|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On September 10 2009 16:21 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 16:14 Mystlord wrote:On September 10 2009 16:06 Savio wrote:
My title for ObamaCare would be: More of the Same.
More because the main point of the plan is to get near universal health care coverage.
The Same because under his plan, they would all be covered and we would all be covered in virtually the same dysfunctional system we are in now. Employer based health insurance (employer-based being the problem, NOT insurance being the problem), pharmaceuticals that are protected from market forces by the government, heavy and burdensome regulations, and just enough government run health care to destroy the normal market price setting mechanisms but not enough to have single payer efficiency gains.
There are some very minor adjustments and added regulations but NONE of the fundamental cost problems with our system are addressed in this bill. The democratic Senator from my state hired a physician from the University I attend to help him. The physician came and gave us medical students a 2 hour talk on the current proposals and at the end I asked if there was a single thing in the bill that addressed the fundamental causes of our increased costs compared to other modern countries. He said there was not. I have verified it with several other democratic sources as well (proponents of the plan).
Yes, this plan will cover more people, but it does NOT reform our system. We just pay a bit more money (1 trillion dollars over 10 years) to cover a bit more people (roughly 45 million) under a system with just a bit more government regulation.
And BTW, my biggest gripe BY FAR about the current plan is that every democrat out there begins his talk showing us all those graphs about how much $$$$ we are spending on health care compared to other countries, and then says, "We have to do something." Then they go on to talk about the plan and hope that we, the audience, will assume the plan does lower costs since they talked about costs first, when really the cost talk and the bill talk are independent of eachother.
It irks me that every time ObamaCare is presented, it is preceded by a talk about how much of our GDP we spend on health care when NOTHING in the Obama plan even attempts to change that.
I consider it as big a deception as the stupid protesters yelling about death panels...except this deception is not done by uneducated lay citizens but by Senators and the President himself who SHOULD be held to a higher standard than you average Joe who attends a rally somewhere. I agree with everything stated here. Unless there's some major reform planned after this for health care (highly unlikely), then we'll probably end up seeing health care slowly eating its way up to 30% of our GDP. It's astounding how shortsighted politicians are. Read my post about getting the bill through. While it's true that they are often shortsighted, bills are often pushed through in an unsatisfactory state and then revised over time.
The bill still barely touches the major issues of the health care crisis. While the bill is already geared towards expanding coverage and it might be tweaked to better organize the system, I still don't see how they can address the problems as Savio and I have pointed out in our posts without passing a completely different bill.
On September 10 2009 16:26 motbob wrote:
Wait a minute, did you say public opinion polling is bad? No it's not. Public polling got the election exactly correct... for like 16 years straight.
Depends on what we're talking about. Some polls are telephone, some are biased, and some are internet. What were the polling methods?
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 10 2009 16:26 motbob wrote:
Wait a minute, did you say public opinion polling is bad? No it's not. Public polling got the election exactly correct... for like 16 years straight.
What? Have you not been on the planet for the past 10 years? Polling did a miserable job in 2000 and 2004. It's a hit or miss practice, just like every other large scale quantitative social analysis.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 10 2009 16:33 gchan wrote: Until then, I don't want to see shit passed through Congress based on momentum (Iraq War, ahem).
The Iraq War is an example of it working out poorly, but there's other stuff like the GI Bill that have turned out better. Unfortunately, momentum is how it usually works in America, and it's likely been that way for 100+ years.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 10 2009 16:39 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 16:26 motbob wrote:
Wait a minute, did you say public opinion polling is bad? No it's not. Public polling got the election exactly correct... for like 16 years straight. What? Have you not been on the planet for the past 10 years? Polling did a miserable job in 2000 and 2004. It's a hit and miss practice, just like every other large scale quantitative social analysis.
http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/20
And 2004 was fine as well, from what I could tell. All I checked were the Ohio numbers and the national numbers... both were pretty accurate.
There seems to be this idea that public polling is inherently inaccurate and thus can't be trusted at all. Well, it is inherently inaccurate, but only to a certain extent. For example, if a poll comes out that says that 55% of Americans support a public while 41% oppose it, those numbers are slightly inaccurate. BUT there is a only a very, very small chance (less than ~1/300 I believe) that the majority of Americans do not support the public option.
|
I've really never been a fan of his speeches. I always feel like Obama is the first trailer for SC2, you don't see much and all you hear is "Its about time."
|
Uhm... Just a probably retarded question:
Why is it Obama's fault when he can't pull thru with his Health Care Bill because the people you also voted don't allow it to happen.
Pls enlighten me.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 10 2009 16:44 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 16:39 Jibba wrote:On September 10 2009 16:26 motbob wrote:
Wait a minute, did you say public opinion polling is bad? No it's not. Public polling got the election exactly correct... for like 16 years straight. What? Have you not been on the planet for the past 10 years? Polling did a miserable job in 2000 and 2004. It's a hit and miss practice, just like every other large scale quantitative social analysis. http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/20And 2004 was fine as well, from what I could tell. All I checked were the Ohio numbers and the national numbers... both were pretty accurate. There seems to be this idea that public polling is inherently inaccurate and thus can't be trusted at all. Well, it is inherently inaccurate, but only to a certain extent. For example, if a poll comes out that says that 55% of Americans support a public while 41% oppose it, those numbers are slightly inaccurate. BUT there is a only a very, very small chance (less than ~1/300 I believe) that the majority of Americans do not support the public option.
Polling lobbyists say they did a good job? Well then, I concede! Look at the numbers there. That data is absolutely worthless and it should be pretty obvious why. Table #1 is a perfect example of how liars use statistics.
The methodology is unsound, and the extrapolation from 1,000 people surveys is inaccurate because humans are temperamental.
|
On September 10 2009 16:44 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 16:39 Jibba wrote:On September 10 2009 16:26 motbob wrote:
Wait a minute, did you say public opinion polling is bad? No it's not. Public polling got the election exactly correct... for like 16 years straight. What? Have you not been on the planet for the past 10 years? Polling did a miserable job in 2000 and 2004. It's a hit and miss practice, just like every other large scale quantitative social analysis. http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/20And 2004 was fine as well, from what I could tell. All I checked were the Ohio numbers and the national numbers... both were pretty accurate. There seems to be this idea that public polling is inherently inaccurate and thus can't be trusted at all. Well, it is inherently inaccurate, but only to a certain extent. For example, if a poll comes out that says that 55% of Americans support a public while 41% oppose it, those numbers are slightly inaccurate. BUT there is a only a very, very small chance (less than ~1/300 I believe) that the majority of Americans do not support the public option.
Column A:
400 person telephone survey taken minutes after a speech by one poll-er, with an imbalanced sample, with indirect answers. (IE not True/False, Bush/Gore/Nader)
Column B:
nation wide survey taken many times, by many poll-ers, with a balanced sample, with direct answers.
I don't really see the connection regardless of the history of polling.
|
United States22883 Posts
Lets not forget the awesome job they did in Obama's primary campaign against Hilary. It's ridiculous to look back and think that Dean dropped out in 2004 because of early NH numbers, when he probably could've defeated Bush.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 10 2009 16:56 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 16:44 motbob wrote:On September 10 2009 16:39 Jibba wrote:On September 10 2009 16:26 motbob wrote:
Wait a minute, did you say public opinion polling is bad? No it's not. Public polling got the election exactly correct... for like 16 years straight. What? Have you not been on the planet for the past 10 years? Polling did a miserable job in 2000 and 2004. It's a hit and miss practice, just like every other large scale quantitative social analysis. http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/20And 2004 was fine as well, from what I could tell. All I checked were the Ohio numbers and the national numbers... both were pretty accurate. There seems to be this idea that public polling is inherently inaccurate and thus can't be trusted at all. Well, it is inherently inaccurate, but only to a certain extent. For example, if a poll comes out that says that 55% of Americans support a public while 41% oppose it, those numbers are slightly inaccurate. BUT there is a only a very, very small chance (less than ~1/300 I believe) that the majority of Americans do not support the public option. Polling lobbyists say they did a good job? Well then, I concede! Look at the numbers there. That data is absolutely worthless and it should be pretty obvious why. Table #1 is a perfect example of how liars use statistics. The methodology is unsound, and the extrapolation from 1,000 people surveys is inaccurate because humans are temperamental.
OK, you're right. That's a clearly biased source, and I should have realized that before posting it. But I'm struggling to rebut your earlier claim that public polling was "terrible" in 2000 and 2004 without some sort of aggregate collection of polls. http://www.pollster.com/ does a good job of it nowadays but they don't have anything easily accessible before 2008, I think.
The thing is, I have evidence that the 2008 election was correctly predicted by an aggregate of public polling, both on a state and a national level. I don't have any evidence that that was true in 2004 or 2000 (except for the cursory glance I took at the polling done right before the election in Ohio and nationally.) But if your claim is true, what changed in the polling industry that made its performance poor in 2000 and 2004, but excellent in 2008?
