rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 20, 2014 13:59:58 GMT -5
um....did you read that article? Supporters of the law point to the second number in the survey: That 35% oppose the health care law because it's too liberal, with 16% saying they oppose the measure because it isn't liberal enough. Add that 16% to the 44% who say they favor the law and that means that six in ten either support the law or don't think it goes far enough. Or in other words, 60% are on the other side of the most vocal conservative critics of Obamacare. 60% think it EITHER goes too far or not far enough. that is precisely what i said. Eh.. No. You said half of the people that don't like it do so because it don't go far enough. That number according to this poll is precisely 16%
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 20, 2014 14:13:43 GMT -5
"this is, in fact, why half the people that don't like the ACA don't like it: that it does not go far ENOUGH."
Sorry my claim was also wrong. Since 16% of the total respondents don't think it went far enough it would mean that about 30% of the ones who don't like the law do so because it don't go far enough.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 20, 2014 16:01:17 GMT -5
"this is, in fact, why half the people that don't like the ACA don't like it: that it does not go far ENOUGH." Sorry my claim was also wrong. Since 16% of the total respondents don't think it went far enough it would mean that about 30% of the ones who don't like the law do so because it don't go far enough. i am just repeating what your article says, rockon. but there is a reason why both the article and me are saying the same thing: the US public has supported universal coverage since the 70's. this number follows straight through to today with very little variation. the article ASSUMES, just like i do, that the people who like it would like it if it did more, also. you can challenge that, if you like, but i don't think there is much ground for that challenge. here is the basic breakdown of the statistics: 35% think the law goes to far 16% think the law does not go far enough 44% like the law just fine. what the opponents of this law have assumed, for purposes of survey, is that the 16% are on the same side as the 35%. that's fine, but disingenuous. if the law were expanded, it would offer the same benefits that it does now, plus some in addition. it is therefore REASONABLE to assume that the 44% would continue liking it, but the 16% would join them, yielding 60%. what i find interesting, is that the so called "liberal media" repeats the meme that the majority is against this law without ever mentioning that if the law were expanded, the majority would support it. edit: i said that HALF the people that don't like it want the law expanded. that is not correct. it is 1/3. if that is what you are objecting to, i concede that point.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 20, 2014 20:34:35 GMT -5
"this is, in fact, why half the people that don't like the ACA don't like it: that it does not go far ENOUGH." Sorry my claim was also wrong. Since 16% of the total respondents don't think it went far enough it would mean that about 30% of the ones who don't like the law do so because it don't go far enough. i am just repeating what your article says, rockon. but there is a reason why both the article and me are saying the same thing: the US public has supported universal coverage since the 70's. this number follows straight through to today with very little variation. the article ASSUMES, just like i do, that the people who like it would like it if it did more, also. you can challenge that, if you like, but i don't think there is much ground for that challenge. here is the basic breakdown of the statistics: 35% think the law goes to far 16% think the law does not go far enough 44% like the law just fine. what the opponents of this law have assumed, for purposes of survey, is that the 16% are on the same side as the 35%. that's fine, but disingenuous. if the law were expanded, it would offer the same benefits that it does now, plus some in addition. it is therefore REASONABLE to assume that the 44% would continue liking it, but the 16% would join them, yielding 60%. what i find interesting, is that the so called "liberal media" repeats the meme that the majority is against this law without ever mentioning that if the law were expanded, the majority would support it. edit: i said that HALF the people that don't like it want the law expanded. that is not correct. it is 1/3. if that is what you are objecting to, i concede that point. Thank you that was my simple objection but you kept going elsewhere. This link did include what you just said the don't do. It mentioned that if you add the 16% that want it to go further with the 44% who approve of it there would be 6 out of 10 who would not agree with the conservative critics. What they failed to mention is that one could make a similar counter claim that if you added the 35% who thinks it went to far with the 44% who approve then 8 out of 10 would not agree with the liberal critics. Kind of a strange position for you to call a reasonable assumption or for an unbiased media to take without having additional information to support the claim. Your own earlier posts note that they did not have support to pass a more liberal bill which would seem to indicate that the whole 44% would in fact not be a reasonable assumption.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 20, 2014 22:05:17 GMT -5
i am just repeating what your article says, rockon. but there is a reason why both the article and me are saying the same thing: the US public has supported universal coverage since the 70's. this number follows straight through to today with very little variation. the article ASSUMES, just like i do, that the people who like it would like it if it did more, also. you can challenge that, if you like, but i don't think there is much ground for that challenge. here is the basic breakdown of the statistics: 35% think the law goes to far 16% think the law does not go far enough 44% like the law just fine. what the opponents of this law have assumed, for purposes of survey, is that the 16% are on the same side as the 35%. that's fine, but disingenuous. if the law were expanded, it would offer the same benefits that it does now, plus some in addition. it is therefore REASONABLE to assume that the 44% would continue liking it, but the 16% would join them, yielding 60%. what i find interesting, is that the so called "liberal media" repeats the meme that the majority is against this law without ever mentioning that if the law were expanded, the majority would support it. edit: i said that HALF the people that don't like it want the law expanded. that is not correct. it is 1/3. if that is what you are objecting to, i concede that point. Thank you that was my simple objection but you kept going elsewhere. not intended, i assure you. This link did include what you just said the don't do. what is the don't do?It mentioned that if you add the 16% that want it to go further with the 44% who approve of it there would be 6 out of 10 who would not agree with the conservative critics. no, i said that 60% would approve of it if it were improved/enhanced.What they failed to mention is that one could make a similar counter claim that if you added the 35% who thinks it went to far with the 44% who approve then 8 out of 10 would not agree with the liberal critics. but that makes no sense. because 44% actually LIKE the law. no, it makes sense, viewed from a certain perspective, to group the 16% with the 35%. it makes no sense at all to group the 44% with the 35%. they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. it ONLY makes sense to group the 16% with the 44% if you think the 44% would still like the ACA if it was improved.
Kind of a strange position for you to call a reasonable assumption or for an unbiased media i never claimed the media was unbiased. NEVER.to take without having additional information to support the claim. Your own earlier posts note that they did not have support to pass a more liberal bill which would seem to indicate that the whole 44% would in fact not be a reasonable assumption. no? why not? i really DO think it is reasonable that the 44% who LIKE the law would also like it if it were expanded. if you disagree, i would be interested in hearing WHY.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 21, 2014 8:26:12 GMT -5
Thank you that was my simple objection but you kept going elsewhere. not intended, i assure you. This link did include what you just said the don't do. what is the don't do? You said the "liberal media" doesn't make the connection between the ones who approve of this law and the ones who don't because the think it should be more liberal but they did in the link you quoted.It mentioned that if you add the 16% that want it to go further with the 44% who approve of it there would be 6 out of 10 who would not agree with the conservative critics. no, i said that 60% would approve of it if it were improved/enhanced. "It" would refer to the link not "You"What they failed to mention is that one could make a similar counter claim that if you added the 35% who thinks it went to far with the 44% who approve then 8 out of 10 would not agree with the liberal critics. but that makes no sense. because 44% actually LIKE the law. Your own earlier post said this was the only thing they could get enough support for. Meaning a more liberal position would not likely have 44% support. no, it makes sense, viewed from a certain perspective, to group the 16% with the 35%. It would be very likely that one could never make a policy liberal enough to get all 16% and would certainly lose the support of a percentage of the 44% long before one could get close. it makes no sense at all to group the 44% with the 35%. they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Some are, some are not. The blue dog democrats had to be coherced, begged and bribed to go as far as they did. it ONLY makes sense to group the 16% with the 44% if you think the 44% would still like the ACA if it was improved. No from my perspective it would not be reasonable to assume as you and this link did that making the law more liberal would get the support of the 44% and 16% nor would it be reasonable to assume that the number would improve if it moved towards the more conservative approach. My own best guess would be that small moves either way have no major impact but that large moves either way would cause it to lose more support.
