Quote :

"The United States has lower life expectancies overall than comparable developed countries. [Bullshit.] "

that's hilarious. You copy/paste an article to attempt to prove your point that US healthcare isn't so bad, but then when you get to a sentence that doesn't support that point, you simply proclaim [bullshit]

8/19/2009 10:57:55 PM

Life Expectancy is becoming outmoded. The US and the EU are studying Healthy Life Expectancy which accounts for objective and subjective measures of a person's health and quality of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Life_Years

http://www.healthypeople.gov/Data/midcourse/pdf/ExecutiveSummary.pdf

8/19/2009 11:10:45 PM

Will this have any impact on the debate?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/19/obama.health.care/index.html

Quote :

"Obama appeals to faith-based groups on health care WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama appealed Wednesday to faith-based groups to help garner support for his plan to overhaul the nation's health care system. "I need you to knock on doors, talk to neighbors, spread the facts and speak the truth," he told religious leaders and reporters on a conference call that was streamed over the Web at faithforhealth.org. "This debate over health care goes to the heart of who we are as a people," he said. "I believe that nobody in America should be denied basic health care because he or she lacks health insurance." Some 140,000 people participated in the call, the coalition of more than 30 faith-based groups that organized the event said in a written statement. Obama urged the listeners to reject misinformation about his plans, noting, "There are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness." He referred to some assertions as "ludicrous," and cited as an example rumors that the government is planning to set up "death panels" to determine the fate of the nation's elderly. "That is just an extraordinary lie," he said, adding that it was based on a provision in the House legislation that would allow Medicare to reimburse someone who voluntarily sought counseling on how to set up a living will for the end of life. "It gives an option that people who can afford fancy lawyers already experience," the Harvard-trained lawyer said. In addition, the plan does not provide health insurance to illegal aliens, it does not represent a government takeover of health care and it would not lead to government funding of abortion, he said. "These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation: that is, that we look out for one another; that is, I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. And in the wealthiest nation in the world right now we are neglecting to live up to that call." Video Watch a discussion of the emotion and rhetoric of some town hall meetings » Obama, who took no questions, said the opposition was no surprise. "Throughout history, whenever we have sought to change this country for the better, there have always been those who wanted to preserve the status quo," he said. "These always boil down to a contest between hope and fear." Prior to the call, Obama's director of domestic policy, Melody Barnes, said the president still believes that including a public option is the best way to achieve low-cost, affordable health care. advertisement The public option has been a sticking point among some Republicans, who consider it to be the camel's nose under the tent of government-run health care. But, she added, "he also said he's open to other ideas." "

On a similar note, I think they are trying to shift to the offensive instead of the defensive as evidenced by the above outreach & this (see video):
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/settingtherecord

8/20/2009 12:11:27 AM

if repubs are gonna vote against any bill...why not just go with the public option. no point in doing that half assed co-op shit thats only had limited success in the past. looks like either plan will need reconcilliation because the fucking blue dogs

8/20/2009 12:19:34 AM

Well, honestly, the whole country's fucked anyway

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/americans-poll-out-medicare/

Quote :

"Now, a new Public Policy Polling poll finds that millions of Americans do not realize that the federal government runs Medicare: One poll question indicative of how difficult it is to gain public understanding on a complicated issue asked if respondents thought the government should ‘stay out of Medicare,’ something inherently impossible. 39% said yes. The poll also shows that an additional 15% of respondents were “not sure” if the government should be involved in Medicare. Only 46% of respondents disagreed with the proposition that the government should stay out of the government-run program."

8/20/2009 9:33:02 AM

as evidence of how well they are controlling medicare and medicaid, I think giving them MORE control is only the next logical step.

8/20/2009 9:39:55 AM

I can see what they're trying to stay, but honestly that sounds like a really stupid question to base a poll off of. Just because someone thinks Government should stay out of Medicare (yes, I know it's run by .gov) doesn't mean they don't know that either. It could just mean they think it shouldn't be run by the government, which a lot of people do.

I would be a lot more ready to believe that people are that ignorant if the question had been, "Who is responsible for running Medicaid?"

8/20/2009 9:40:46 AM

DrSteve: Why should health coverage be a for-profit venture?

8/20/2009 9:48:39 AM

Quote :

""I need you to knock on doors, talk to neighbors, spread the facts and speak the truth," "

Make sure you mention to your neighbors that Obama, solidly in the pocket of trial lawyers, doesn't want anything to do with tort reform. He talks about bringing down costs, but not if it costs one of his biggest donor groups.

8/20/2009 10:22:56 AM

Quote :

"Why should health coverage be a for-profit venture? "

Or the food or housing industry too... right. LOL

Quote :

"""I need you to knock on doors, talk to neighbors, spread the facts and speak the truth"

Be sure to tell your neighbors the facts that surgeons get 50k for amputating a leg. You have to laugh at him when he says BS like this, then tells people to spread the facts and accuses other of lying.

8/20/2009 10:26:24 AM

Quote :

"Or the food or housing industry too... right. LOL"

If you can't see the difference here there's not enough talent in the world to teach you

8/20/2009 10:27:08 AM

^ Perhaps you have the talent. Because I'd like an intelligent answer to this question.

8/20/2009 10:49:31 AM

McDanger,

I'm not sure I understand why health insurance should be treated differently than any other type of insurance. Profits give the insurance companies incentive to provide quality service at competitive rates.

Now, I can already guess what you're going to say. "But profits actually gives companies incentive to dump sick people when they actually start filing a claim!" That would be true if reputation was not a consideration. Insurance companies only make money if people buy coverage and no one would buy coverage if they thought the insurance company was going to dump them the minute they file a claim. If you believe I am wrong and that rescission is a big problem, you could try and provide some statistical evidence making your case.

As a side note, I think that people like Paul Krugman use rescission as a red-herring. If they really believed that insurance companies rarely paid claims, they wouldn't buy health insurance. They only mention it because its easy to fired up about. They really think that the insurance market is broke because of adverse selection, but thats kinda hard to explain and it doesn't have much moral oomph (not to mention it doesn't have much evidence supporting it).

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 11:06 AM. Reason : ``]

8/20/2009 11:03:48 AM

Quote :

"DrSteve: Why should health coverage be a for-profit venture?"

Because generally we have found that like any other scarce commodity, profit is the best way to attract providers of a service, and in particular encourage competition to ultimately lower prices?

I mean, it doesn't even have to be for-profit. The Blue Cross / Blue Shield franchise of NC acts as a not-for-profit, as have plenty of other franchises. There's no explicit reason it has to be, but then, what exactly is the problem with it doing so? Do we complain about auto insurers acting for a profit? Supermarkets acting for-profit? Farmers? Housing?

Furthermore, since your next likely argument is that healthcare is essential for living, then it still doesn't follow that insurance for paying for healthcare is a necessary condition for basic care. Therefore, our real concern isn't even the cost of health insurance (which, while germane, is not the chief issue), it's the cost of the actual health services.

8/20/2009 11:15:14 AM

Quote :

"Because generally we have found that like any other scarce commodity, profit is the best way to attract providers of a service, and in particular encourage competition to ultimately lower prices?"

The profit aspect of health insurance creates an incentive for the denial of claims.

Quote :

"Furthermore, since your next likely argument is that healthcare is essential for living, then it still doesn't follow that insurance for paying for healthcare is a necessary condition for basic care."

You figure out how to make essential health care affordable to absolutely everybody in the country out-of-pocket and this could work great.

8/20/2009 11:23:14 AM

^ I KNEW you were going to say that!

Quote :

"Now, I can already guess what you're going to say. "But profits actually gives companies incentive to dump sick people when they actually start filing a claim!" That would be true if reputation was not a consideration. Insurance companies only make money if people buy coverage and no one would buy coverage if they thought the insurance company was going to dump them the minute they file a claim. If you believe I am wrong and that rescission is a big problem, you could try and provide some statistical evidence making your case. "

8/20/2009 11:24:23 AM

Socks you're funny because if Obama supported the opposite of his current plan, you'd be out trying to sell ObamaCare.

8/20/2009 11:25:26 AM

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/americans-poll-out-medicare/

54% of of Americans either want gov to stay out of medicare, or are unsure if gov should be involved with medicare according to a poll released yesterday.

8/20/2009 11:26:25 AM

Quote :

"The profit aspect of health insurance creates an incentive for the denial of claims."

