of that into account. It's one more reason why using unadjusted life expectancy to evaluate quality of health care is junk science. :D
Well, since you're not a recognized expert, we can all assume that your thoughts and analysis on this subject are definitely false! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Your ad hominem argument aside, the point of the study linked to above is to show that life expectancy does not accurately reflect quality of health care. They demonstrate that if we adjust only for commonly known rates of auto accident and homicides, it drastically changes the outcomes. Let alone all of the other factors that create other disparities between nations.
Hopefully, you can agree that there are many uses for the Life Expectancy statistic other than attempting to evaluate the quality of health care. You seem to have cornered yourself into the bizarre angle of implying that I am against calculating a statistic simply because there are obvious reasons why it can't accurately be applied to a specific subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
At least we're getting somewhere. However, the vast majority of Americans can and do afford healthcare and receive it all the time. Cancer survival rates for the entire population, including the uninsured, average better than single-payer countries. So, it would seem that quite a few of us are benefitting from "the best healthcare money can buy."Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Here is a calculator that will tell you what subsidy (if any) you would get and how much a health plan bought through the exchange would cost: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspxQuote:
Originally Posted by joshstrike
When I was single, I had a basic plan for $900 a year. According to this calculator, the cost for someone in the same circumstance will be three times as much.
The figure it gives me for my current family of four is also more expensive than what I currently pay through a private company. The problem is that, based on other new requirements, my rate at the private company is undoubtedly going to go up.
The bill is designed to bankrupt private insurance companies so that Democrats can gain a foothold for what they really want: single payer health care and a national VAT tax. Not because it creates better health outcomes for our country but because it is politically advantageous to Democrats to create larger public sector industries.
cancerinform is right. It's not about health care for Democrats. It's about gaining political power.
I did not say that just because it came from a conservative source that it was false.
All that the source itself proves is the motive for a particular outcome.
What's at question is the method used to arrive at that outcome.
The paper and your argument is that by eliminating all patients that end up dying because they were either involved in violence or an accident makes the overall number more accurate because those deaths are not related to the quality of healthcare that those patients receive.
However, the author never really attempts to make the number more accurately reflect the premise by distinguishing between patients that received healthcare and those that didn't.
He simply eliminates a very large group of patients from the equation entirely.
Since those patients are obviously younger than the average age of life expectancy this naturally skews the overall number in a favorable direction.
This is called "Cherry-picking".
The same could easily be done with infant mortality rates.
We could argue that we should eliminate all woman who have natural childbirth from the equation because they could have given birth at home, in an elevator, or in the back of a taxi and therefor if their baby dies it is not a reflection on our healthcare system and should not count toward infant mortality rates.
(I wonder how long it will be before this idea shows up as a talking point in some rightwing thinktank "study"...)
If we could arbitrarily cut out a large portion of infants from the equation and only count those born via C-section then naturally our infant mortality rates would then appear to be the lowest in the world.
However, that would be just as dishonest as the methodology used in the paper you cited because murder fatalities, traffic fatalities and infant mortality rates are not based on those that died before receiving medical care.
Likewise, we could do other "statistical backflips" like above by arbitrarily eliminating all deaths due to diabetes, and/or AIDS, lung, and liver disease from the equation and see how it affects the numbers.
If it skews the totals in a way that's favorable to the political outcome we're looking for then it ends up in our thinktank paper, if not then we just keep looking until we find something to eliminate that does... like homicide and traffic. ;)
Again, that's known as "Cherry-picking".
The only way that paper could not be considered statistical gymnastics and cherry-picking is if we accept their premise that people who get shot, stabbed, beaten, or are involved in accidents don't ever go to the hospital.
I don't know about where you live, but if you go to my local hospital ER you will see a constant stream of accident and violence victims being treated in our healthcare system.
Careful FL.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
You are getting dangerously close to losing the "conservative" label and being moved into the paranoid delusional teabagger camp.
How else could you describe the view of not only subsidizing a private industry with public money but also forcing everyone to buy their product, as trying to bankrupt that private industry?!?
If that's true then I hope to God that Uncle Sam tries to bankrupt me by giving me billions and forcing everyone to buy my products too!
(By your reasoning, I guess you believe Bush/Cheney were trying to bankrupt Halliburton as well?)
As I'm sure our resident Wall Street expert will attest to, after the signing of the healthcare bill, insurance stocks and pharmaceutical stocks went up, not down.
Apparently, investors and analysts don't agree with your assessment that this is a bad thing for the private healthcare industry... quite the opposite.
Wow, how often does that happen?
Wall Street agreeing with a liberal instead of the conservative?
