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: Mary Cluney who wrote (4483)	2/14/2008 11:55:34 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

Did you read Sherlock Holmes "The Dog That Was Not Black"<g>? No, do you recommend it? If no one shows up with a dog that was not black, I could very logically conclude all dogs are black. That is good logic. Not really. In the real world we have previous knowledge about dogs (and the drug industry and economics). There is no reason to think that all dogs have turned black since the last time we saw a non-black dog. Even without such previous knowledge, a sample of two is not enough to make a conclusion, a power point presentation about black dogs is irrelevant, and even a sample of ten thousand isn't enough, because there is no reason to think they where a random selection (and if they where a random selection, it would really only show that its very likely that the vast majority of dogs are black). But the two black dogs, while far two small of sample to be useful, are relevant (just totally inadequate). Most of the facts on the drug industry in the posts I've been replying to in this line of discussion aren't even relevant. In that sense they are more like my "you owe me a million dollars" argument. They aren't quite that bad, they aren't 100% unrelated, and some of them might be peripherally relevant (and some of those support my case). I only made such an wacky argument as a Reductio ad absurdum response to the idea that "data speaks for itself", without needing any logic/logical relevance.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (4483)	2/14/2008 12:12:26 PM
From: gg cox	Respond to of 42652

<<<If you showed me a black dog. And then showed me another black dog. And then said "see all dogs are black" I don't have to present my own data (a white dog, a brown one, whatever) to say that your argument is faulty.>>> Just like this thread,no representation from the uninsured, under insured, insured but declined, insured but now bankrupt, those that opt out because they feel they have to eat out,and of course those that just do not want to pay because they will get the care, and someone else will pay. so conclusion would be, there will be more of these non payers,several categories of course. As time goes by, the majority will end up with government provided insurance, with the suckers (although well mannered, with self esteem and integrity) on the sidelines saying there is something wrong with this picture.