A US National Health Care System? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Alighieri who wrote (14114)	3/8/2010 10:52:11 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 42652

I don't think it's important that the number is 18K or 45K or some other figure. What if the figure were zero? Or twelve? Or minus 5000? If you can't validate a study or show that it demonstrates something relevant, why would you make a determination based on it? Does it not give you pause that one source comes up with 45 and another with 18? No, you conclude that it must be some big number and you don't care which one. Did you consider that if there's a 27K difference in one direction, that the 18K number might be 27K off in the other direction, which would be a negative number? the evidence from multiple sources is strong and the condition unacceptable to have it dismissed arbitrarily as you do here. No, it isn't strong. The study doesn't demonstrate what you think it does. Just because a lot of people publish reports about it with unsupported claims doesn't make the evidence strong. You have to look at it critically. I identified two critical failures in the report of the study. Did you look at them? Listing two critical failures is "arbitrary?" I think not. What is arbitrary is believing everything you read when is supports your preconceptions, however ill supported. you don't seem to be bothered by the fact that many go without or get theirs through "unusual" and substandard means That is not a valid conclusion. I have been arguing against the hyperbolic use of the word, "access." My argument says absolutely nothing about my concerns about substandard health care. You have no basis to infer that. That's an example of what I addressed here: "It ain't just "fer me or AGIN me." Message 26366528 It's a logical fallacy to conclude that because I object to hyperbole from the proponents of reform that I must not care about substandard health care. I have also argued against the hyperbole of "death panels." Does that mean that I'm in favor of the legislative proposal? Hardly. I'm just against hyperbole from either side and in favor of critical thinking about the issues. It is common practice that when someone disagrees with side A on some little thing, that person must be on side B. Which both explains and feeds the unhealthy polarization that exists in politics today. When you buy anything that seems to support your side and jump to exaggerated, binary conclusions to anything that is critical of your side, then you're part of the problem.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next