Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Federal Appeals court upholds Healthcare Law
Topic Started: Nov 9 2011, 01:50 AM (1,909 Views)
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Nov 10 2011, 05:48 AM
Chris
Nov 10 2011, 02:27 AM
Brewster
Nov 9 2011, 10:39 PM
Chris, you accuse ME of emotionalism, then turn around and post rightwing crap from the most extreme think tank in Canada, the Koch-funded Fraser Institute.

Better look up "Confirmation Bias".

On second thought, maybe I'd better find it for you. In your emotional state, you'd probably miss it.
Wikipedia
 
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.

Were you so wrapped up in your emotional thankfulness that you didn't even notice that your report on the inferiority of the Canadian system is based on one stat - wait times? And doesn't compare wait times to need?

And did it not occur to you that every country in the world is battling rising health care costs? Fraser Institute has taken the worst possible scenario for every province and assumed nobody was going to do anything to fix it.

Worse, they didn't actually print any numbers at all. If they did, you would find that no matter how fast costs are rising in Canada, our system is still costing the average Canadian citizen (and not just Canada, by the way, also every other industrialized nation in the world) barely more than than HALF what the US pays. And even that doesn't really tell the story. Since about 40% of all Americans don't have health insurance, the other 60% are picking up all of the private costs, and more again as taxpayers.

Average American Family paying over $13,000 per year

And that's only Private insurance. A rightwing think tank in the US found these numbers on the government side:

US Governement spends more on health care per person than any other country. - $4,000

And that's not taking into account the imbalance in taxation in the US. Based on figures I've posted before, the middle class is paying about 70% more than the rich and poor, which would make their share probably in the neighborhood of $7,000.

Going with those numbers, if we assume that the average middle class American family has four members, that would mean that if they are carrying private health insurance they are paying $28,000 in federal taxes and another $13,000 in private insurance, for a whopping $41,000! Add on about $4000 in state taxes, and we have a nice even $45,000. Is it any wonder so many "opt out"?

Of course, if they have an employer who picks up the costs, they don't notice it directly. But then, how many employers are moving out due to health care costs alone?

Here in Canada, we pay $5,452 per person, some of it in taxes, some in premiums, some in private extended plans. And with our relatively flat tax rate, everybody pays their share. That means our equivalent family is paying about $22,000.

Pay more, get poorer results, and drive business out of the country. The US Right has this one nailed.

Signing off. Chris is so emotionally attached to his dogma he'll post more stuff contaminated with Confirmation Bias, but the facts are here.
Once again, brew, you respond with nothing but emotional bluster.. You wave your hands about to distract people with ad hom and straw men, whole you ignore the data that falsified your claim. In short you present data to support your claim but ignore data that doesn't. That is confirmation bias, thanks for the definition--the problem with you accusation is you fail to show where I deny any data. A rational explanation would account for all data. You failed to do that for global warming, you fail here. Pure emotionalism. Religious dogma.
Ad Hom, you're really stretching it this time.

I'm actually a bit disappointed in you. In the past, I had quite a bit of respect for you, even if I disagreed. I could often count on you to come up with a few hard facts, and a degree of logic, occasionally making points that required some uncomfortable rethinking at least. Now, after all these years, the best you can do is simply accuse your opponent with this: "you present data to support your claim but ignore data that doesn't." without actually posting any real data at all. How can I ignore what doesn't exist?

I went a step further than I am even asking you to do. I posted facts from right and centre sources, not a liberal in the lot. Hard facts, with not an emotional outburst anywhere.

You originally posted an op-ed from a notoriously biased right wing site showing a single-issue topic with not an actual number in the entire piece, then answered me with nothing but an emotional outburst of your own, and no data of any kind.

Nice try with the "Religious Dogma" meme, but anyone not swimming in Koch-a-Cola will have no doubt about who posts on faith alone.
"Ad Hom, you're really stretching it this time."

Showed it above and here you go again: "I'm actually a bit disappointed in you...." blah blah blah. When emotionalism fails liberals they litter their posts with logical fallacies.



""you present data to support your claim but ignore data that doesn't." without actually posting any real data at all."

Lie, post 21 presents two sets of data. You even earlier made a hand-waving gesture at it when you dismissed it as "one stat - wait times". Yet, that is data. And the second set of data you do the same: "no matter how fast costs are rising in Canada...." Yet, again, that is data.

And both are data your conclusions do not account for. An explanation is valuable only inasmuch as it accounts for all data.

"I went a step further than I am even asking you to do."

And I acknowledged that, you just quoted me acknowledging that.

Yet notice the emotionalism you attach to data. You add emotive words like "right" and "centre" and OMG!! "hard". As opposed to "op-ed", "notoriously biased".

"an emotional outburst"

Where, Bruce? You real good at making unsubstantiated accusations.


"no data of any kind"

Repeating the lie. Already demonstrated your acknowledgement of the data I presented.



""Religious Dogma" meme"

I think it more than evident who engage in confirmation bias by dismissing data he didn't want to see because it contradicted his conclusions. Not unlike a lot of Creationists I've encountered over the years.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
So let's summarize what the data show sans Bruce's emotional handwaving.

We have
  • With six out of 10 provinces on pace to spend half of all available revenues on health care within six years, the current method of funding Canada''s health care system is not sustainable
  • Canadian Healthcare Is Inferior to American at least in terms of wait times for healthcare
  • Average American Family paying over $13,000 per year
  • US Governement spends more on health care per person than any other country

These facts alone do not support Bruce's conclusions, some counter them.

I'm, simply, skeptical, it's not much data to draw conclusions from.

One fact missing, Canada's socialistic system denies the individual free choice. If you value freedom, as I do, that alone is too high a price to pay.
Edited by Chris, Nov 10 2011, 10:05 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

See Brew, I told you you would see the "Ad Hom" phrase.

Quote:
 
One fact missing, Canada's socialistic system denies the individual free choice. If you value freedom, as I do, that alone is too high a price to pay.



Yeah just like we require kids to go to school and get educated and we require parents to feed them & not to beat them. Real Socialists. Sorry Chris, in this country basic health IS CONSIDERED a human right. That is hardly socialism. If that is not the case in the US as it apparently isn't then that is your loss.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Every citizen should have the right to buy the insurance of their choice. Our Constitution does not say that human rights are to be provided by the government.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

So I gather you don't agree with everyone contributing to the cost of education either, through taxes? Kid whose parents can't afford to send them to school remain uneducated. That's the way it is in many 3rd world countries. It's why you see kids selling chicklets on the streets in Central America. Is that the kind of society you envision for the US? Obama's plan is pretty half assed, but its a start.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Can't admit you're a victim of Confirmation bias, claiming it's "skepticism"?

Let's look one last time at your list:

Quote:
 
With six out of 10 provinces on pace to spend half of all available revenues on health care within six years, the current method of funding Canada''s health care system is not sustainable
I never argued with you on the basic point. Everyone knows it. It's true of every country in the world. That's why every province is working on solutions. But the Fraser Institute just picked the worst numbers it could come up with, never defined how they arrived at them, and completely disregarded the solutions being proposed. You, locked in your bias, missed the point completely.

Quote:
 
Canadian Healthcare Is Inferior to American at least in terms of wait times for healthcare.
Two points - it's only one part of health care, and a very minor one, compared to childbirth death rates and adult longevity. But worse, it's completely false. 40% of US citizens have no insurance, and stats show they delay medical care until it reaches critical levels. Worse, when they do go, their only options are Emergency Wards, leading to enormous delays at precisely the times that matters the most:When 10 minutes count, ER wait times in the US are measured in HOURS. Much worse than Canada, and as I said, just when it matters the most.

Quote:
 
Average American Family paying over $13,000 per year.
Confirmation Bias in its extreme. That was the number I found that your quoted, and I would thank you to quote me accurately. The total cost to US Families - $45,000 per year.

Quote:
 
US Governement spends more on health care per person than any other country
Please complete the statement with:"for the worst results in the industrialized world". And don't tell me you didn't know it. There have been dozens of reports confirming this, including this one:
Posted Image

I guess I have to apologize to you. I said you only had one point, which was completely false, or at least misleading. I was wrong. You brought up two false/misleading points.

Goodbye Ad Hom. You have nothing. And no facts will convince you, on this or any other topic, such as Global warming. It's sad, really.. I'm blaming Confirmation Bias, but you can list your own reasons.

Not getting sucked into such a useless discussion again.
Edited by Brewster, Nov 10 2011, 01:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Good for you Brew.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Nov 10 2011, 01:11 PM
Not getting sucked into such a useless discussion again.
Good choice nosy neighbor. You won't look so bad then.
Edited by Jim Miller, Nov 10 2011, 01:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
You said it well, Brew. Thank you. I think the moniker "Ad Hom" is appropriate. JMHO
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I have to agree with you on this one, Lowell. It does fit our resident nosy foreigners to a tee.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis