PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: You Only Live Twice on June 27, 2016, 08:24:26 PM
-
Data is unnecessary when you have "feelings", and a political agenda.
"Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/27/michael-mann-climate-scientist-data-increasingly-u/
-
A hoax can get along just fine without science.
-
All he is saying is "if you don't believe the climate models or anything else, just look out the window".
-
All he is saying is "if you don't believe the climate models or anything else, just look out the window".
...and the fact that the democratic platform appears to call for PROSECUTION for climate change deniers is just... you know... coincidence.
-
...and the fact that the democratic platform appears to call for PROSECUTION for climate change deniers is just... you know... coincidence.
Democratic platform can call for whatever it wants. Still can't put it into law given the first amendment. They know that, which is why its in the platform. I personally can't understand why they would want to prosecute deniers. People do stupid things all the time.
-
Democratic platform can call for whatever it wants. Still can't put it into law given the first amendment. They know that, which is why its in the platform. I personally can't understand why they would want to prosecute deniers. People do stupid things all the time.
Like claim there is no need to back up their idiotic claims about MMGW with anything resembling integrity or facts.
-
Like claim there is no need to back up their idiotic claims about MMGW with anything resembling integrity or facts.
Tons of facts, all publicly available, by the way.
-
Tons of facts, all publicly available, by the way.
Many of which are false, "adjusted", or simply made up. If the facts supported the conclusions then the imbecile left wouldn't need to threaten prosecution to avoid examination.
-
Lots of data. The challenging is making a model that will extrapolate correctly.
-
Lots of data. The challenging is making a model that will extrapolate correctly. to get the pre-determined result
Fixed that for you.
-
Lots of data. The challenging is making a model that will extrapolate correctly.
Fixed that for you.
Aka, lies, damned lies, and statistics.
-
Aka, lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I once heard the opening lecture in a statistics class:
"This is a course in bullshit, how to create it and how to sling it."
-
Democratic platform can call for whatever it wants. Still can't put it into law given the first amendment. They know that, which is why its in the platform. I personally can't understand why they would want to prosecute deniers. People do stupid things all the time.
The government can't force you to buy a product either. Oh, wait...never mind. They'll just "tax" you if you don't.
-
It is fascinating to me that you can firmly claim to be on both sides of any argument in the effort to protect the progressive agenda. Hypocrisy seems to be your mother's milk.
Again, insults don't change the facts. When people start insulting me it usually means they haven't the chops to answer my argument intelligently.
In one thread you attack people for demanding that factual evidence,
If someone demands factual evidence I give it, unless it is so blatantly obvious that they'd have to have their heads in the sand to not see it.
capable of sustaining critical evaluation and review is unnecessary and illogical because your emotional response to temporary and local weather is all that is necessary to "prove" that the mmgw crock is true,
Claiming a big conspiracy is not critical evaluation. Indeed, I doubt strongly anyone on this board is capable of critical evaluation, the stuff is pretty arcane. I've said over and over that I'm not, it isn't my bag. I just happen to know a lot of these guys, was raised in the same culture, know what it takes to get published and what it gets you, and have seen that most to he vitriol slung at Climatologists is naught but falsehoods. Indeed if there is conspiracy it is of moneyed interests slandering scientists.
then turn around and continually demand a never ending stream of 'more' evidence about Hilary Clinton's criminal and ethical crimes.
All I have asked is some evidence that she benefited financially from the nonprofit in such a way that it would sway her actions. If not that, then some sort of paper or electronic communication substantiating the allegations against her. I ever spelled out the reasoning making me ask this, and the context within which my question operated. By the way, this question has gone completely unanswered by any but insults. Tells me something important right there.
It must make your head hurt to be so two faced.
If you really want me to start posting mmgw studies I'll do so happily. They're not hard to find and in the public domain.
-
If someone demands factual evidence I give it, unless it is so blatantly obvious that they'd have to have their heads in the sand to not see it.
not true.
You've never substantiated your claims regarding the benefits of the EU
Nor have you substantiated your position that single-payer is necessary (or even useful) for improving healthcare.
-
not true.
You've never substantiated your claims regarding the benefits of the EU
How's this. Markets have taken a nose dive from Timbuktu to Tokyo since the vote.
