|
|
webOS Nation Forums > Other Forums > Off Topic > Destroying Healthcare in America
First ... 18 68 108 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 128 ... Last
I support PRESIDENT OBAMA and his efforts to reform healthcare!
Originally Posted by anthillmob:
I and realised there is probably no point. Most of what we have been arguing about is what was in the press release (which I hope you will remember I don't rate as a source of information) rather than the meager portion of the actual article we have seen. The actual conclusions you quoted say only that there is an association between uninsurance and mortality and that his association appears to have not changed in the last 20+ years. I think most, if not all, here will agree there is some kind of association between uninsurance and death.
In fact, it is rather interesting that the published article/conclusions do not state that
"lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually." or that this is due to a failure to enact a system of universal health care. Perhaps the journal would not allow the publication of such a statement since it is not sufficiently supported by either the data or the analysis presented in the article?
Well now. You might actually have something there. Maybe Woof could refresh his memory by reading what you said very carefully (maybe that will also get him to find a definition for association that deals with statistical association instead of just pulling something off the web that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about). It is the difference between cause and association. As I stated before, cause is not the same as association, but there are characteristics of an association that makes it more likely to be a causal association. This association meets many of the criteria as outlined by Bradford Hill including strength of association, plausability, and consistency. Playing semantics about the difference is childish, but not unexpected given the source. Yes, the media piece was a bit biased and misleading in their terminology. That's why you need to read original articles....and be able to understand them. If you pay a lot of attention to media descriptions of scientific articles, you need to reconsider that plan. The fact is that in this case, it makes no difference what words they use....the data speaks for itself. In this study, people without insurance were about 1 and half times more likely to die than those with insurance, with a confidence interval that could have been as high as almost twice as likely. The difference was real, as it was statistically significant.I and realised there is probably no point. Most of what we have been arguing about is what was in the press release (which I hope you will remember I don't rate as a source of information) rather than the meager portion of the actual article we have seen. The actual conclusions you quoted say only that there is an association between uninsurance and mortality and that his association appears to have not changed in the last 20+ years. I think most, if not all, here will agree there is some kind of association between uninsurance and death.
In fact, it is rather interesting that the published article/conclusions do not state that
"lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually." or that this is due to a failure to enact a system of universal health care. Perhaps the journal would not allow the publication of such a statement since it is not sufficiently supported by either the data or the analysis presented in the article?
Originally Posted by davidra:
Well now. You might actually have something there. Maybe Woof could refresh his memory by reading what you said very carefully (maybe that will also get him to find a definition for association that deals with statistical association instead of just pulling something off the web that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about). It is the difference between cause and association. As I stated before, cause is not the same as association, but there are characteristics of an association that makes it more likely to be a causal association. This association meets many of the criteria as outlined by Bradford Hill including strength of association, plausability, and consistency. Playing semantics about the difference is childish, but not unexpected given the source. Yes, the media piece was a bit biased and misleading in their terminology. That's why you need to read original articles....and be able to understand them. If you pay a lot of attention to media descriptions of scientific articles, you need to reconsider that plan. The fact is that in this case, it makes no difference what words they use....the data speaks for itself. In this study, people without insurance were about 1 and half times more likely to die than those with insurance, with a confidence interval that could have been as high as almost twice as likely. The difference was real, as it was statistically significant.
At least I am not redefining words to further my agenda. If your case was so solid, there would be no "semantics" argument. It could stand on its own.Well now. You might actually have something there. Maybe Woof could refresh his memory by reading what you said very carefully (maybe that will also get him to find a definition for association that deals with statistical association instead of just pulling something off the web that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about). It is the difference between cause and association. As I stated before, cause is not the same as association, but there are characteristics of an association that makes it more likely to be a causal association. This association meets many of the criteria as outlined by Bradford Hill including strength of association, plausability, and consistency. Playing semantics about the difference is childish, but not unexpected given the source. Yes, the media piece was a bit biased and misleading in their terminology. That's why you need to read original articles....and be able to understand them. If you pay a lot of attention to media descriptions of scientific articles, you need to reconsider that plan. The fact is that in this case, it makes no difference what words they use....the data speaks for itself. In this study, people without insurance were about 1 and half times more likely to die than those with insurance, with a confidence interval that could have been as high as almost twice as likely. The difference was real, as it was statistically significant.
Question. If your patients don't have health insurance, do you tell them they are going to die?
Originally Posted by davidra:
Well now. You might actually have something there. Maybe Woof could refresh his memory by reading what you said very carefully (maybe that will also get him to find a definition for association that deals with statistical association instead of just pulling something off the web that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about). It is the difference between cause and association. As I stated before, cause is not the same as association, but there are characteristics of an association that makes it more likely to be a causal association. This association meets many of the criteria as outlined by Bradford Hill including strength of association, plausability, and consistency. Playing semantics about the difference is childish, but not unexpected given the source. Yes, the media piece was a bit biased and misleading in their terminology. That's why you need to read original articles....and be able to understand them. If you pay a lot of attention to media descriptions of scientific articles, you need to reconsider that plan. The fact is that in this case, it makes no difference what words they use....the data speaks for itself. In this study, people without insurance were about 1 and half times more likely to die than those with insurance, with a confidence interval that could have been as high as almost twice as likely. The difference was real, as it was statistically significant.
Oh an another thing. Why is everyone who disagrees with you childish? Well now. You might actually have something there. Maybe Woof could refresh his memory by reading what you said very carefully (maybe that will also get him to find a definition for association that deals with statistical association instead of just pulling something off the web that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about). It is the difference between cause and association. As I stated before, cause is not the same as association, but there are characteristics of an association that makes it more likely to be a causal association. This association meets many of the criteria as outlined by Bradford Hill including strength of association, plausability, and consistency. Playing semantics about the difference is childish, but not unexpected given the source. Yes, the media piece was a bit biased and misleading in their terminology. That's why you need to read original articles....and be able to understand them. If you pay a lot of attention to media descriptions of scientific articles, you need to reconsider that plan. The fact is that in this case, it makes no difference what words they use....the data speaks for itself. In this study, people without insurance were about 1 and half times more likely to die than those with insurance, with a confidence interval that could have been as high as almost twice as likely. The difference was real, as it was statistically significant.
If your patient gets a second opinion and the result contradicts yours do you tell the patient the other doc is just being childish?
Your condescension and name calling have gotten old.
Originally Posted by Woof:
Oh an another thing. Why is everyone who disagrees with you childish?
If your patient gets a second opinion and the result contradicts yours do you tell the patient the other doc is just being childish?
Your condescension and name calling have gotten old.
Disagreeing with my opinion is fine and I welcome it. Disagreeing with facts based on ignorance is a waste of everyone's time.Oh an another thing. Why is everyone who disagrees with you childish?
If your patient gets a second opinion and the result contradicts yours do you tell the patient the other doc is just being childish?
Your condescension and name calling have gotten old.
By the way....how do you know I have patients who don't have insurance? The reason a lack of insurance is associated with an increased risk of dying is because.....they don't get health care, right? Or do you think the association (which you agreed exists) is for some other reason? If so, please enlighten us.
And yes, I tell all my patients the truth if they ask....which is that they're going to die. All of them. They're just more likely to die sooner if they don't have insurance.
Obama snubs Fox News in his record-breaking media blitz. I guess he cherishes Univision's viewership more than FNC's over 50% market share. I'm sure that will go a long way in uniting the country.
Originally Posted by Toby:
So suffice it to say that you didn't actually read the article and find out that it didn't say what your 'data' said it did.
I was being facetious - I read the article, but thought that WND was too over-the-top to link to directly.So suffice it to say that you didn't actually read the article and find out that it didn't say what your 'data' said it did.
Originally Posted by Toby:
You mean the one where Worldnetdaily actually didn't say that Barack Obama equals Antichrist?
They certainly promoted that "theory", with an article entitled "Did Jesus actually reveal name of the AntiChrist", with links to the Youtube video. I know, I know...."they didn't say it, they're just askin' questions." [/glenn beck]You mean the one where Worldnetdaily actually didn't say that Barack Obama equals Antichrist?
And, of course, if you look at the reactions posted to this "article", you'll see it got the crazy reaction you would expect from anyone willing to visit that site.
Originally Posted by groovy:
Obama snubs Fox News in his record-breaking media blitz. I guess he cherishes Univision's viewership more than FNC's over 50% market share. I'm sure that will go a long way in uniting the country.
Maybe he wanted to stick to actual news sites. Obama snubs Fox News in his record-breaking media blitz. I guess he cherishes Univision's viewership more than FNC's over 50% market share. I'm sure that will go a long way in uniting the country.
Originally Posted by Bujin:
Maybe he wanted to stick to actual news sites.
Unlikely.Maybe he wanted to stick to actual news sites.
Letterman to Interview Obama on Monday - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com
Originally Posted by groovy:
Unlikely.
Letterman to Interview Obama on Monday - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com
OK, then, maybe he quite rightly realized that Fox's market share is because neo-cons are all concentrated on one channel, and since there's nothing that he can say to change a single mind on that channel.....similar to the way that no amount of facts can convince so many that his birth certificate is valid or that he's not a Muslim.....he didn't want to waste his time.Unlikely.
Letterman to Interview Obama on Monday - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com
Originally Posted by groovy:
Obama snubs Fox News in his record-breaking media blitz. I guess he cherishes Univision's viewership more than FNC's over 50% market share. I'm sure that will go a long way in uniting the country.
What good could it possible do for Obama to go on Fox News? The viewers of Fox News all hate him. That was well demonstrated by the people at the Tea Party.Obama snubs Fox News in his record-breaking media blitz. I guess he cherishes Univision's viewership more than FNC's over 50% market share. I'm sure that will go a long way in uniting the country.
Originally Posted by groovy:
Obama snubs Fox News in his record-breaking media blitz. I guess he cherishes Univision's viewership more than FNC's over 50% market share. I'm sure that will go a long way in uniting the country.
Uniting the country doesn't start with the president. It starts with us.Obama snubs Fox News in his record-breaking media blitz. I guess he cherishes Univision's viewership more than FNC's over 50% market share. I'm sure that will go a long way in uniting the country.
Originally Posted by davidra:
Disagreeing with my opinion is fine and I welcome it. Disagreeing with facts based on ignorance is a waste of everyone's time.
By the way....how do you know I have patients who don't have insurance? The reason a lack of insurance is associated with an increased risk of dying is because.....they don't get health care, right? Or do you think the association (which you agreed exists) is for some other reason? If so, please enlighten us. And yes, I tell all my patients the truth if they ask....which is that they're going to die. All of them. They're just more likely to if they don't have insurance.
Haven't seen any facts. Just opinion based on easily manipulated statistics.Disagreeing with my opinion is fine and I welcome it. Disagreeing with facts based on ignorance is a waste of everyone's time.
By the way....how do you know I have patients who don't have insurance? The reason a lack of insurance is associated with an increased risk of dying is because.....they don't get health care, right? Or do you think the association (which you agreed exists) is for some other reason? If so, please enlighten us. And yes, I tell all my patients the truth if they ask....which is that they're going to die. All of them. They're just more likely to if they don't have insurance.
I am sure you don't have any patients w/o insurance. Probably the first question your staff asks a patient "Do you have insurance?"
We're all going to die. That's not news.
Just curious, how many of you people claiming that President Obama is "Destroying Health Care in America" actually voted for him? President Obama beat John McCain 53% to 46%. I recall that he made reforming health care a major plank of his platform. So how many of the 53% now oppose the same health policies they voted for? I'm guessing NOT MANY.
Originally Posted by Woof:
Haven't seen any facts. Just opinion based on easily manipulated statistics.
We're all going to die. That's not news.
Is this really all you've got? You've repeatedly stated that you're quite familiar with statistical analysis, yet offer no evidence of how the analysis of data from the study in question is flawed. Why should the multiple CIs of 95% found within the study be considered flawed?Haven't seen any facts. Just opinion based on easily manipulated statistics.
We're all going to die. That's not news.
Originally Posted by palandri:
What good could it possible do for Obama to go on Fox News? The viewers of Fox News all hate him. That was well demonstrated by the people at the Tea Party.
Maybe. But it seems the margin for viewership is more evenly distributed in Fox than the other cable news channels. If so, that means either your statement is not correct or a good number of Democrats who watch Fox also hate Obama.What good could it possible do for Obama to go on Fox News? The viewers of Fox News all hate him. That was well demonstrated by the people at the Tea Party.
Originally Posted by :
The audiences for CNN and MSNBC, which were heavily Democratic two years ago, have become even more so: fully 51% of CNN’s regular viewers are Democrats while only 18% are Republicans. MSNBC’s audience makeup is similar– 45% of regular viewers of MSNBC are Democrats, 18% are Republicans.
...
The regular audience for the Fox News Channel continues to include more Republicans
than Democrats. Currently, 39% of regular Fox News viewers are Republicans while 33% are
Democrats; in 2006, the margin was 38% to 31%.
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/444.pdfThe audiences for CNN and MSNBC, which were heavily Democratic two years ago, have become even more so: fully 51% of CNN’s regular viewers are Democrats while only 18% are Republicans. MSNBC’s audience makeup is similar– 45% of regular viewers of MSNBC are Democrats, 18% are Republicans.
...
The regular audience for the Fox News Channel continues to include more Republicans
than Democrats. Currently, 39% of regular Fox News viewers are Republicans while 33% are
Democrats; in 2006, the margin was 38% to 31%.
Originally Posted by Woof:
Haven't seen any facts. Just opinion based on easily manipulated statistics.
Actually, that explains a lot. You really don't know the difference between facts and opinion. Why am I not surprised about that?Haven't seen any facts. Just opinion based on easily manipulated statistics.
Did anyone see the updated 60 minutes special on the DEKA arm? It's a $100 million dollar Pentagon project, and I believe the money is well spent. Ling said:
"It's a huge number. But it does a number of things. Number one is, of course, it fulfills our commitment to these fine your men and women who the issue of money compared to what they have done for the service of the nation becomes immaterial,"
Anybody disagree?
The Pentagon's Bionic Arm - 60 Minutes - CBS News
"It's a huge number. But it does a number of things. Number one is, of course, it fulfills our commitment to these fine your men and women who the issue of money compared to what they have done for the service of the nation becomes immaterial,"
Anybody disagree?
The Pentagon's Bionic Arm - 60 Minutes - CBS News
Originally Posted by 1thing2add:
Man! Talk about reaching for conclusions for the sake of just being argumentative. Enjoy yourself, but I'm not going along on your joyride.
Says the guy who stole the car.Man! Talk about reaching for conclusions for the sake of just being argumentative. Enjoy yourself, but I'm not going along on your joyride.
Originally Posted by :
Not that any of this is remotely related to healthcare,
I completely agree. Thanks go to you and Palandri for starting the distraction.Not that any of this is remotely related to healthcare,
Originally Posted by :
as for Worldnetdaily's claim that the name "Barack Obama" = "antichrist", I believe Bujin's link speaks for itself.
Yes, it certainly does.as for Worldnetdaily's claim that the name "Barack Obama" = "antichrist", I believe Bujin's link speaks for itself.
Originally Posted by :
IMO, the issue of healthcare is much better served by removing the partisanism, so maybe it's best to just leave this bit of garbage behind?
Agreed.IMO, the issue of healthcare is much better served by removing the partisanism, so maybe it's best to just leave this bit of garbage behind?
Originally Posted by :
I should've known better than to accept the bait a couple pages ago.
ITYM set the bait. Woof was the one who accepted it.I should've known better than to accept the bait a couple pages ago.
Originally Posted by Bujin:
I was being facetious - I read the article, but thought that WND was too over-the-top to link to directly.
While their site certainly seems to be filled with much kookery, the particular article mentioned does not come to the conclusions expressed in the article you did link to.I was being facetious - I read the article, but thought that WND was too over-the-top to link to directly.
Originally Posted by :
They certainly promoted that "theory", with an article entitled "Did Jesus actually reveal name of the AntiChrist", with links to the Youtube video.
What conclusion did they come to?They certainly promoted that "theory", with an article entitled "Did Jesus actually reveal name of the AntiChrist", with links to the Youtube video.
Originally Posted by :
I know, I know...."they didn't say it, they're just askin' questions." [/glenn beck]
So, you're saying that asking loaded questions like "Christian churches are teaching that the name "Barack Obama's" origin is literally "antichrist"?" can sometimes not be simply questions, but accusations?I know, I know...."they didn't say it, they're just askin' questions." [/glenn beck]
Originally Posted by :
And, of course, if you look at the reactions posted to this "article", you'll see it got the crazy reaction you would expect from anyone willing to visit that site.
They appear to me to be the same sort of reactions posted on the Examiner. Just on the opposite side of the coin.And, of course, if you look at the reactions posted to this "article", you'll see it got the crazy reaction you would expect from anyone willing to visit that site.
webOS Nation Forums > Other Forums > Off Topic > Destroying Healthcare in America