As it does in every other insurance industry. Why then is health insurance the only insurance industry where we regularly hear of this problem, unless the issue is a structural one related to this industry, rather than a larger problem of profit motive?

Quote :

"You figure out how to make essential health care affordable to absolutely everybody in the country out-of-pocket and this could work great."

Oh, there's plenty of proposals out there, just waiting for you to read them. Or, to borrow from you:

Quote :

"Read the fucking internet."

8/20/2009 11:26:25 AM

Quote :

"As it does in every other insurance industry. Why then is health insurance the only insurance industry where we regularly hear of this problem, unless the issue is a structural one related to this industry, rather than a larger problem of profit motive?"

Because getting a procedure to fix your faulty heart is different than getting your bumper fixed, you incredible idiot.

Quote :

"Oh, there's plenty of proposals out there, just waiting for you to read them. Or, to borrow from you:"

Already aware of many and support some of them as well. There'll still be people that for various reasons don't have access to these services (either due to price or the price it takes to get to the service). What do you suggest we do? Dump a bunch of money into insurance companies' pockets?

Socks`` I've been looking for how much insurance companies spend on claims denials. That'd give pretty good perspective on how big the problem is.

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .]

8/20/2009 11:28:56 AM

McDanger,

That may or may not be a good measure. After all, it isn't like all denials are dishonest. Someone's policy may not simply cover the treatment and those types of denials would not be unique to private insurance companies (do you think Medicare or Medicaid pays for every experimental treatment out there).

Another case might be if you were somehow able to hide the fact that you were diabetic (or had some other illness) from the insurance company and they found out and denied your claims related to that pre-existing condition, I don't think the insurance company would be doing anything dishonest there. After all, you would be the person lying.

I really don't know how you would measure it.

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 11:38 AM. Reason : ``]

8/20/2009 11:35:57 AM

Quote :

"Because getting a procedure to fix your faulty heart is different than getting your bumper fixed, you incredible idiot."

Hey look, McDanger resorts to bluster and insults again in place of actual arguments when cornered. Good job, there; I knew we could count on your for informed debate.

Quote :

"Already aware of many and support some of them as well. There'll still be people that for various reasons don't have access to these services (either due to price or the price it takes to get to the service). What do you suggest we do? Dump a bunch of money into insurance companies' pockets?"

I propose we deal with one-off cases as just that: one-off cases, rather than fashioning our entire system around the exceptional cases. You come up with the system which works best for most, expands coverage to as many as possible (which is not the current system), and then deal with the remainder as circumstances demand.

What you don't do is completely fashion your system around the exceptional case and then try to stretch that over everyone else.

8/20/2009 11:36:02 AM

Quote :

"McDanger, That may or may not be a good measure. After all, it isn't like all denials are dishonest. Someone's policy may not simply cover the treatment and those denials would not be unique to private insurance companies (do you think Medicare or Medicaid pays for every experimental treatment out there). Or if you were somehow able to hide the fact that you were diabetic from the insurance company and they found out and denied your claims related to that pre-existing condition, I don't think the insurance company would be doing anything dishonest there. After all, you would be the person lying. I'm not exactly sure how you would measure. But, then again, I'm not the one claiming its a problem."

It's clearly not a perfect measure, but the amount these companies spend on denials is well-correlated with the number of bogus denials. I'd be willing to put serious money on that -- it's a way for them to turn a profit (which is their goal, remember?).

How exactly do you think an insurance company turns a profit? They gamble versus you. The difference is that they have a much better idea how to come out ahead (as any casino does) and they obviously charge you a fee for offering the insurance at all (clearly they don't offer you insurance at EV = 0 because they're in it for a profit).

I don't think health is an appropriate subject for gambling, especially casino-esque exploitative tactics. Clearly it's worth it to many people to be insured, but it doesn't make it effective for them. It's not intended to be an effective option for them, remember... it's intended to turn a profit for the company. The best profit they can get away with.

Quote :

"Hey look, McDanger resorts to bluster and insults again in place of actual arguments when cornered. Good job, there; I knew we could count on your for informed debate."

Why the fuck should I take you seriously when you have no moral compass whatsoever?

