The Alien in the White House

[RangerM]

.......they are stating that health insurance is potentially an even bigger protector of health than they are saying, but they are not willing to do so due to insufficient information.

Like you said, they have insufficient infomation to claim that insurance is a greater protector than 0.3 in 100.

Going from 3.0% to 3.3% is a 10% increase(.033/.03-1), not a 0.3%. 2.3% to 3.3% is a 43.5% increase(0.033/0.023 - 1), not 1.0%.

The statement still stands.

 

If 1000 Average Joes have private insurance (according to the data), 30 of them will die, but if they have no insurance 33 of them will die. (and if you include those on government insurance, 23 based on my calculation, and assumption that noone on government insurance dies). Of course, according to the data in the paper, there are a lot more Average Joes with private insurance than without, so it follows that more Average Joes with private insurance died.

 

A 10% increase of a small number is still a small number.

 

A penny for your thoughts, still nets a 100% return, when you give me your $0.02. :shades:

Let me highlight this phrase for you: "among those with at least minimal access to care." That is, among people who actually have insurance. This is not a study between the insured and the uninsured, because the uninsured have no access to care in the context of that paper and were never part of the survey.

Could you please support your presumption that the survey specifically excluded those without insurance? After all, in Table 1 it lists them as a percentage of all respondents, and it carries that assumption throughout the rest of the tables.

 

Or, you could just provide the proof that people without insurance [A], never seek healthcare services . [if A then B]

Edited June 15, 2010 by RangerM

[Mysterio]

Like you said, they have insufficient infomation to claim that insurance is a greater protector than 0.3 in 100.

 

The statement still stands.

 

If 1000 Average Joes have private insurance (according to the data), 30 of them will die, but if they have no insurance 33 of them will die. (and if you include those on government insurance, 23 based on my calculation, and assumption that noone on government insurance dies). Of course, according to the data in the paper, there are a lot more Average Joes with private insurance than without, so it follows that more Average Joes with private insurance died.

 

A 10% increase of a small number is still a small number.

 

A penny for your thoughts, still nets a 100% return, when you give me your $0.02. :shades:

 

Depends on who you ask, but accord to the study, a 10% over the course of the study means about 45000 people will die every year.

 

Just sustain that 100% daily growth rate for a month and I'll be exceedingly happy. :hyper:

 

Could you please support your presumption that the survey specifically excluded those without insurance? After all, in Table 1 it lists them as a percentage of all respondents, and it carries that assumption throughout the rest of the tables.

 

Or, you could just provide the proof that people without insurance [A], never seek healthcare services . [if A then B]

 

Well now that I've read it more carefully, it does look it considers people with no insurance. However, it only considers the ones that visit the doctor at least once in the last two years. It's not clear from the paper that that is a representative sample of the uninsured. Common sense tells us it couldn't be, because the whole issue with the uninsured is that they hardly visit the doctor except in emergencies. Even so, the uninsured still had the second worst level of health care, very slightly above private non-managed care.

[RangerM]

Depends on who you ask, but accord to the study, a 10% over the course of the study means about 45000 people will die every year.

 

Just sustain that 100% daily growth rate for a month and I'll be exceedingly happy. :hyper:

Call it a "sin of omission", since there are a whole lot more people with insurance that die (confirmed by the paper itself). No one (that I know of) would say that 45,000 is a positive, however comparing the risk of the uninsured (3.3%) with the privately insured (3.0%) doesn't provide that certain sense of urgency that "45000" does. But like you said, there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics".

 

I always liked that Would you work for me at a penny-a-day, if I double it for a month lesson in school. Unfortunately, noone ever offered it to me.

Well now that I've read it more carefully, it does look it considers people with no insurance. However, it only considers the ones that visit the doctor at least once in the last two years. It's not clear from the paper that that is a representative sample of the uninsured. Common sense tells us it couldn't be, because the whole issue with the uninsured is that they hardly visit the doctor except in emergencies. Even so, the uninsured still had the second worst level of health care, very slightly above private non-managed care.

Since their original purpose was to compare the quality of care received by various groups (and not specifically looking at the with/without insurance question), you're probably right that it's not a perfectly representative sample. But, with the dataset they had, they apparently felt comfortable drawing the conclusion (by inference) that lack of insurance didn't result in a meaningful difference in the quality of care received, with the qualifier that the people had to seek care in the first place of course.

Edited June 16, 2010 by RangerM

[joihan777]

Before this year, I always assumed that insurance in Japan was provided by the government. I have learned that it is not: it is provided by a network of some 200 private insurers. And almost all of the providers are private. However, the system is regulated so that rates and procedures are uniform. ........................ My beef with our system is that it is such a hodge-podge, with no uniformity, no security, and the ever-present possibility of being left high and dry when you need it most (and this is not to mention costs escalating at many times the rate of inflation and millions uninsured).