As far as what the EU did, we can start with open borders. Before the vote, British citizens had the right to live, work or retire anywhere in Europe. Now it is less clear. Employers in Britain could hire anyone in the EU. Now they can't. Britain didn't have to regulate trade with hundreds of other nations, the EU did it for them. They could trade anywhere in Europe without tariffs, and actually received considerable subsides from the EU. You could travel without the need for visas, and if you got sick you could check into any hospital in the EU without fear of bankrupting yourself. You also got the same consumer protection that you received in Britain anywhere in the EU. Apparently the British liked it far better than they let on, since the EU was their largest trading partner by a fair margin. it was also where most British went on holiday and where many went to retire.
There is another less tangible benefit, however. We're used to having a large footprint because we live in a huge nation. Britain is a medium sized country, and on its own really doesn't wield all that much influence. But as part of a larger multinational synod it could effect far greater influence on the events around it.
Nor have you substantiated your position that single-payer is necessary (or even useful) for improving healthcare.
You won't believe me, so you might think about looking this up. First, per capita spending on health care. You probably don't believe me, but we're number one in this category. We spend more than any other industrialized democracy. Now, look up any outcome you like. Infant mortality. Cancer incidence. Life span. Death from diabetes. Death from cardiovascular disease. What ever you like. Go ahead. The stats are easy to find. I'll bet you money that the US is not first in any of these or any other measure of health. That is, we spend more than everyone on health care but aren't healthier than anyone. That is how I make my case. And if you actually try and look any of this stuff up for yourself you'll be convinced as well, if you can be convinced by pesky things like facts.
-
You won't believe me, so you might think about looking this up. First, per capita spending on health care. You probably don't believe me, but we're number one in this category. We spend more than any other industrialized democracy. Now, look up any outcome you like. Infant mortality. Cancer incidence. Life span. Death from diabetes. Death from cardiovascular disease. What ever you like. God ahead. The stats are easy to find. I'll bet you money that the US is not first in any of these or any other measure of health.
Health Care Stats WRONG (http://www.cato.org/publications/briefing-paper/whos-fooling-who-world-health-organizations-problematic-ranking-health-care-systems)
-
Health Care Stats WRONG (http://www.cato.org/publications/briefing-paper/whos-fooling-who-world-health-organizations-problematic-ranking-health-care-systems)
I don't have time to read it. Do the authors offer a competing methodology and subsequent ranking?
-
Health Care Stats WRONG (http://www.cato.org/publications/briefing-paper/whos-fooling-who-world-health-organizations-problematic-ranking-health-care-systems)
That's why I didn't try giving you a source. Get your own. Use whatever source you like. It won't affect the outcome one bit.
-
That's why I didn't try giving you a source. Get your own. Use whatever source you like. It won't affect the outcome one bit.
Spoken like a true academic!
-
Spoken like a true academic!
Like I said, when I start seeing insults I know the other guy hasn't anything better.
-
You won't believe me, so you might think about looking this up. First, per capita spending on health care.
Define "spending". Is this the per capita direct care number, or the GDP related to all "health care" industry factors? This country has many pharma and medical device companies that benefit the entire world, not just the US population.
-
Like I said, when I start seeing insults I know the other guy hasn't anything better.
Insult? For complementing you on your actions?
-
Define "spending". Is this the per capita direct care number, or the GDP related to all "health care" industry factors? This country has many pharma and medical device companies that benefit the entire world, not just the US population.
If you're counting the Pharma industry then the per capita costs go down. They make lots of profit. Moreover, most of their R&D is done in the public sector. As far as how to determine per capita costs, use whatever measure you deem appropriate. Won't matter.
-
That's why I didn't try giving you a source. Get your own. Use whatever source you like. It won't affect the outcome one bit.
I guess I would be much better off going to Cuba for my health care.
-
Insult? For complementing you on your actions?
Complementing? By using "academic" as a pejorative?
-
Complementing? By using "academic" as a pejorative?
Pretty much as close as he gets to complimenting anyone other than The Orange One.
-
As far as what the EU did, we can start with open borders. Before the vote, British citizens had the right to live, work or retire anywhere in Europe. Now it is less clear. Employers in Britain could hire anyone in the EU. Now they can't. Britain didn't have to regulate trade with hundreds of other nations, the EU did it for them. They could trade anywhere in Europe without tariffs, and actually received considerable subsides from the EU. You could travel without the need for visas, and if you got sick you could check into any hospital in the EU without fear of bankrupting yourself. You also got the same consumer protection that you received in Britain anywhere in the EU. Apparently the British liked it far better than they let on, since the EU was their largest trading partner by a fair margin. it was also where most British went on holiday and where many went to retire.
The UK is a sovereign country that should've never given up their independence in support of some greater European entity. The culture of the UK is vastly different than the French or the Greeks or the Germans. What works for the UK may not work for any other country so trying to have a one size fits all type solution for all of Europe isn't practical. There's nothing that says that Brits can't travel to, or retire in, other countries within Europe, it just may be a different process.
The UK is not a state in a a greater nation such as Texas is a state in the United States so trying to treat it as such doesn't work. The markets are rattled right now because of the uncertainty, which they don't like. They'll smoothen out once investors start to figure out how this is going to play out. The UK was smart to keep their currency.
There is another less tangible benefit, however. We're used to having a large footprint because we live in a huge nation. Britain is a medium sized country, and on its own really doesn't wield all that much influence. But as part of a larger multinational synod it could effect far greater influence on the events around it.
This doesn't make sense. The size of the country doesn't always make a difference as to the influence they have around the world. There was a time that Britain ruled many different parts of the world, hence the old saying, "The sun never sets on the British Empire."
You won't believe me, so you might think about looking this up. First, per capita spending on health care. You probably don't believe me, but we're number one in this category. We spend more than any other industrialized democracy. Now, look up any outcome you like. Infant mortality. Cancer incidence. Life span. Death from diabetes. Death from cardiovascular disease. What ever you like. Go ahead. The stats are easy to find. I'll bet you money that the US is not first in any of these or any other measure of health. That is, we spend more than everyone on health care but aren't healthier than anyone. That is how I make my case. And if you actually try and look any of this stuff up for yourself you'll be convinced as well, if you can be convinced by pesky things like facts.
I'm not smart enough to discuss numbers on health care but I'd like to take a different approach to this discussion. You can argue all you want about costs and who benefits the most from it (despite my limited knowledge on numbers I would argue that having the government run anything this large is a terrible idea), but we have to first start with where that "right" comes from. It's not in the Constitution, so where does it originate? Bernie Sanders says it comes from being a "human being" but looking at history, that's not the case. The fact is that health care is not a right in this country. Everyone is, and should be, responsible for taking care of themselves and not relying on the government to do it for them.
The next part of the health care debate is to figure out who's going to pay for it if you decide to go to a universal, or single payer, system. The country doesn't generate enough revenue to do it right now (look at the ever rising costs of the ACA - so much for everyone paying less per year) so taxes will have to be raised. But when you add over 300 million people (those are actual citizens, not the millions of illegals that are here) the cost grows exponentially. Tax the rich so they can pay their "fair share"? We already tax them a lot, where do we draw the line? What incentive do they have to keep working hard if they're just going to lose most of their money? What happens when the government runs out of money to pay for health care? What exactly will the government pay for? Elective surgeries? (think sex changes for an example) What about those who are elderly (defining the age for "elderly" is another debate)? Will they get care no matter what it is, even if they're diagnosed with a terminal illness? There are too many unknowns. What is known is that the government is bad at managing such large bureaucracies (pick an example, any example, like TSA).
Margaret Thatcher once said that, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of everyone else's money".
-
If you're counting the Pharma industry then the per capita costs go down. They make lots of profit. Moreover, most of their R&D is done in the public sector. As far as how to determine per capita costs, use whatever measure you deem appropriate. Won't matter.
Right, forgot I'm dealing with a scientist, you don't need data because you can see it!
So when are you moving to the Worker's Paradise?
Funny, when there is a Leftist Revolution, the first people to be lined up against a wall are the academics, yet these are the same people that think Leftist societies are Utopian. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
-
Pretty much as close as he gets to complimenting anyone other than The Orange One.
Buthillary.
-
Buthillary.
Shouldn't there have been two "t"s in there?
-
Complementing? By using "academic" as a pejorative?
He's not an academic?
noun
1.
a teacher or scholar in a college or institute of higher education.
-
I guess I would be much better off going to Cuba for my health care.
It depends. If you have lots of money or really good health insurance you can't do much better than the old U.S. of A. On the other hand I recall when Michael Moore took folks who were sickened through their efforts to relieve 911 victims to Cuba. Unable to obtain relief for their maladies in the US, the Cubans patched them right up. There is a robust and growing medical tourism industry in India as well.
-
If you have lots of money or really good health insurance you can't do much better than the old U.S. of A.
Doesn't StupidityCare(TM) force everyone to have "really good health insurance"?
-
Doesn't StupidityCare(TM) force everyone to have "really good health insurance"?