Quote :

"I propose we deal with one-off cases as just that: one-off cases, rather than fashioning our entire system around the exceptional cases. You come up with the system which works best for most, expands coverage to as many as possible (which is not the current system), and then deal with the remainder as circumstances demand. What you don't do is completely fashion your system around the exceptional case and then try to stretch that over everyone else."

And a public option is stretching the exceptional case over everyone else in what way? Health insurance should not be for-profit. Let's start from that premise and figure out a system.

8/20/2009 11:43:23 AM

Quote :

"Why the fuck should I take you seriously when you have no moral compass whatsoever?"

Disagree with you and apparently someone has no moral compass.

By any chance have you been spending too much time around fundamentalist whackjobs? Because that's exactly what you sound like.

Quote :

"And a public option is stretching the exceptional case over everyone else in what way? Health insurance should not be for-profit. Let's start from that premise and figure out a system."

And why exactly should we take your premise of "health insurance should be not for profit" as a given and start from there? You have yet to answer this question from anyone despite it being asked several times, and in relation to several other goods which are equally essential to living.

Whoops, asking that question must mean I have no moral compass. Damn.

No, really though - we have not-for-profits insurers out there, and they're not radically cheaper. Why then are we to believe that profit is at the heart of the problem then, except for your rather frequent (and unsubstantiated) claims of black-hearted CEOs denying claims and murdering puppies for fun?

8/20/2009 11:48:40 AM

Quote :

"It's clearly not a perfect measure, but the amount these companies spend on denials is well-correlated with the number of bogus denials. I'd be willing to put serious money on that -- it's a way for them to turn a profit (which is their goal, remember?). How exactly do you think an insurance company turns a profit? They gamble versus you. The difference is that they have a much better idea how to come out ahead (as any casino does) and they obviously charge you a fee for offering the insurance at all (clearly they don't offer you insurance at EV = 0 because they're in it for a profit). "

Well-correlated? Setting the bar kinda low huh? If all insurance companies improperly denies 0.000001% of all their denied claims, then that would certainly be "well-correlated" with the total number of claims. But it would likely add up to a few hundred people. Is that wrong? Yes. Is that worth re-hauling the entire health care system? No. Instead, we could try to help those few hundred people out by offering them better legal avenues for suing the insurance companies.

And just to note again, an insurance company only makes a profit if people buy thier coverage (and statistically that number has to be fairly large or one unlucky getting sick would bankrupt the company). And people will ONLY buy their coverage if they think the insurance company is good for it. REPUTATION MATTERS.

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 11:53 AM. Reason : ``]

8/20/2009 11:49:55 AM

Quote :

"And why exactly should we take your premise of "health insurance should be not for profit" as a given and start from there? You have yet to answer this question from anyone despite it being asked several times, and in relation to several other goods which are equally essential to living."

If you can't put this together then I'm not going to take the time to do it for you. I like how I'm supposed to supply you with basic reasoning and basic moral values, and how I'm somehow obligated to sit here and spin out the whole account to you like it's story time. Grow a fucking pair and step through the issue yourself. If you're incapable then I'm not going to waste my time either way.

Quote :

"Well-correlated? Setting the bar kinda low huh? If all insurance companies improperly denies 0.000001% of all their denied claims, then that would certainly be "well-correlated" with the total number of claims. But it would likely add up to a few hundred people. Is that wrong? Yes. Is that worth re-hauling the entire health care system? No. Instead, we could try to help those few hundred people out by offering them better legal avenues for suing the insurance companies. "

I'm talking about something with a high correlation coefficient you intentionally difficult sack of shit. This is why nobody who knows anything actually wastes time posting here. Since this place is nothing more than a bunch of sanctimonious, trite little dipshits that derive entertainment from spewing whatever posts makes them happy, why not do the same?

This forum's been filled with the same clueless know-it-alls for years now. People who actually knew shit about anything left a long fucking time ago, or just occassionally peak their heads back in (Grumpy's a good example).

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2009 12:18:41 PM

Quote :

"If you can't put this together then I'm not going to take the time to do it for you. I like how I'm supposed to supply you with basic reasoning and basic moral values, and how I'm somehow obligated to sit here and spin out the whole account to you like it's story time. Grow a fucking pair and step through the issue yourself. If you're incapable then I'm not going to waste my time either way."