Are you SURE you're still a conservative?
:p
Btw, having single-payer systems in other countries did not bankrupt their private healthcare industry either.
Some single-payer systems have kept both public and private options, and some countries just fund the private industries with public funding.
There are many different forms that a single-payer or public option can take.
I still have faith that America can find a solution that is a workable blend of social and capitalistic principles that will benefit more than the small handful our current system does without destroying the fabric of our society or causing Armageddon as the teabaggers would have us believe.
:D
On a side note, if anyone is even remotely interested in what I said above about methodologies/cherry-picking to arrive at a certain conclusion, then you will love "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre.
It's an excellent book by a British doctor and medical researcher that exposes dishonest methods that vitamin gurus, homeopaths, pharmaceuticals, and herbal remedy pushers use to promote non-existent benefits of their products and to make claims that a certain product is good for you even when it's been shown in clinical studies that your chance of survival is greater if you don't use that product.
What "Food Inc." did to expose the hidden side of our food industry, "Bad Science" does to the health supplements industry.
I can't recommend it highly enough.
I put in "final legislation", $80,000/year, age 25, single adult, no empl. coverage, regional cost factor:highest, and I get Actual annual plan premium: $3,165, which is 263.75 per month. I don't know what your circumstances are.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
When were you single? You most likely were much younger then you are today. When you were single medical costs were lower. When you were single you most likely did not have the same coverage you have today.
Rates have gone up dramatically since you were single. For that you can blame insurance companies and hospitals.
I find it funny how people are up in arms over the expenses of healthcare; yet aren't rioting over the costs of these two wars in equal amounts.
Perhaps I'm missing something.
Personally, I find it very sad.
Certain people have no problem bankrupting the country and mortgaging their great-grandchildrens' future in order to kill other people and blow stuff up, yet are ready to riot over spending any money to help heal their own sick and poor.
The real irony is that most of them likely have a "Jesus fish" proudly displayed on the back of their car... hmmm, I wonder how Jesus would feel about that?
As for the actual costs of healthcare in the future, according to the analysts I've been listening to today, the best indicator for health costs under the new plan is the cost of insurance today.
FL and the conservatives get their wish for insurance companies to compete across state lines like he's mentioned dozens of times.
They also get their wish that there will be no "government takeover" of healthcare.
Only private insurance companies will be participating in the new insurance exchanges.
Liberals will be happy that there is no penalty for those that either make too little to owe income tax, or that can't purchase an insurance policy through the exchanges that is lower than 8% of their income.
They will also be happy that those in low income brackets can qualify for subsidies to help pay part of their insurance premiums.
Both sides should be happy with the lifting of denial for pre-existing conditions.
Likewise both sides should find positives in the insurance companies coming up with a low cost, standardized policy once the exchange plan kicks into affect and the pool of customers increase along with competition.
Personally, I won't be happy until we join the rest of the modern world and have a real public option to choose from along with all the private plans.
I was joking with a friend earlier... and randomly said:
"I'm going to go around randomly stabbing folks and just nonchalantly say "Healthcare"..."
Now that's a plan if I've ever heard of one.
Association fallacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
The source being conservative does not prove that they had a motive for a particular outcome. Maybe you are projecting the way that you think. That you want an outcome first and examine the facts second to see how they can fit with your desired outcome.
No. That isn't the argument. The argument is that unadjusted life expectancy statistics do not accurately reflect quality of health care. The authors have clarified that point on multiple occasions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
The one adjustment they made was never intended to demonstrate "THE" accurate statistic for determining health care quality. Their point was that significant differences between nations affect life expectancies for reasons completely unrelated to quality of health care.
Since you misunderstood the argument, much of your other commentary is rendered moot.
And again, you're arguing against your own apparent belief. In fact, your underlying point is the same one that the authors of this exercise are making. That Life Expectancy includes substantial amounts of data that changes the value despite quality of health care. In other words, using it to evaluate health care quality is cherry-picking because it ignores data (different rates of non-health care related fatalities and behaviors).Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Similar to before, you seem to think that there is some rule requiring that certain statistics must be accepted. If a statistic doesn't accurately explain something, nothing horrible has occurred. We just need to adjust it or look for other data that more accurately clarifies something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
The argument you describe here would be a valid one in the sense that the problem is nuanced. Specifically, based on the context you create, it could suggest that the quality of care that we have is very good. But, access is not.
Of course, as we know from previous discussions, the problem with infant mortality rates are that they are not consistently measured the same between nations and that there are other mitigating reasons why one nation would measure lower despite superior care (ie. being able to keep younger babies alive for longer).