No.
Just expensive insurance.
-
No.
Just expensive insurance.
Technically it's just - Really USELESS insurance, brought to you by STUPID liberals.
-
Data is unnecessary when you have "feelings", and a political agenda.
(https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/no-stinkin-data.jpg?w=720)
-
You won't believe me, so you might think about looking this up. First, per capita spending on health care. You probably don't believe me, but we're number one in this category. We spend more than any other industrialized democracy. Now, look up any outcome you like. Infant mortality. Cancer incidence. Life span. Death from diabetes. Death from cardiovascular disease. What ever you like. Go ahead. The stats are easy to find. I'll bet you money that the US is not first in any of these or any other measure of health. That is, we spend more than everyone on health care but aren't healthier than anyone. That is how I make my case. And if you actually try and look any of this stuff up for yourself you'll be convinced as well, if you can be convinced by pesky things like facts.
A scientist should understand cause and effect.
explain why single-payer is a means to better healthcare.
-
A scientist should understand cause and effect.
explain why single-payer is a means to better healthcare.
I do not have to understand neurotransmission to know that stubbing my toe hurts. Why single payer is less expensive and gives better outcomes is a complex question with a long answer. But less expensive it is, and better outcomes it gives every time.
-
I do not have to understand neurotransmission to know that stubbing my toe hurts. Why single payer is less expensive and gives better outcomes is a complex question with a long answer. But less expensive it is, and better outcomes it gives every time.
I provided a pretty lengthy response to one of your posts. Are you purposely choosing not to respond?
-
I do not have to understand neurotransmission to know that stubbing my toe hurts. Why single payer is less expensive and gives better outcomes is a complex question with a long answer. But less expensive it is, and better outcomes it gives every time.
You haven't explained the why.
Failure to do that means you've failed to show that it would necessarily lead to a better result here.
You failed to consider the fact that healthcare in countries with single-payer isn't a closed system.
You failed to consider the fact that healthcare results can be manipulated. For example, consider a hypothetical example of two surgeons. One surgeon has never lost a patient and every operation was entirely successful (that surgeon is part of a single-payer system). The other surgeon hasn't been quite as successful (and is not part of a single-payer system). In your mind, you would claim that single-payer leads to better results. Of course, you would have failed to think about whether the first surgeon only takes patients with very high probably of survival and that the second surgeon will take on patients that would be more challenging.
Centuries ago, people thought bathing was a bad idea because they tended to get sick after bathing. They didn't understand the why.
Apparently not all scientists are smart enough not to fall into the extrapolation trap.
-
You haven't explained the why.
No, I have not. You'll likely fall into the "correlation does not in and of itself imply causation", which is on the face of it true. However, if something correlates with statistical significance, and has the potential for a reasonable mechanism we're usually pretty cool with it. Its how drugs are made.
Failure to do that means you've failed to show that it would necessarily lead to a better result here.
Nothing is certain but death and taxes. Well, there are other certain things, but better outcomes through nationalized health care isn't one of them. If its put in wrong it will work poorly. If it is implemented well it will work well, since it has in lots and lots of other countries.
You failed to consider the fact that healthcare in countries with single-payer isn't a closed system.
Andy fail to consider the fact that in America numerous people have no access to health care at all. I know some.
You failed to consider the fact that healthcare results can be manipulated. For example, consider a hypothetical example of two surgeons. One surgeon has never lost a patient and every operation was entirely successful (that surgeon is part of a single-payer system). The other surgeon hasn't been quite as successful (and is not part of a single-payer system). In your mind, you would claim that single-payer leads to better results. Of course, you would have failed to think about whether the first surgeon only takes patients with very high probably of survival and that the second surgeon will take on patients that would be more challenging.
Centuries ago, people thought bathing was a bad idea because they tended to get sick after bathing. They didn't understand the why.
Apparently not all scientists are smart enough not to fall into the extrapolation trap.
Actually, I do recognize the fact that statistics can be manipulated. You'll notice that I didn't provide any. I knew that the minute I did someone would say "those are manipulated!", so I left it up to you. Now, if you're going to say that all health care statistics are false, then I think we have a problem. What I suspect is you'll say that every health care statistic that doesn't say what you want is false.
Still, go ahead and find the "unmanipulated" statistics showing America has the best health care. Good luck with that.