Or... I bet you can't. I'm willing to wager that your constant reluctance is the fact that you know your batshit insane logic will get torn to shreds by every poster on this board with an IQ above room temperature, and therefore you hide behind the fact that "you don't need" to spell out your case as a substitute for the fact that if you tried, we'd pretty much get a true feel for how much of an intellectually shallow internet troll you really are, and subsequently laugh you out of here.

But hey, prove me wrong.

8/20/2009 12:26:40 PM

Hahaha holy shit. While the desire to let you idiots languish in your ignorance is strong, I can't help but look, laugh, and point.

8/20/2009 12:34:33 PM

This is going to happen at 2:30 today:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/aug20web

8/20/2009 12:35:51 PM

McDanger,

Quote :

"I'm talking about something with a high correlation coefficient you intentionally difficult sack of shit."

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, in my example, the number of people whose claim is improperly denied is *perfectly* correlated with the number of total denials (a correlation coefficient of 1, which is the highest it can possibly be).

Don't Comp Sci majors have to take stats?

8/20/2009 12:44:39 PM

You're assuming we have a perfect measure of what's an "improperly declined claim" and that we even would have access to these records at all.

Why yes, Socks. If we have the answer, then we have the answer. Congrats. I'm assuming that insurance companies will not come out and give us a perfect measure of improperly declined claims, you fucking jackass.

Edit: Not sure what you pretended to major in back in undergrad, but you could use a little common sense when constructing examples. Why the fuck do you think statistics is needed at all if we can just run out and ask the world the true values of various parameters?

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2009 12:54:04 PM

Quote :

" This is why nobody who knows anything actually wastes time posting here."

Self-pwn?

8/20/2009 1:22:24 PM

Quote :

"Hahaha holy shit. While the desire to let you idiots languish in your ignorance is strong, I can't help but look, laugh, and point."

You know that no one believes this shit, right? Nobody believes you have a secret, higher reasoning unrevealed to us mere proles. Like usual, you are simply bluffing.

Two simple words, man: "I can't." It's all you need to say; because your complaint about "wasting your time" is obvious bullshit, given your irresistible impulse to keeping coming back and coming back...

8/20/2009 1:23:16 PM

It's entertaining to throw poop at the side I disagree with. The only difference between me and you is that I realize and admit this. You, on the other hand, write shitty essays and pretend you're engaging in rational discourse.

8/20/2009 1:39:25 PM

Quote :

"You're assuming we have a perfect measure of what's an "improperly declined claim" and that we even would have access to these records at all. Why yes, Socks. If we have the answer, then we have the answer. Congrats. I'm assuming that insurance companies will not come out and give us a perfect measure of improperly declined claims, you fucking jackass."

You seem to be missing my point. The point is that correlation does not give you an indication of the **SIZE** of the problem.

Will the number of improper denials be correlated with how much a company spends on denial claims? You bet! But correlation is simply not an informative measure in this scenario. In my example, we found a correlation coefficient of 1. The highest you can get. But does that mean rescission was a big problem in my example? No, because even though the correlation coefficient is 1, only 0.00001% of all insurance claims are improperly denied (if there 250 million claims that means only 25 were denied).

Now do you see what I mean?

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 1:48 PM. Reason : ``]

8/20/2009 1:40:25 PM

you people are posting like health care reform is not going to happen. get a clue.

8/20/2009 1:48:10 PM

Quote :

"You seem to be missing my point. The point is that correlation does not give you an indication of the **SIZE** of the problem. "

Of course it doesn't. I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised if a rise in funding for denial desks always saw a rise in improper denials. I'd even put money on it. In other words, you could detect more improper denials with a rise in funding for denial desks (adjusted for the size of the company and the number of people it serves, obviously). Hey guess what? It's not a perfect measure!!!

Quote :

"Will the number of improper denials be correlated with how much a company spends on denial claims? You bet! But correlation is simply not an informative measure in this scenario. In my example, we found a correlation coefficient of 1. The highest you can get. But does that mean rescission was a big problem in my example? No, because even though the correlation coefficient is 1, only 0.00001% of all insurance claims are improperly denied (if there 250 million claims that means only 25 were denied). NOW DO YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN??"

You are mind-bendingly stupid. The reason why there's a correlation coefficient of 1 in your example is because what you said we should be measuring is precisely the value we want to measure (which we have no reasonable access to). I'm wondering, based on information you could actually obtain, what sorts of measures could be flags for increased improper denials.