 

On this I absolutely agree. Car manufacturers are mandated to follow many rules/standards. There is no reason businesses can't follow.

[partsisparts]

I didn't see WHY the WC bust was sent back. If it was a gift to the WH from the Tony Blair, it seems like a slight to either him or the Brits.

 

Maybe he was pissed about being laughed at for the DVD/I-pod thing last year?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006290073

 

The bust was on loan. It was already scheduled to go back to Britain before Obama took office.

[xr7g428]

Always interesting to see what your masters leave out. They cite the following article, and then claim that it doesn't say what it actually says. So read it for your self. Pretty strange stuff.

 

 

 

 

But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

 

Diplomats were at first reluctant to discuss the whereabouts of the Churchill bronze, after its ejection from the seat of American power. But the British Embassy in Washington has now confirmed that it sits in the palatial residence of ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald, just down the road from Vice President Joe Biden's official residence. It is not clear whether the ambassador plans to keep it in Washington or send it back to London.

 

American politicians have made quoting Churchill, whose mother was American, something of an art form, but not Mr Obama, who prefers to cite the words and works of his hero Abraham Lincoln. Indeed a bust of Mr Lincoln now sits in the Oval Office where Epstein's Churchill once ruled the roost.

 

Churchill has less happy connotations for Mr Obama than those American politicians who celebrate his wartime leadership. It was during Churchill's second premiership that Britain suppressed Kenya's Mau Mau rebellion. Among Kenyans allegedly tortured by the colonial regime included one Hussein Onyango Obama, the President's grandfather.

[Trimdingman]

Always interesting to see what your masters leave out. They cite the following article, and then claim that it doesn't say what it actually says. So read it for your self. Pretty strange stuff.

 

 

Lots of Canadians also have good reason for resentment towards the English. At least Americans had the guts to do something about it.

[suv_guy_19]

Lots of Canadians also have good reason for resentment towards the English.

 

Such as?

[BlackHorse]

With respect to the bust of Chruchill. It was a gift to the American people from the British and it was in poor taste and low class to make it a point to return it on Obama's part. It shows that he presupposes that items of this nature in the White House belong to him personally and not the American people as a whole and reveals the combination of arrogance and short sighted ignorance that is Barack Obama.

 

Heck maybe he just sent it back because everytime he looked at the bust of Chruchill he realized how truly pathetic a national leader he is by comparison.

[suv_guy_19]

Or maybe he didn't want it.....really, I mean, I'm sure there's something far more substantive (in fact, I know there is) that he can be criticized for.

[BlackHorse]

Or maybe he didn't want it.....really, I mean, I'm sure there's something far more substantive (in fact, I know there is) that he can be criticized for.

 

Again, it's not up to him to decide that "he" doesn't want it. It doesn't belong to him. It belongs to the American people. If he just didn't want to see it or have it displayed there were a number of ways to go about having that handled. Put it up in a closet somewhere in the White House, out of sight, out of mind. To go out of his way and make a point of giving it back to the English is an offensive and deliberate insult to them. And yes there are plenty of more substantive issues to criticize Obama for, most notably the fact that his Presidency has been a complete failure from the beginning. But the bust was brought up on this thread and so I responded to that particular issue. Only one more example in a plethora of such examples that the man is a failure as a President.

Edited July 1, 2010 by BlackHorse

[suv_guy_19]

Again, it's not up to him to decide that "he" doesn't want it. It doesn't belong to him. It belongs to the American people.

 

 

Well, if you want to be technical, it belongs to the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Edstock]

Lots of Canadians also have good reason for resentment towards the English. At least Americans had the guts to do something about it.

Ah, here we have Trimslobber.

 

No facts, innuendo only.

 

"Lots" of Canadians. There's 34 million of us. Please supply a number, if you can, or is this just another of your ignorant diatribes? How many Canadians have a good reason? Not a Trimreason, but a good reason?

[suv_guy_19]

Well, if you want to be technical, it belongs to the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

Further, if you want to be technical, it was a loan from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a government made up of representatives elected by the people of the UK. As their representatives, they loaned the bust to President Bush. As your representative, as head of state, but also head of government, BHO decided to not extend the term during which the bust would be kept...I'm pretty sure that, as your representative, BHO is capable of making a decision like that....or did you want to be personally consulted first?

Edited July 1, 2010 by suv_guy_19

[BlackHorse]

Further, if you want to be technical, it was a loan from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a government made up of representatives elected by the people of the UK. As their representatives, they loaned the bust to President Bush. As your representative, as head of state, but also head of government, BHO decided to not extend the term during which the bust would be kept...I'm pretty sure that, as your representative, BHO is capable of making a decision like that....or did you want to be personally consulted first?

 

 

:boring: inane prattle. It wasn't a loan in any way shape or form SUV. That whole post is just silly nonsense. Come up with something better man.

[partsisparts]

:boring: inane prattle. It wasn't a loan in any way shape or form SUV. That whole post is just silly nonsense. Come up with something better man.

It was on loan to President Bush. Look it up.

[BlackHorse]

It was on loan to President Bush. Look it up.

 

So it was. A loan that cost no money and therefore cost the taxpayers nothing. Basically they said "Here, you can just have this for awhile." Furthermore the British offered to let Obama keep the bust for a further 4 years at the start of his Presidency and he refused. That still brings us back to the original point, that he went out of his way to insult the British over the matter. Just accept the item, be gracious and if you don't want it in the oval office put it somewhere else in the White House. How hard is that? When the Brits wanted it back they would have said so.

[retro-man]

Here's a link to the Newsweek article on the matter - which states that the bust was on loan. There are any number of other links, from various sources, that say the same thing.

Edited July 1, 2010 by retro-man

[Trimdingman]

Ah, here we have Trimslobber.

 

No facts, innuendo only.

 

"Lots" of Canadians. There's 34 million of us. Please supply a number, if you can, or is this just another of your ignorant diatribes? How many Canadians have a good reason? Not a Trimreason, but a good reason?

 

 

Francophones, Aboriginals, Immigrants from countries with bad histories with England. The only reason why Canada did not join the US in kicking the Redcoats out in 1776 was lack of power to do it. Halifax Citidal was a formidable fortification, and if the Americans tried to take it, it could have cost them the Revolution, so we were left behind. Sentiments in Canada at the time were as much anti-English as they were in the States; even more so than in places such as Georgia which was split pretty much down the middle. There was a rebellion in Nova Scotia called the Eddy Rebellion led by Johnathan Eddy and John Allen to bring what is now called Canada into the Revolution, but it was put down by the English. In 1749, a bounty was placed on Mi'kmaq people, paid on producing a scalp of said person, man, woman, or child. Between 1755 and 1760, sixth generation Canadians were forcefully removed from their lands and "deported", many murdered, by the English. These were the Acadians. Many were also scalped for bounties along with the Mi'kmaq who were sheltering them from the Redcoats. In 1758 and 1759, the English set their Redcoat dogs loose on the civilian population from Louisburg, Cape Breton to Quebec, burning, raping, murdering, and plundering. That should be reason enough for there to be significant resentment among Canadians towards the English. If you don't feel any resentment, then you are not a true Canadian.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Trimdingman

[suv_guy_19]

Nice revisionist history there Trim.

[suv_guy_19]

:boring: inane prattle. It wasn't a loan in any way shape or form SUV. That whole post is just silly nonsense. Come up with something better man.

 

So you did want to be personally consulted....how very interesting. That's the thing about representative democracy.....once the representative is elected, they don't even have to listen to the populace (unless there is recall legislation). This is the kind of choice that a representative should be able to make on their own, without having to worry too much about it.

Edited July 1, 2010 by suv_guy_19

[Trimdingman]

Nice revisionist history there Trim.

 

 

That is how it really happened. The war was between England and France on our Canadian land. Neither one had the right to be there. True Canadians are Canadian residents, not foreign governments and military. If you are a Canadian, your sympathies have to be with other Canadians, not foreign Dictators and Tyrants. They ravaged civilian Canadian farms, attempted genocide against Canadian peoples. The Beothuk Nation of Newfoundland was completely wiped out. To-day is Canada Day. It is long past time for Canadians to reflect on who we really are and come together.

[suv_guy_19]

What are you talking about? First, Canada wouldn't exist without the British (or French) and second, Canada has nothing to do with either today.

[BlackHorse]

So you did want to be personally consulted....how very interesting. That's the thing about representative democracy.....once the representative is elected, they don't even have to listen to the populace (unless there is recall legislation). This is the kind of choice that a representative should be able to make on their own, without having to worry too much about it.

 

I'm not going to get drawn into a political argument with you suv-guy, and that is all that you do on this forum anymore. No I didn't need to be personally consulted, I never implied that in any way and to draw that conclusion from what I posted shows either a lack of comprehension or simply a desire to further yet another argument about politics. I think it's the latter of the two. The simple facts are that the British were gracious and offered to let the bust stay in the White House for another four years and Obama should have been gracious enough to accept. Regardless of how menial or trivial you want to consider the matter, many Americans know that his actions are yet another example of his arrogance and ineptness for the office he currently holds. If it's so unimportant, why are you still posting about the matter?

[suv_guy_19]

I'm not going to get drawn into a political argument with you suv-guy, and that is all that you do on this forum anymore.

 

Yes, because i care about politics far more than cars. I said I wouldn't come over here, but, I like it too much.

 

 

If it's so unimportant, why are you still posting about the matter?

 

Because you are. Obama has many other flaws and problems....talking about non important things like this really waste energy. It doesn't matter what I think though....