Now, as the why. Lets start with the fact that our system empowers very wealthy individuals, who do lots of things unrelated to health care with their profits (like grease politicians). Moreover, those who administer the health care do so in order to maximize profits, which means their goal is to increase income while decreasing expenditures, i.e. medical care. So lots of the money spent on health care is given to people who have quite literally nothing to do with it. There is already a sizable bureaucracy that employs almost a half million people in the US. To compare, the number of doctors is about 800,000.
Moreover, the American model, where employers enroll employees in health care plans, was developed in the 1970s when America was a very different place. Every business in America has done its best to keep from having to pay health benefits (not entirely true, but lots do). We have an antiquated system that is right now operating mostly for its own benefit. Add to that the fact that anyone not employed by a large company has to pay for their own health insurance, and it is breathtakingly expensive. Obamacare, which you all hate, does actually help wth this. Still, lots of people are frozen out.
And here's where the cost really comes in. We're a nation of civilized people. We can't just throw sick people out on the street. So if the hospital gets someone sick, first they're really sick, since the hospital is the last resort for most. One of my pals didn't go until she was unconscious on the floor. When someone like that shows up the expense is huge. Care is administered through emergency Services, which is expensive. Not only that, but the sick person likely has no medical history, so they have no idea what may be causing the sickness and have to find out. This gets expensive fast.
Conservatives love the mode where the profits are privatized and the loses are socialized. I'll never know why. Our health care system embodies this. The wealthy get great health care from which the privatized system reaps huge profits. The indigent cost us big time.
-
No, I have not. You'll likely fall into the "correlation does not in and of itself imply causation", which is on the face of it true. However, if something correlates with statistical significance, and has the potential for a reasonable mechanism we're usually pretty cool with it. Its how drugs are made.
I think you should stick with drugs and stay away from statistical analysis. The validity of statistics is dependent on a number of factors (no pun). Chosing the correct probability function is one important factor. Assuming one is able to have the correct, then there is the challenge of having enough data points to establish a particular confidence level. Exercise for the student: What probabitity distributions, if any, would provide a confidence level of 95% with only a handful of data points?
Actually, I do recognize the fact that statistics can be manipulated. You'll notice that I didn't provide any. I knew that the minute I did someone would say "those are manipulated!", so I left it up to you. Now, if you're going to say that all health care statistics are false, then I think we have a problem. What I suspect is you'll say that every health care statistic that doesn't say what you want is false.
and your suspicion is dead wrong and completely without merit.
Still, go ahead and find the "unmanipulated" statistics showing America has the best health care. Good luck with that.
You make the claim that single-payer is the way to go. The onus is on you to back up claim.
-
You make the claim that single-payer is the way to go. The onus is on you to back up claim.
But everyone knows that the government is the only fair institution!
They never take sides and they never try to choose winners or losers.
And that the government is extremely efficient, with very little waste fraud or abuse.
And that bureaucrats, with no fear of losing their jobs will bend over backwards and go the extra mile to get the best results fort the people.
Shoot, there are hundreds of reasons why government can do a better job than a for-profit business.
Everyone knows that!
-
But everyone knows that the government is the only fair institution!
They never take sides and they never try to choose winners or losers.
And that the government is extremely efficient, with very little waste fraud or abuse.
And that bureaucrats, with no fear of losing their jobs will bend over backwards and go the extra mile to get the best results fort the people.
Shoot, there are hundreds of reasons why government can do a better job than a for-profit business.
Everyone knows that!
Absolutely. The VA is a model of efficiency and effective health care. They seldom lose a patient. Of course, a lot of them die while waiting to be admitted...but you can't have everything.
-
You make the claim that single-payer is the way to go. The onus is on you to back up claim.
Well, that's pretty easy. Just look at the quality of the VA medical system. That's single payer! Maybe we should just open that system up for everyone to use. VA for All!
-
Well, that's pretty easy. Just look at the quality of the VA medical system. That's single payer! Maybe we should just FORCE that system on everyone. VA for All!
Starting with congress and the president.
-
Democratic platform can call for whatever it wants. Still can't put it into law given the first amendment. They know that, which is why its in the platform. I personally can't understand why they would want to prosecute deniers. People do stupid things all the time.
Not at all. Congress regularly DOES pass laws that are unconstitutional, in violation of their Oath of Office. They simply say that "if it's unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will tell us."
See McCain-Feingold, a/k/a the Incumbent Reelection Act, much of which was overturned.
-
I guess I would be much better off going to Cuba for my health care.
Just don't get lung cancer enroute to the hospital by breathing in the fumes from their modern 1955 Chevy cabs.