Muzzy, im right with you, I think everyone should be granted medical treatment and it shouldnt be so freaking high so that its hard for so many people to afford. I however, don't know the right way to go about doing this, if Obamacare stays, id like this to be successful in that initially prices are high but then come plummeting down.
No one is getting medical care yet. They're just getting insurance and in many cases, there isn't doctors accepting it. They're dropping out of it. And, the deductibles in many cases are so high that they still can't afford to go to the doctor. Imo, we're definitely not going about it right. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
What I am foreseeing is the insurance we do have becoming useless because of government mandated rules...er, I mean redtape. I know a lot of doctors already who are backing out of some of the services they offer.
Here you go chopayne http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2012/07/30/7-ways-to-retire-with-1-million Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
Stats are only as good as the process for collection. Collections process can be flawed, slanted or skewed. 73.6% Of All Statistics Are Made Up - Business Insider
Exactly. Studies are conducted in a way to show the result the person (or group) funding the research wants to see. An Anti-hunting group recently stated that their data showed it takes on average 14 shots with a bow to kill a big game animal. They listed percentages and called it a statistic. I'm sure they made this stat up, but what if they didn't? How would they come to this conclusion? I'm not sure, but in slightly less extreme cases, slants are used all the time in statistics. Also, correlation is abused in statistics. For example, it is a statistical fact that when ice creme sales increase, so does the amount of reported rape cases. Should we ban ice creme? I could try and make that case, no matter how stupid it sounds. So to me, when I here someone trying to use slanted stats with poor correlation to argue their point. I think about ice creme and 14 arrows sticking out of a deer.
Sure, but I'm talking about core data collection. The process is not perfect, it can be flawed, which will intern reflect in incorrect statistical inference. Stats are only as good as the data collection process.
Here is a another stat, can anyone guess what it is? Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1937): 134% Calvin Coolidge (1925-1929): 107% Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865): 98% Bill Clinton (1993-1997): 74% Barack Obama (2009-2013): 70%
I didn't even read it. My statement was meant to be in general. Without spending days and days, cross checking the research, there's no way to know. Did you read the article I linked?
A buddy of mine and his family stopped by last night to meet our newborn. His wife is a primary care doctor. She said that they will not see anyone on ObamaCare. there is no way to go after the patient if they don't pay their premiums or co-pays and according to this law they don't have to pay up front. She also said she knows most of the other offices around are doing the same thing. Meaning you have all of these demwitts signing up for Obamacare and they won't be able to find a doctor.
many times before, I do stats for a living So you did not even read it, but dismissed it based on your point of view, because there was no way it could be true. Without any research how can we go to the voting booth these days an actual know what to vote for? When we refuse to even get the facts regardless of what side of right/left, liberal/conservative. It's why IMO we are in the mess we are in, because we won't take the time to get the actual facts. How about these two "stats" Social Security reduces the proportion of elderly people living in poverty from nearly one in two to fewer than one in eight. Between 1960 and 1995, the official poverty rate of those aged 65 and above fell from 35 percent to 10 percent Todd is spot on BTW, SS is not a 100% entitlement, but that is how it is viewed.