Exactly the same, a person can use a statistic of a large sweeping criteria that supports their political view despite known nuances that change the outcome. That is what is being done when someone tries to argue that comparing Life Expectancies accurately compares quality of health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Apparently, you aren't familiar with the terms of the bill. Though, that's not surprising. Few are. There are severe limits placed on how they can spend revenue. Forcing people to buy a companies product doesn't do them much good if another requirement is that they can't make a profit on the service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Umm... Look again:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=WLP
Notice the "competitor" block. All down. They have all been going down for some time as passage of the bill became likelier.
The relatively small bump that occurred immediately after the bill passed is likely explained by a bunch of naive on-line investors not understanding the bill similar to how you describe it as being good for insurance companies.
Wall Street is and has leaned liberal for a long time. Follow the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
There is a massive difference between a private industry serving a nation and the boutique private health care companies scraping by on niche business in single-payer countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
The source being conservative does not prove motive, however the source being a conservative thinktank who's job is to promote conservative ideas and create conservative propaganda does.
Otherwise it's like saying a car manufacturer's motive is not to build cars.
As for the rest of your comments, if you want to change the argument this late in the game, so be it.
So now your argument is that neither the official statistics nor your singular piece of conservative propaganda are correct or matter one bit to quality of healthcare.
Fine.
In a world where you recognize no metrics you can even claim that the village idiot is a genius.
I guess if I voted for Bush and Palin I would dream about living in that kind of world also...
Yeah. I paid $75/month for my plan under similar circumstances, just 5 years ago. Obama's plan will cost people more than three times that per month.Quote:
Originally Posted by cancerinform
It was 5 years ago and the rates haven't changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frets
https://www.blueshieldca.com/bsc/hom...%3Dblue+shield
Click on "get a quote". Enter 25 and use the zip code "90277". Where I was at the time.
War is tragic in many ways, including the financial cost that could be used in other ways. However, it is sometimes necessary. Indeed, it has become essential that the US maintain an expensive military since many other nations aren't contributing to military efforts and depend on us to do so. I'm not happy about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
The motive is to research and articulate educated arguments. That has no logical bearing on whether or not those arguments are true, as you seem to imply. It's an ad hominem argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
I didn't change the argument. It has always been the same. You simply misunderstood what it was from the beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Metrics can often be useful when there are little or no mitigating factors left out. In the case of Life Expectancy and quality of health care, the authors I linked to substantiate that there are substantial mitigating factors left out.
Therefore, people who claim Life Expectancy is evidence of comparative quality of health care are either lying or naive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
*cough* Bullsh*t *cough*Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I didn't misunderstand anything.
Your earlier statement was quite clear.
You specifically equate your cherry-picked propaganda (that no officials or experts agrees with) to evidence of our quality of healthcare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I don't care what whomever states; a protracted war is not necessary.
I didn't specifically equate the study to evidence of our quality of healthcare. That would look something like this: "The study linked to here demonstrates that we have the best quality of healthcare."Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
That isn't what I wrote:
True statement. That isn't to say that other adjustments wouldn't be appropriate to reach a statistic more tied to quality of health care.Quote:
If you adjust for non health-care related deaths (car accidents, murders, etc.) our life expectancy is amongst the best in the world.
There is a lot of evidence unrelated to life expectancy that this is true. For example, the cancer survival rates that I have referred to multiple times here. "The evidence" is a reference to the evidence. You misunderstood if you thought I was meaning to say that the adjusted life expectancy statistic is the only evidence I was referring to.Quote:
We certainly have problems to sort out. However, the evidence indicates that quality of health care is not one of them.
Also, this argument you keep making about officials or experts agreeing with things is a logical fallacy: Argumentum ad populum. At one time, there was only one person in the world that believed that the earth is round. He was correct, no matter how many officials or experts came to different conclusions.
...and that was you too, I suppose?Quote:
At one time, there was only one person in the world that believed that the earth is round.
It would have been if I were alive then. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
...and now we've worked our way back to faith-based versus reality-based arguments.
The faith-based community refuses to acknowledge that water is wet because
A) it doesn't jibe with what they want to believe, and
B) back in the dark ages people were wrong and there's no difference between then and now.
On top of that you want us to believe that since you're the last person left that thinks the world is flat, that make you equal to the first person who thought the world was round?
And I'm the one using logical fallacies?
:D
Seriously. It is past time to end the war. We as a nation have gained nothing from it nor will in the future.
For all we know OBL is dead from health related issues.or living comfortably in Saudi Arabia.
its time to support our troops by bringing them home.
Are you saying that the first person who believed the world is round did not have a reality-based argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue