Originally Posted by filtherton

I'm amazed that some folks are so quick to believe uncited statistics that support their preconceived notions whilst decrying the deceptive use of statistics that don't support preconceived notions.

Like refuting the "desperate lies" of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius by citing completely irrelevant facts. If her lies were so desperate, one would expect them to be easily refuted with information that actually refutes them.

Or quoting unattributed stats "poll after poll" about how much more satisfied Americans are than their socialist peers. If these polls are so damning, why not link to their results or mention their names?

Or relying on the results of an unnamed, possibly unpublished study as explained by a doctor who may or may not have an axe to grind. Does his study have a name; is it findable? Did he do the study by himself? Was it performed at the behest of the think tank he works for, or Stanford Medical Center?

All of the claims made in your link could be true, but you'd have to be either very naive or very unconcerned with basing your opinions on verifiable data to accept them at face value.