Page 18 of 143 FirstFirst ... 813141516171819202122232868118 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 2855
  1. #341  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I'm under no obligation to support the Republican party line. That generalization certainly has data that both supports and refutes it. If I conducted a survey of my neighbors, I could probably provide data to support it. OTOH, if I conducted a survey one street over, I could probably provide data to refute it. OTOH, the very assertion is marketing. One can define 'choose' as all sorts of things.
    While you are under no obligation, of course, the glaring lack on this thread of any data that supports the arguments being made against single payer, as well as sweeping generalizations that data shows are inaccurate, tends to undercut the argument.

    It's tremendously easy for folks to make the silly generalizations such as those on this thread ("people choose to be uninsured", "most of uninsured are illegals", "single payer leads to socialism / communism / ....ism", "Sweden / France systems are far worse than ours"), then say "data can be manipulated to show anything" when the argument is refuted, all while offering no supporting data to support your position. It then just becomes knee-jerk ideological arguments. But I've gotten used to that pattern here.
    Last edited by Bujin; 07/04/2009 at 11:23 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  2. #342  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    While you are under no obligation, of course, the glaring lack on this thread of any data that supports the arguments being made against single payer, as well as sweeping generalizations that data shows are inaccurate, tends to undercut the argument.
    Have you considered that it's a straw man, though?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #343  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Have you considered that it's a straw man, though?
    It's not unreasonable to ask for folks to provide data to support the major points of their argument. My background isn't a business education related to marketing, but rather neurobiology - I learned the simple idea that conclusions should be backed up by data and not ignored because they don't support a pre-determined philosophical position.

    I've not seen a shred of data being put forth in this thread to support the main premise that we're "destroying healthcare in America", that our health system is better than the public /private structures in countries such as France or Sweden, or that a single-payer system is, by definition, doomed to failure.

    That's not a straw man - it's at the heart of this conversation.

    Personally, I find great parallels between political ideology and religious fervor. In both instances, adherent ignore facts and data, and undergo impressive mental gymnastics to undermine any use of empirical reasoning to support their positions. In both cases, faith trumps deductive reasoning.
    Last edited by Bujin; 07/04/2009 at 11:42 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  4. #344  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    It's not unreasonable to ask for folks to provide data to support the major points of their argument.
    Nor did I say it was.
    My background isn't a business education related to marketing, but rather neurobiology - I learned the simple idea that conclusions should be backed up by data and not ignored because they don't support a pre-determined philosophical position.
    Do you realize that you haven't provided any data to support your position? You have provided information (i.e. interpreted data). Further, I'm wondering how you think the Employee Health Benefits survey supports your argument. I've spent a decent amount of time reading through it this morning (hence my question which you seem to have ignored), and I'm thinking you either didn't read it, or meant to cite something else.
    I've not seen a shred of data being put forth in this thread to support the main premise that we're "destroying healthcare in America",
    Considering that it's a philosophical argument, I'm not sure that I'd expect there to be much real data.
    that our health system is better than the public /private structures in countries such as France or Sweden, or that a single-payer system is, by definition, doomed to failure.
    Value judgments such as 'better' are obviously pure opinion, and even where statistics exist, you have no way to know you are getting valid data. That's why the WHO hasn't tried to compare health care systems since 2000. I guess that's why the 'non-profits' (note that they aren't 'non-agendas') have taken up the torch.
    That's not a straw man - it's at the heart of this conversation.
    Do you have any information, for example, to support the Republican party line that uninsured choose to be that way?
    As far as I'm aware, there are no RNC marketeers in this thread (though I have occasional doubts about one). Therefore, you have attributed a similar (but not necessarily the same) argument to someone else to make it easier to defeat (made even easier since it's not an argument I share or support).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #345  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Personally, I find great parallels between political ideology and religious fervor.
    I agree.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6. #346  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Nor did I say it was.

    Do you realize that you haven't provided any data to support your position? You have provided information (i.e. interpreted data).
    Oh, so "information" equals "interpreted data", which does not equal "data". I never learned that in my scientific methodology courses. (mainly because it's not accurate).

    You may not agree with data I've provided, but statistical and survey data absolutely can, and frequently, as supporting data for a wide variety of purposes, as long as proper methodology is applied.

    I've not seen a shred of data being put forth in this thread to support the main premise that we're "destroying healthcare in America"
    Considering that it's a philosophical argument, I'm not sure that I'd expect there to be much real data.
    But it's an argument that can easily be refuted with data, except that ideology always trumps empirical reasoning, both in these forums and in the larger scheme of political argument.

    Since no data will be considered valid unless it supports folks' preconceived opinions, I'll let you all go on with the "my ideology is better than yours" arguments...I really have no interest in confronting folks' quasi-religious beliefs.
    Last edited by Bujin; 07/04/2009 at 12:40 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  7. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #347  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Your link was from a study that provided a single footnote in the NCHC report.

    As I stated earlier, the main points I was making (a) the main reason for being uninsured being cost (which debunks the Republican talking point about most uninsured people "choosing to be uninsured") and the fact that (b) medical debt accounts for 25% of housing / foreclosure issues came from the Kaiser Foundation survey (Employer Health Benefits 2008 Annual Survey - Kaiser Family Foundation) and the Access Project, respectively.

    The NCHC report certainly drew from a much larger number of sources than that one footnote. They can be easily seen here: NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs
    Hold on there, Bujin. The footnote I referenced was the same footnote used to support the claim that annually, 1.5 million homeowners go into foreclosure because of medical debt. Wasn't this your original point? That a "huge percentage of home foreclosures are directly related to medical costs"?

    I can't go through every footnote to fact check every claim, but given the specious nature of the facts I did check, I have to reason to believe any of the others. Such is often the nature of advocacy group claims.
  8. #348  
    I appreciate your situation there - mine though for years was the no need reason. Glad we are not in Ma where we would be fined $1,000 for not having health insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I choose to not be insured by my employer because of cost. Am I de facto uninsured? Consider the survey more carefully.
  9. #349  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post

    I can't go through every footnote to fact check every claim, but given the specious nature of the facts I did check, I have to reason to believe any of the others. Such is often the nature of advocacy group claims.
    The facts weren't specious; rather, the authors simply included a caveat that their study wasn't conclusive in isolation, but rather were operating "on the assumption that these findings can and will be replicated in more comprehensive future studies." Those findings were indeed supported by the Kaiser study, as well as the many other studies referenced by the NCHC.

    If you are taking the position that medical costs aren't a large contributor to home foreclosures, I'd love to see data that you used to make that conclusion.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  10. #350  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Oh, so "information" equals "interpreted data", which does not equal "data".
    Not exactly. Data or datum are raw facts. They draw no conclusions. The raw results of a survey can be considered data, and are generally only flawed if the methodology is flawed. Once you try to take that data and interpret it into a meaningful form, it becomes information. At that point, it's open to ideological biases being introduced (assuming they weren't already present before the data was even collected).
    I never learned that in my scientific methodology courses. (mainly because it's not accurate).
    Just because it conflicts with your ideology does not mean it's not accurate. It's basic statistics. Don't blame me if your scientific methodology classes didn't cover it. Ice cream causes shark attacks, dontcha know.
    You may not agree with data I've provided,
    I did not say that I disagreed. I said 1) some of it was not in fact data but rather information, and 2) some of it did not in fact support what you/they argue. The Employee Benefits Survey simply deals with finding out what sorts of benefits are being provided by employers and what percentages of employees are covered. If you would like to clarify which survey (or point out which section I missed) does support your claims, I'm more than willing to check it out.
    but statistical and survey data absolutely can, and frequently, as supporting data for a wide variety of purposes, as long as proper methodology is applied.
    There are a lot of caveats there, the biggest one being proper methodology. With proper methodology, statistical and survey data is hard to ignore. However, rarely is that data reported as is to the general public. In most cases, it's not easily digestible. The average voter isn't going to take the time to read through survey methodology like I did, and even fewer will actually understand what they're reading.
    But it's an argument that can easily be refuted with data, except that ideology always trumps empirical reasoning, both in these forums and in the larger scheme of political argument.
    I agree, and I submit that you've demonstrated as high a degree of vulnerability as anyone else. You've accepted information which agrees with your ideology as fact simply because you agree and the NCHC calls it fact and cites surveys.
    Since no data will be considered valid unless it supports folks' preconceived opinions,
    You're resorting to straw men again. I spent a lot of my morning reading through the Employee Benefits Survey. I don't see any obvious problems with their methodology or data. However, I also don't see anything which supports your conclusions. Again, I ask you whether you actually read it, or whether you intended to cite a different survey.
    I'll let you all go on with the "my ideology is better than yours" arguments...I really have no interest in confronting folks' quasi-religious beliefs.
    And if you'd like to drop your religious beliefs and actually read some of the responses you're getting, I'd be more than willing to continue a serious discussion of things.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #351  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    I appreciate your situation there - mine though for years was the no need reason. Glad we are not in Ma where we would be fined $1,000 for not having health insurance.
    You're the other side of the coin there, Ben. Just because I am not insured by my employer does not mean I am uninsured. We are insured through my wife's employer because the cost/benefit ratio for her plan is better. The point was that if someone surveyed me as to whether I was insured by my employer and why or why not, I would say that I was not covered by my employer due to cost.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #352  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    The facts weren't specious; rather, the authors simply included a caveat that their study wasn't conclusive in isolation, but rather were operating "on the assumption that these findings can and will be replicated in more comprehensive future studies." Those findings were indeed supported by the Kaiser study, as well as the many other studies referenced by the NCHC.
    Which Kaiser study? Please cite the specific section.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #353  
    Yes I am then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You're the other side of the coin there, Ben. Just because I am not insured by my employer does not mean I am uninsured. We are insured through my wife's employer because the cost/benefit ratio for her plan is better. The point was that if someone surveyed me as to whether I was insured by my employer and why or why not, I would say that I was not covered by my employer due to cost.
  14. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #354  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    The facts weren't specious; rather, the authors simply included a caveat that their study wasn't conclusive in isolation, but rather were operating "on the assumption that these findings can and will be replicated in more comprehensive future studies." Those findings were indeed supported by the Kaiser study, as well as the many other studies referenced by the NCHC.
    Once again, I must take issue. Here's the quote that came from the study the NCHC footnoted (with my emphasis added):

    We studied homeowners going through foreclosure in four states and found that medical crises contribute to half of all home foreclosure filings. If these patterns hold nationwide, medical causes may put as many as 1.5 million Americans in jeopardy of losing their homes each year. If these findings are accurate, they help explain the bulk of home foreclosures, which have been occurring with stubborn frequency for a quarter century
    And here is how the same was presented on the NCHC website:

    About 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs. 11
    If that isn't taking liberties with the facts I don't know what is. In fact, now that I read it again, it's just a flat out lie.

    By the way, I scanned the entire Kaiser study and could find nothing related to foreclosures and medical costs. I also searched the study for keywords "mortgage" and "foreclosure" and found nothing. I then searched the Kaiser website for "foreclosure" and found nothing of relevance.

    If you are taking the position that medical costs aren't a large contributor to home foreclosures, I'd love to see data that you used to make that conclusion.
    I never made that claim. But, I do generally take the position that the mortgage crisis is in large part due to the fact that "the middle class in America is financially insecure, both because they are living too close
    to the margins, and because they are now exposed to risks that can
    push them over the edge." And that's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the authors of the study the NCHC footnoted.
  15. #355  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    Come up with a better proposal.
    Hardly a proper defense of socialized medicine.
  16. #356  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    For me, insurance *is* for the more serious health issues, and should not be used for common colds and rashes.
    No kidding. Glad I'm not the only one that sees it that way.
  17. #357  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaer57 View Post
    Anyone's who has used Tri-care or been active duty in the military will probably be very skeptical about government run healthcare. Those who haven't should use the military as a case study.

    Also, why can't this be a state issue? Why must we bankrupt America as a whole rather than implement different ideas in different states, see what works best, and then try to expand on it? Such a rush to spend with no real studies completed or plans laid out... Just my 2 cents...
    1) From the pharmacy standpoint, Tricare works like a charm compared to our state run plan for low income households. The state has the most restrictive formulary and as a third party they are easily the most burdensome to contract with.

    2) Why make it a state issue? The feds don't want that power decentralized.
  18. #358  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    So you would like to privatize fire fighters? Maybe by KBR? They come out to your burning house with a bill to be pre-paid before they turn on their hoses, cause it is all about personal accountability.

    I think this scenario you present is fairly flippant. Nonetheless, the idea of private firefighting companies competing for municipal contracts to offer the best services at the best value is not ridiculous.
  19. #359  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Ok, I'll give you a real world example. Uninsured person has a cold, which gets worse and worse and develops into pneumonia which they don't treat until it becomes so acute they HAVE to seek treatment. Not having insurance and allowing the symptoms to become so severe, the person presents to an ER for treatment.

    No insurance, No Money, but the ER has to treat them.

    Now who is going to absorb that cost? All of us. The hospital will pass it on to the insured through higher fees. ALL of which could have been avoided by making sure everyone has PREVENTATIVE healthcare available.

    This scenario is repeated constantly in the U.S.daily. Ask anyone that works in an ER.
    Just being nit picky at this point, but thats a lousy real world example.
    1) Going to a healthcare professional would do nothing for a cold. Its a virus, they can't give you antibiotics.
    2) Why didn't that person take better care of that cold to prevent it from developing into the secondary pneumonia?
    3) That pneumonia could still probably be treated by at a primary care setting, not the ER
    4) Its innaccurate to broadly assume that just because someone has no insurance, they also have no money.
  20. #360  
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Posting Permissions