Healthcare reform

[bmags]

Seriously can we move on? This polls are not to be trusted argument is among the dumbest that continues to get hold in the filibuster.

 

Polls not to be trusted/are obviously biased:

Anything showing people believe in global warming

any showing a democrat in the lead

any showing the public option popular

 

Did I miss any? Let's move on.

[Y2HH]

Seriously can we move on? This polls are not to be trusted argument is among the dumbest that continues to get hold in the filibuster.

 

Polls not to be trusted/are obviously biased:

Anything showing people believe in global warming

any showing a democrat in the lead

any showing the public option popular

 

Did I miss any? Let's move on.

 

Yes, you did. You forgot about all the polls that lie on the other side of the street as well. You see, unlike you, I don't trust *most* polls of any sort, whether they be released by republicans OR democrats. From the sound of the sarcastic post you made above, it seems that you feel people don't trust polls only if it's a populist democratic/liberal issue, such as global warming, democrat favored, etc...

 

There are very few I trust from start to finish. I have this problem with people who read something and just believe it, such as when polls post methodology -- so ok, if you did exactly as you said you did, then that poll can be trusted...but the question is, DID YOU ACTUALLY DO IT THAT WAY?! I don't trust people...because people lie...a lot, they even lie about telling the truth on how they did something so long as it makes the point they wanted it to make.

 

I don't care about either party, and I hope someday both are uprooted and tossed by the citizens of this country because of their complete uselessness. While they make it appear they all hate each other, the reality is, they're all making each other rich.

 

Now we can move on since I cleared that up.

[bmags]

well, that means you don't trust yourself to have basic knowledge to figure out what polls are reliable and which aren't.

[BigSqwert]

Yes, you did. You forgot about all the polls that lie on the other side of the street as well. You see, unlike you, I don't trust *most* polls of any sort, whether they be released by republicans OR democrats. From the sound of the sarcastic post you made above, it seems that you feel people don't trust polls only if it's a populist democratic/liberal issue, such as global warming, democrat favored, etc...

 

There are very few I trust from start to finish. I have this problem with people who read something and just believe it, such as when polls post methodology -- so ok, if you did exactly as you said you did, then that poll can be trusted...but the question is, DID YOU ACTUALLY DO IT THAT WAY?! I don't trust people...because people lie...a lot, they even lie about telling the truth on how they did something so long as it makes the point they wanted it to make.

 

I don't care about either party, and I hope someday both are uprooted and tossed by the citizens of this country because of their complete uselessness. While they make it appear they all hate each other, the reality is, they're all making each other rich.

 

Now we can move on since I cleared that up.

Then you just have other deep seeded issues that have nothing to do with polls.

[Y2HH]

Then you just have other deep seeded issues that have nothing to do with polls.

 

Yes, you are right. I have deep seeded issues because I don't trust people I do not know.

 

I need not add anything more to that.

[Y2HH]

well, that means you don't trust yourself to have basic knowledge to figure out what polls are reliable and which aren't.

 

Convienent of you to ignore why I said what I said. So again, just because a poll reports the medhod which was used is no actual guarantee that they used that method, there is a degree of trust you have to have on this case, which I simply do not have without opposing oversight to verify said results.

 

I understand I'm a cynic at heart, because the world has given me plenty of reason to be exactly that.

[bmags]

I ignored the rest because it wasn't based in any sort of fact. You're assumption that they are lying is just a cover up for your inexperience in statistical data and a way for you to explain away your uncomfortableness to yourself. Why would Rasmussen continue to be transparent and show us their leading questions if they could just lie? Because actual people are called, and they can actually get caught, easily, and they can actually go out of business because of this. People pay for these polls. News orgs subscribe to them, if they got caught lying they would be ostracized and not used anymore.

 

The variations in polls result in variations in questioning, to be sure, but also, changes in who was polled, what their sample sizes were, etc.

 

You think that because you are acting cynical to all polls and making silly claims like they could lie about their methodology makes you reasonable, when it just shows the opposite.

[bmags]

Yes, you are right. I have deep seeded issues because I don't trust people I do not know.

 

I need not add anything more to that.

 

If I were you I would never buy anything then. Sure, they SAY these are the ingredients, but they could've just lied and put cyanide in it. How do you know? I'd stop buying things, Y2HH, you'll be safer. Also, you might want to put homemade tinfoil over your head.

[Y2HH]

If I were you I would never buy anything then. Sure, they SAY these are the ingredients, but they could've just lied and put cyanide in it. How do you know? I'd stop buying things, Y2HH, you'll be safer. Also, you might want to put homemade tinfoil over your head.

 

There is a difference between trust and paranoia.

 

Not trusting people, or taking people at their word when you don't know them and what you just described are two completely different things. I don't trust polls or how they're conducted, and I stated my reasons, and I don't see why me feeling this way is a big deal. Just because I feel this way doesn't mean you have too.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Y2HH

[southsider2k5]

I ignored the rest because it wasn't based in any sort of fact. You're assumption that they are lying is just a cover up for your inexperience in statistical data and a way for you to explain away your uncomfortableness to yourself. Why would Rasmussen continue to be transparent and show us their leading questions if they could just lie? Because actual people are called, and they can actually get caught, easily, and they can actually go out of business because of this. People pay for these polls. News orgs subscribe to them, if they got caught lying they would be ostracized and not used anymore.

 

The variations in polls result in variations in questioning, to be sure, but also, changes in who was polled, what their sample sizes were, etc.

 

You think that because you are acting cynical to all polls and making silly claims like they could lie about their methodology makes you reasonable, when it just shows the opposite.

 

As opposed to only thinking people who think differently are lying?

[bmags]

what is that opposed to? Nothing in my argument? Okay, move along.

[southsider2k5]

what is that opposed to? Nothing in my argument? Okay, move along.

 

I saw your "argument". It is a pathetic pat on your own back. Speaking of needing to move on, you might try actually listening to the other side of say, anything.

[bmags]

When the other argument against a poll is something to the likes of : "well, I think the questioning is kind of misleading and might lead to uninformed answers" "they called on a holiday and didn't get equal representation" "This poll has a pretty high margin of error, I don't think I'd put all my eggs in their basket" or anything remotely related to the actual poll, instead of:

 

yeah well, people lie, so these pollsters probably lied, oh yea sure you can look at the questions they asked but they probably lied about the questions because people lie. Sorry but they do.

 

Then you don't deserve a polite response.This is the third go around of this stupid argument. If you don't believe polls because you are incapable of understanding the methodology, then just admit, don't hide yourself behind "well theyz is probably lyin', I seena heard people do that."

[southsider2k5]

When the other argument against a poll is something to the likes of : "well, I think the questioning is kind of misleading and might lead to uninformed answers" "they called on a holiday and didn't get equal representation" "This poll has a pretty high margin of error, I don't think I'd put all my eggs in their basket" or anything remotely related to the actual poll, instead of:

 

yeah well, people lie, so these pollsters probably lied, oh yea sure you can look at the questions they asked but they probably lied about the questions because people lie. Sorry but they do.

 

Then you don't deserve a polite response.This is the third go around of this stupid argument. If you don't believe polls because you are incapable of understanding the methodology, then just admit, don't hide yourself behind "well theyz is probably lyin', I seena heard people do that."

 

As opposed to your side which seems to be, they agree with me, so they can't be at fault. Yep, that is much more sound logic. You'll do great coming out of a school for journalism.

[lostfan]

There is a difference between trust and paranoia.

Not really, we've been down this road before. If you dismiss everything as untrustworthy and accept absolutely nothing at face value, well then you may as well just live in a bubble and never go outside.

[kapkomet]

Not really, we've been down this road before. If you dismiss everything as untrustworthy and accept absolutely nothing at face value, well then you may as well just live in a bubble and never go outside.

I need to change my avatar from a straw man to a bubble man.

 

[bmags]

As opposed to your side which seems to be, they agree with me, so they can't be at fault. Yep, that is much more sound logic. You'll do great coming out of a school for journalism.

 

because you have examples of this? Typical bulls*** from conservatives on this site... I can't argue with you, so I'll argue against the person I wish I was arguing against.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not really, we've been down this road before. If you dismiss everything as untrustworthy and accept absolutely nothing at face value, well then you may as well just live in a bubble and never go outside.

Thank you.

 

Y2HH, I appreciate your policy views on some things and your background in health care, but when you elevate your paranoia to the point you do on this topic, you ruin any chance for any discussion whatsoever. You are basically saying, all data, facts, evidence and science are B.S. if you didn't see them come into existence personally. Conveniently, this allows you to believe whatever makes you most comfortable, facts be damned. The ostrich act is old.

 

[Y2HH]

Thank you.

 

Y2HH, I appreciate your policy views on some things and your background in health care, but when you elevate your paranoia to the point you do on this topic, you ruin any chance for any discussion whatsoever. You are basically saying, all data, facts, evidence and science are B.S. if you didn't see them come into existence personally. Conveniently, this allows you to believe whatever makes you most comfortable, facts be damned. The ostrich act is old.

 

I have the issues I do with polls for a reason, and yes, it may border paranoia with my trust issues related to polls, specifically because in college I did a project (a trimester long project) which focused on the intentional or unintentional manipulation of polls despite having to follow posted methodology and rules to keep said polls "honest". We did this in statistics class, and the lesson learned was that numbers can be manipulated almost no matter what rules are in place when the human element is added to the equation. We all took the same poll, following the same rules, with the same type of focus group/test group, and from team to team, the numbers weren't even close. The rules in place and the posted methods matched, but despite this, the resulting numbers should have avoided any extreme variance, but the results were the results...and the variance was extreme across the board.

 

Statistics are simply too easy to fix depending on the whens, the wheres and the hows.

 

So I apologize for being so skeptical of polls, regardless of who issues them. I keep hearing how polls show that the majority of Americans want this "public option of government run care", which is complete BS, because the fact is the majority of Americans are happy with their health care, so there is no way a legit poll should show that, unless the sample used was from a majority of currently uncovered people (who are actually a minority).