This is the most retarded discussion about stats I've ever had, and it probably has to do with you causing a stink over a word I used ("well-correlated") and then trying to get overly technical in a desperate attempt to look smart. I'm saying that if I wanted to set up a SEM and explain the number of improper denials, that amount spent on denials desks (normalized somehow to the volume of business the company does) would probably be an informative measure. I'm contending, basically, that the amount they spend on denial claims is not informative (if you know how to interpret the numbers). Either way I'd like to see the numbers, and I'd like you to shut the fuck up because you sound like an idiot.

8/20/2009 1:49:42 PM

^^The debate isn't over whether or not there will be reform... it's whether or not that reform comes in the shape of a government option.

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM. Reason : ^]

8/20/2009 1:49:45 PM

anything that gets passed will eventually lead to a public option

8/20/2009 1:50:29 PM

Really? I'm not so sure you should be so confident in that. Even Obama is saying a public option isn't essential to the plan.

8/20/2009 1:51:40 PM

lol cause he can't exactly say "this will lead to a government option" now can he?

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 1:54 PM. Reason : sorry to sound like a repub but i think its a high possibility]

8/20/2009 1:53:29 PM

Quote :

"You are mind-bendingly stupid. The reason why there's a correlation coefficient of 1 in your example is because what you said we should be measuring is precisely the value we want to measure (which we have no reasonable access to). "

Actually the reason the correlation coefficient is 1 is because I am defining the number of improper denials so that it is a function of the total number of denials (Y = 0.000001*X).

If 0.00001% (or whatever it should b) is the answer you're looking for, then you're not talking about the correlation coefficient.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 1:58 PM. Reason : ``]

8/20/2009 1:54:42 PM

^^That's what he's said all along. I'm not sure why now would be any different. It's no secret that 1/2 want a public option and the other 1/2 don't. We all know he wants a single payer system, that doesn't mean it'll be the best move politically.

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM. Reason : Why am I arguing with you?]

8/20/2009 1:54:53 PM

the best move politically imo is to keep hammering out this "bipartisan" bill. then when its signed you can play that card but still know its leading to the gov run option

8/20/2009 1:56:29 PM

Quote :

"It's entertaining to throw poop at the side I disagree with."

McDouche

I thought you believed in evolution?

8/20/2009 2:02:46 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/20/health.care.quiz/index.html

You got 8 out of 8 correct.

It is unfortunate that the quiz isn't a little more detailed & complex than just 8 multiple choice questions given the complexity of the issue being discussed, but it would probably be sad to see how many people who are yelling at town halls couldn't get these 8 right.

8/20/2009 2:14:41 PM

I got all 8 correct. It was an easy quiz. I would bet those people protesting at the town hall meetings know a whole lot more than you give them credit for. It's a little naive to think that just because people disagree with a certain veiwpoint means they're ignorant as to the facts.

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2009 2:19:03 PM

Quote :

"Actually the reason the correlation coefficient is 1 is because I am defining the number of improper denials so that it is a function of the total number of denials (Y = 0.000001*X). If 0.00001% (or whatever it should b) is the answer you're looking for, then you're not talking about the correlation coefficient. Let me know if you have any more questions."

It's pretty clear we misunderstood each other off the bat and are now just waving our dicks at each other. You're jumping through a shitload of hoops just to end up looking stupid, though.

"Hmm if I had perfect access to information, my variables would be perfectly correlated with what they are intended to explain!" No shit.

Quote :

"I thought you believed in evolution?"

Of course I do. Humans are practically monkeys, I'm no different.

8/20/2009 2:52:56 PM

So, in a world of chimpanzees, you are a monkey.

8/20/2009 4:31:25 PM

^^^When I see people yelling about death panels killing, I just assumed they'd get the death panels question wrong...


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/20/health.care.bad.info/index.html

Quote :

"However, when asked directly about one of the most controversial statements by some Republicans -- that a House bill would create "death panels" to decide who gets treatment -- Steele refused to acknowledge that such language was misinformation."

Quote :

"A woman asked Rep. Allen Boyd at a town hall meeting the other day if health care reform proposals would force people to let the government access their bank accounts."

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2009 4:39:44 PM