Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (38670)	3/2/2005 1:54:09 PM
From: fresc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

LOL! Laz is going to hunt you down!

To: jttmab who wrote (38670)	3/13/2005 11:26:08 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

DUH! So in your so-called "scientific work", you'd have NO PROBLEM with data that varied over a range of better than 4 to 1 for no apparent reason? Or with the person who gave you that data? The range wasn't 40-45 million, dunce, it was 20 to 85 million. Man, I'm glad you left this country. That 85M number was "sometime in the last 4 years". Why 4 years? Why not 1? Or 10? And that's HARDLY the same as "85 millions Americans have no health insurance, period", which he tries to imply. Then there's "We allow 43 million Americans (that's 1 in 6 people), including 10 million children, to be uninsured. Many more millions of people are underinsured with huge gaps in their coverage." (You can find where that quote is among his mishmash). That's hardly the same as a count of "only working Americans". And if it's a count of dependents, when was it and over what period of time was that count made? How does it fit into all those other numbers?