aceventura3

I gave an example of how public policy can impact a family decision, my example illustrated a rational thought process, and what followed was a pretense that the point was not relevant.

I think some fall into a trap when looking a statistical information. Basically, statistics dehumanize people. Before one can really understand broad based statistical data one has to understand what drives decisions on an individual level. The trap I describe leads us to public policy that takes the form of - 'well we are doing XX% out of 100%' and expecting everything is o.k. When you are one of the people on the margins, that is not o.k. I think there are better approaches to these problems, for example rather than totally changing health care in a half baked way, why not simply take the step of giving every child, 100% of them, full and complete medical care. No margins, no geography issues, no parental issues, no preexisting condition issues, no income issues, no timing issues, nothing, just give them coverage.



You are working too hard to read things into what I wrote that are not there. Why?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

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.

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.

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.

Why don't you write your congressperson and ask them?

Hmm.

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.

aceventura3

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 ----------

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?


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 ----------

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?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

If it is so rational to suggest that people will quit a job for a lower paying job simply to qualify for govt assistance, then the data should be available to support it.

Or perhaps it represents such a small percentage of those receiving govt assistance that it is not an issue worth discussing further.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

filtherton

But you're not presenting a premise for grant approval (I'd tell you to take a grant writing class or hire a grant writer). You're presenting a premise as if it is already supported, when I think it's pretty clear that it's not. It's not a worthless premise, but as far as I can tell it doesn't have any basis in scientifically supported policy decisions.


I didn't take your point out of context, I put it in context, that is to say, I put it into a context more associated with reality. As much as we'd all love to "understand individual decision making" to the extent that we can account for every eventuality, it's simply not possible. So statistics are used, because they can provide a moderately reliable way of predicting effects in lieu of more detailed information.

Do you just trade out people to argue here? Are there two or three of you?

In your previous post you were shocked, SHOCKED that I'd interpreted your words in the way that I did. Then, after I went back and showed you why I interpreted your words the way I did, you realize that, yes, I interpreted them correctly. So then you just continue on like you were never lost and I didn't have to remind you of what the hell you were talking about.

I don't know, is he abusive? Does he spend all of his free time at home arguing on the internet?

I don't know, is he abusive? Does he spend all of his free time at home arguing on the internet?

Even then, you're original premise was that the father was willing to do all this, but, goshdarnit, he'd lose out on some government money and so he didn't. It seems like the guy in your original premise would be a great dad.

I don't think your definition of rational is rational. Your actions in this conversation have convinced me (or reminded me, I guess) of this.

I want you to go back and read what I was talking about when I mentioned the words "non sequitur," because in all your rational bluster you've clearly misread it. And I won't accept the above because it's counter to my experiences. And also that, analytically speaking, it wouldn't pass muster in an intro college english class. You make so many assumptions that it would take a considerably effort to list them all.

aceventura3

There is, but there are problems with the data.

I remember posting data on the sexual activity of young males and young females. The data show males have more sex with more partners than females. It is clear that males tend to exaggerate sexual activity and females will understate sexual activity, but the reality is that (even adjusting for same sex activity) the numbers should be even.

People generally don't give up good jobs simply because of government assistance, I never stated that, you simply created a straw-man argument here. what I do say is that the presence of government assistance influences behaviors, primarily on the margins when there are large marginal cost sifts (or "tax") based on arbitrary benefit cut offs. If a person can shift costs, for example, amounting to 50% of their income, by doing or not doing a small act, they have a big financial incentive to do so. I am not even interested in looking for a study that shows that, and if you don't believe it - don't.

Are you suggesting the point is real but is small or are you still holding the position that the point is not real, you got me confused now? If it is a question of the "size" of the issue, perhaps there is more to discuss, because I think the "size" of the problem is a legitimate concern.

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------

My views on this subject are clear to me, have not changed, and won't change. Everything else is related to my inability to communicate clearly with you. I am willing to start fresh, if you think it would help, and I will respond directly to any question you have regarding my point of view on this subject.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Hey, thats cool. Why would you look for data that might contradict your assumption....beyond a very small percentage of those receiving govt assistance.

In any case, dont try to pass your opinion off as factual.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire