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: Alighieri who wrote (14197)	3/9/2010 1:52:25 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

"Now they're claiming cause." No they are not. If they aren't claiming or trying to establish cause, than their being more reasonable, because their study can't establish that. But if they aren't doing so, than while more reasonable, its less potentially meaningful. It doesn't provide any support for those who are claiming that 45,000 or any number, of deaths happen because people where uninsured.

To: Alighieri who wrote (14197)	3/9/2010 4:58:43 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

At the time of the interview, these people had no insurance, and during the following 12 years they died To me the results AND the logic of someone without insurance having a greater chance of dying early is intuitively clear. So they died because they had no insurance? They had no insurance 12 years before they died by being hit by a truck ergo they died because they didn't have insurance? You call that logic? after all possible demographic adjustments were made to the data to make sure it was as unbiased as possible. Garbage in, garbage out. Adjusting garbage for demographics offers a veneer of scientific credibility because you have the same sex and race etc. ratios in each group. Yeah, they adjusted for smoking so everything else they wrote must be true. Not. If they didn't causally connect the deaths to lack of insurance, it's just garbage with lipstick. You don't need a contravening study to determine that this study doesn't demonstrate that lack of insurance kills 45K people a year. You need only look at the logic of this one to see that it doesn't have the data or the logic to support that conclusion.