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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2817)	11/11/2007 9:52:20 PM
From: brushwud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

If you...also count the current uninsured rather than people who where uninsured at any time in the past year - Than you would get a number much smaller than 47 million. Be careful regarding this point. I made the same mistake: Message 24023677 According to the Census Bureau report: People were considered "insured" if they were covered by any type of insurance for part or all of the previous calendar year. They were considered "uninsured" if they were not covered by any type of health insurance at any time in that year.

To: TimF who wrote (2817)	11/12/2007 7:44:23 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

relative frequency of cites of conservative or liberal think tanks isn't exactly a solid measure of how conservative or liberal a publican is. Yes, that's mainly what I had in mind. That's an oft used measure so it particularly irritates me. Its error is compounded by the underlying measure of which think tanks are liberal or conservative, not to mention the context in which the think tank is cited. Maybe, as you say it still "indicates something," but who knows what. I understand the impulse to use iffy indicators when nothing better is available but it behooves us not to fall for it.