 

So yes, from personal experience, I find polls to be a load of crap. And this has nothing to do with me ignoring science, science is one thing I wouldn't dismiss.

 

Polls are not science.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Y2HH

[southsider2k5]

because you have examples of this? Typical bulls*** from conservatives on this site... I can't argue with you, so I'll argue against the person I wish I was arguing against.

 

You have gone completely off of the deep end.

[StrangeSox]

I have the issues I do with polls for a reason, and yes, it may border paranoia with my trust issues related to polls, specifically because in college I did a project (a trimester long project) which focused on the intentional or unintentional manipulation of polls despite having to follow posted methodology and rules to keep said polls "honest". We did this in statistics class, and the lesson learned was that numbers can be manipulated almost no matter what rules are in place when the human element is added to the equation. We all took the same poll, following the same rules, with the same type of focus group/test group, and from team to team, the numbers weren't even close. The rules in place and the posted methods matched, but despite this, the resulting numbers should have avoided any extreme variance, but the results were the results...and the variance was extreme across the board.

 

Statistics are simply too easy to fix depending on the whens, the wheres and the hows.

 

So I apologize for being so skeptical of polls, regardless of who issues them. I keep hearing how polls show that the majority of Americans want this "public option of government run care", which is complete BS, because the fact is the majority of Americans are happy with their health care, so there is no way a legit poll should show that, unless the sample used was from a majority of currently uncovered people (who are actually a minority).

 

So yes, from personal experience, I find polls to be a load of crap. And this has nothing to do with me ignoring science, science is one thing I wouldn't dismiss.

 

Polls are not science.

 

LOL.

 

Polls are not to be trusted! Unless they support your a priori beliefs and rationale.

[lostfan]

I can't believe I missed that.

[Y2HH]

I can't believe I missed that.

 

There was nothing to miss other than the typical, let's take snippits of someones entire post, therefore breaking its context completely, and make a really bad Soxtalkism strawman point about it.

 

To be perfectly clear, since it appears you have to be around here lest someone will take snippits of a whole to make a really stupid point, you can easily get a poll showing whatever outcome you're looking for when it comes to the subject of health care and people wanting a government run public option. Again, it comes down to the whens, the wheres and the hows...and it's my belief that in order for them to show that a "majority of Americans" want such an option, they HAD to ask a certain subsection of "America" while ignoring everyone else.

 

I'm sure they didn't poll any Blue Cross employees.

 

Or young healthy adults who are covered by any number of plans.

 

Or my parents, who in their 60's but have insurance.

 

Are those people not Americans?

 

Oh, wait, that's right...they may be Americans, but for this poll...they aren't necessary, because that would...well, mess up the intended outcome.

 

I think my point was made pretty clearly.

 

Again, to reiterate, since it seems you have to do that around here...I've stated my case as to WHY *I* do not like polls. I am not, in any way, saying you can't believe in them, trust them or take them at their word. That is your choice. That is your decision, something I'm not making for you.

 

It'd be nice if you let me state my opinion on the matter, even if you disagree with it without saying I'm sticking my head in the sand, or as I'm sure you are actually wanting to say but don't want to get banned, a total f***ing moron.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Y2HH

[NorthSideSox72]

There was nothing to miss other than the typical, let's take snippits of someones entire post, therefore breaking its context completely, and make a really bad Soxtalkism strawman point about it.

 

To be perfectly clear, since it appears you have to be around here lest someone will take snippits of a whole to make a really stupid point, you can easily get a poll showing whatever outcome you're looking for when it comes to the subject of health care and people wanting a government run public option. Again, it comes down to the whens, the wheres and the hows...and it's my belief that in order for them to show that a "majority of Americans" want such an option, they HAD to ask a certain subsection of "America" while ignoring everyone else.

 

I'm sure they didn't poll Blue Cross employees.

 

Or young healthy adults who are covered by any number of plans.

 

Or my parents, who in their 60's but have insurance.

 

Are those people not Americans?

 

Oh, wait, that's right...they may be Americans, but for this poll...they aren't necessary, because that would...well, mess up their intended outcome.

 

I think my point was made pretty clearly.

If this was all true, then I suppose you could show us a poll that someone did using acceptable methodology that showed that the majority of Americans are happy with things as-is. I mean, after all, if most Americans are happy with it as you say, plus with so many businesses wanting to keep it as is, surely there must be believable polls showing this. So where are they?

 

[Y2HH]

If this was all true, then I suppose you could show us a poll that someone did using acceptable methodology that showed that the majority of Americans are happy with things as-is. I mean, after all, if most Americans are happy with it as you say, plus with so many businesses wanting to keep it as is, surely there must be believable polls showing this. So where are they?

 

That's my point. Now, whether this was meant to be very sarcastic or not...I don't run around searching for polls.

 

But, are you actually trying to say that the majority of Americans are NOT happy with their healthcare? I don't personally know a single person that isn't happy.

 

I'm not going to bother proving you right or wrong. You can do that for yourself.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Y2HH