Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
Ace, I think you will find that most liberals in here are in favor of a single payer universal health care system, so you don't need to convince any of us of that.
Of course, it makes absolutely no sense to argue that because the bill doesn't cover everyone, it shouldn't cover anyone.
|
Not my point at all. We can cover all children and I can whole heatedly support that, however the idea of giving a few a big benefit at the expense of all, with arbitrary and abrupt cut-offs resulting in some very unacceptable unintended consequences is something I can not support. I think a better approach is to lower the costs so everyone benefits - this can be done in a manner to help those most in need without the unintended consequences. The first step is being willing to acknowledge there are severe unintended consequences to our current approach.
---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:58 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
It's relevance will only be established when you can provide an estimate of prevalence. There's little point in considering situations that don't have a significant impact and aren't significantly prevalent.
|
O.k., let's say I presented my premise to you and I am asking you for a grant to prove my premise, what is your response here suggesting?
Quote:
|
Public health policy is necessarily a matter of statistics. If policy makers took the time to consider every possibility then nothing would ever get done.
|
I think you purposefully have taken my point out of context and I wonder why? I never said that statistics are not important, did I. What I said was that there is a trap that people can fall into regarding the review and analysis of statistics. What I suggested was a need to dig down into the statistics and understand individual decision making. For example statistics involving how or why people involve themselves in public aid will always be problematic because in some cases answers could be self incriminating. A statistician needs to understand that and well as those relying on the data.
---------- Post added at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Here's what happened:
You said:
To which I responded:
To which you responded:
Was this a complete non sequitur? Because in the context of our conversation (the effects of marriage on familial strength) it seems like you're saying that "from a big picture point of view" the lack of marriage correlates with a disinclination for work and sacrifice for the benefit of family and a lack of connection stemming from a lack of daily contact. Perhaps you're not talking about the effect of marriage on familial strength here, which would makes sense given your incredulity at my response. In the context of our conversation it seemed like you were saying something completely different.
|
First, to simplify - use the assumption all other things being equal, then let's look at the impact of variables. We also, know there are exceptions to the rules:
A young man with daily contact with his family where he works, provides, and sacrifices will have more or less of a connection?
A young man with all of the above who also make a commitment in front of his extended family, her extended family, society (through a marriage license), to his heritage (including religion), will have more or less of a connection?
It seems to me that you want me to suspend belief in what is rational. Seems to me that you won't accept the above unless you have some scientific or statistical proof. And you say it is a non-sequitur?