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 10 2009 17:04 Jibba wrote:
Lets not forget the awesome job they did in Obama's primary campaign against Hilary. It's ridiculous to look back and think that Dean dropped out in 2004 because of early NH numbers, when he probably could've defeated Bush.
They did an excellent job in 2008, with the exception of NH (where as a whole they predicted an Obama victory.) 49/50 states ain't bad.
It's ridiculous to look back and think that Dean dropped out in 2004 because of early NH numbers, when he probably could've defeated Bush.
Didn't Dean win NH? (yes)
EDIT: no lol oops. But he withdrew after the primary in NH. Not sure what his withdrawl had to do with polling.
|
United States22883 Posts
Luck? Just as each poll needs multiple data points, you need to apply the same thinking to the polls themselves. It's not that they can't be accurate, it's that they're not precise.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 10 2009 17:21 Jibba wrote:
Luck? Just as each poll needs multiple data points, you need to apply the same thinking to the polls themselves. It's not that they can't be accurate, it's that they're not precise.
But the aggregates of the polls were consistently accurate over the primaries and the individual states in the general election, which is something that can't be attributed to luck.
|
On September 10 2009 10:15 DarkShadowz wrote:
I hope it pass. Obama is exactly what US and the world need imo. But he became president in one of the hardest messes ever to get out of.
Thanks for this insightful analysis
People have a tendency to glorify Barack Obama because he succeeded the hated president Bush. He has also gotten younger peoples attention and I think people are a bit deluded, seeing him as a total opposite to Bush
|
On September 10 2009 20:25 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 10:15 DarkShadowz wrote:
I hope it pass. Obama is exactly what US and the world need imo. But he became president in one of the hardest messes ever to get out of. Thanks for this insightful analysis People have a tendency to glorify Barack Obama because he succeeded the hated president Bush. He has also gotten younger peoples attention and I think people are a bit deluded, seeing him as a total opposite to Bush
You are accusing him of "bandwagoning" with other deluded people glorifying Obama, with no analysis whatsoever. You yourself don't offer any meaningful insight, nor do you differ from all the others in that other bandwagon hating the "deluded Obama supporters".
|
On September 10 2009 16:26 motbob wrote:
Wait a minute, did you say public opinion polling is bad? No it's not. Public polling got the election exactly correct... for like 16 years straight.
Proper polling is good. Improper polling (polling a specific crowd that your show brings in) is entirely different. It's also the option for people to call in, not going out to get the data. There's a difference there too.
|
On September 10 2009 21:16 FortuneSyn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 20:25 Foucault wrote:On September 10 2009 10:15 DarkShadowz wrote:
I hope it pass. Obama is exactly what US and the world need imo. But he became president in one of the hardest messes ever to get out of. Thanks for this insightful analysis People have a tendency to glorify Barack Obama because he succeeded the hated president Bush. He has also gotten younger peoples attention and I think people are a bit deluded, seeing him as a total opposite to Bush You are accusing him of "bandwagoning" with other deluded people glorifying Obama, with no analysis whatsoever. You yourself don't offer any meaningful insight, nor do you differ from all the others in that other bandwagon hating the "deluded Obama supporters".
I think I was offering some analysis/insight when talking about Obama representing the opposite of Bush and therefore having an easier time. It probably has to do with the fact that he's black and relatively young, as well. An old man (if it's not Ron Paul) wouldn't cater to young people the same way.
Let's face it, people are more interested in the person Obama, than his politics in general.
|
And they were also more interested in Bush's mispronounciations (sp?) than in it's actual politics... I mean, he shittalked you into Iraq, Patriot Act, Airport secuirity...
|
Had the FBI and CIA done their jobs properly, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. They knew the terrorists were in the country. They lost track of them. Did you know the pilots actually had licenses and addresses in their own names. They also took flying lessons in their own names. If our FBI and CIA cannot find people like this, then I suggest we give up now, grow beards and take up extremist Islam.
|
On September 10 2009 22:22 NExUS1g wrote:
Had the FBI and CIA done their jobs properly, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. They knew the terrorists were in the country. They lost track of them. Did you know the pilots actually had licenses and addresses in their own names. They also took flying lessons in their own names. If our FBI and CIA cannot find people like this, then I suggest we give up now, grow beards and take up extremist Islam.
9/11 was definitely an error on the side of the FBI and CIA, but because a dedicated extremist organization succeeds in performing a terrorist act - something rather easy considering how easy it is to move within the international community these days - how does that necessitate our conversion to Islam? I doubt the most dedicated, highly trained and numerous team of even domestic terrorists (lol evangelicals?) could convert roughly 300 million people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