Kind of a strange position for you to call a reasonable assumption or for an unbiased media i never claimed the media was unbiased. NEVER. Reread the sentence I "NEVER" said that. to take without having additional information to support the claim. Your own earlier posts note that they did not have support to pass a more liberal bill which would seem to indicate that the whole 44% would in fact not be a reasonable assumption. no? why not? i really DO think it is reasonable that the 44% who LIKE the law would also like it if it were expanded. if you disagree, i would be interested in hearing WHY. I tried to explain my reasoning again in the reply above. But once more... No all 44% would not like the law expanded...(in the survey they said they like it as it is. If they wanted it expanded they would have joined the 16% who said they wanted it expanded) No all 16% would not be satisfied that the law was expanded enough... So one could never make a reasonable assumption that these numbers could be added together. Maybe it is unintentional but I question if you even read or understand before you reply.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on May 21, 2014 9:07:23 GMT -5
Watching the VA scandal scares me to death. Govt run health care? Not for me.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2014 9:30:39 GMT -5
no? why not? i really DO think it is reasonable that the 44% who LIKE the law would also like it if it were expanded. if you disagree, i would be interested in hearing WHY. I tried to explain my reasoning again in the reply above. But once more... No all 44% would not like the law expanded...(in the survey they said they like it as it is.
i understand that. but liking it "as it is" doesn't mean liking it "ONLY AS IT IS". for example, if i like Porsches, do you think it is reasonable that i will like Turbo Charged Porches? or do you think that i will ONLY like Porsches as they are, with no changes? really, what i think the "as it is" crowd are saying is that "i like it as it is, but i would like it better if it offered more". if you survey them HERE, i bet they will say that.
the 16%, on the other hand DON'T LIKE THE LAW NOW, and would ONLY like it if it were made better.
If they wanted it expanded they would have joined the 16% who said they wanted it expanded) No all 16% would not be satisfied that the law was expanded enough... So one could never make a reasonable assumption that these numbers could be added together.i totally disagree. i think they really could. AND SO DOES WRITER OF THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED!!!! but if you don't i am done trying to convince you. Maybe it is unintentional but I question if you even read or understand before you reply.i read it multiple times. i just couldn't believe you were coming after me for a 9% difference that had no impact on the broader argument.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2014 10:02:17 GMT -5
what is the don't do? You said the "liberal media" doesn't make the connection between the ones who approve of this law and the ones who don't because the think it should be more liberal but they did in the link you quoted.
the one YOU quoted. what i meant is that for every article like that, you will find 100 that simply say "51% disapprove". THIS is the number that gets reported. if the media were "liberally biased", as so many claim, the numbers would be exactly the opposite.
It mentioned that if you add the 16% that want it to go further with the 44% who approve of it there would be 6 out of 10 who would not agree with the conservative critics.
no, i said that 60% would approve of it if it were improved/enhanced. "It" would refer to the link not "You"
ok
What they failed to mention is that one could make a similar counter claim that if you added the 35% who thinks it went to far with the 44% who approve then 8 out of 10 would not agree with the liberal critics.
that is because it is irrational to assume that "likes" and "dislikes" have anything in common. i understand that you think that the 44% who like the law would dislike it if it were expanded, i just disagree completely about it, and so did the writer of the article that YOU posted.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 22, 2014 8:20:54 GMT -5
Yeah I agree this debate is going no where.. not even sure how we got here now. It has probably gotten a bit ridiculous at this point.
Back to the start... You posted that half (50%) of the people who disliked ACA do so because it don't go far enough. I did some research and found that most polls showed that this number was actually 25-30%, posted what I thought would have been a link from a neutral/left leaning source that chould have clarifed your gross exageration of this number. Instead of thanking me for the clarification and acknowledging this error YOU QUOTED a different segment from the link I POSTED and said this was precisely what you said. In doing so you again completely misstated what the author of the link said. The link said that if you added the 16% who thought ACA should have gone further with the 44% who like it now you have 60% who do not agree with the 35% who do not like it. That statement is absolutly true and very obvious, just like it would be true if you simply stated that if you added the 35% who dislike it because it went too far with the 44% who do like it you would have 79% who did not agree with 16% percent of the responders who said they wanted it to go farther. These are just simply facts from the survey that could never be argued and coming from this source I would have fully expected to see it noted the way it was and I'm fine with that. I tend to read things in the context of the source. You then took this quote and again expounded on what was written and claimed that he said if the law was more liberal then 60% of the respondents would have supported it. That is again a gross exageration, not even possible to know from this survey and certainly not what the author of the link said. Further more even based on your own previous posts it would not be a reasonable assumption that moving this legislation further to the left would have gotten the full support from all of the respondents except the 35% who think it went too far.
But yeah I'm about beating my head against the wall on this one. You obviously really, really hate being wrong.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 22, 2014 10:31:55 GMT -5
Yeah I agree this debate is going no where.. not even sure how we got here now. It has probably gotten a bit ridiculous at this point. Back to the start... You posted that half (50%) of the people who disliked ACA do so because it don't go far enough. i changed that to approximately 1/3. that is right within 1%. i consider that a settled point. don't you?I did some research and found that most polls showed that this number was actually 25-30%, posted what I thought would have been a link from a neutral/left leaning source that chould have clarifed your gross exageration of this number. 9% is not a gross exaggeration. i just didn't recall it correctly. i apologized for that. can we move on, please?Instead of thanking me for the clarification and acknowledging this error YOU QUOTED a different segment from the link I POSTED and said this was precisely what you said. it did, in terms of the 60% thing, which was my point. the % that wanted it improved was actually immaterial to my MAIN POINT.In doing so you again completely misstated what the author of the link said. no, i did not. i QUOTED THE AUTHOR.The link said that if you added the 16% who thought ACA should have gone further with the 44% who like it now you have 60% who do not agree with the 35% who do not like it. That statement is absolutly true and very obvious, just like it would be true if you simply stated that if you added the 35% who dislike it because it went too far with the 44% who do like it you would have 79% who did not agree with 16% percent of the responders who said they wanted it to go farther. i totally disagree with your 79% number. those that like it would not stop liking it if it were expanded in my opinion. i illustrated this through examples that you are either ignoring, or also disagree with. but i FERVENTLY disagree that the 35% can be grouped meaningfully with the 44%. they are on OPPOSITE SIDES in this debate in a way that the 16% are NOT.These are just simply facts from the survey that could never be argued and coming from this source I would have fully expected to see it noted the way it was and I'm fine with that. I tend to read things in the context of the source. except that you don't accept the quoted conclusion of the report. i sympathize with that. it is awfully embarassing to cite an article that actually loses the argument for you. again...from YOUR ARTICLE:
Supporters of the law point to the second number in the survey: That 35% oppose the health care law because it's too liberal, with 16% saying they oppose the measure because it isn't liberal enough. Add that 16% to the 44% who say they favor the law and that means that six in ten either support the law or don't think it goes far enough. Or in other words, 60% are on the other side of the most vocal conservative critics of Obamacare.
now, you can disagree with that if you like. that's fine. but this is basically the same thing that i said. and you have failed to even ACKNOWLEDGE that fact, thusfar.
You then took this quote and again expounded on what was written and claimed that he said if the law was more liberal then 60% of the respondents would have supported it. That is again a gross exageration, YOU think so. i don't. i think it is perfectly reasonable.not even possible to know from this survey and certainly not what the author of the link said. Further more even based on your own previous posts it would not be a reasonable assumption that moving this legislation further to the left would have gotten the full support from all of the respondents except the 35% who think it went too far. But yeah I'm about beating my head against the wall on this one. You obviously really, really hate being wrong. no, you obviously hate being wrong. i have already said that i got "the number that wanted it expanded" wrong, i stated that plainly, apologized for it, and you acknowledged it. where have YOU admitted that your article stated in it's conclusion that 60% either like the law or want it expanded? oh that's right...nowhere.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 23, 2014 7:42:06 GMT -5
"In doing so you again completely misstated what the author of the link said. The link said that if you added the 16% who thought ACA should have gone further with the 44% who like it now you have 60% who do not agree with the 35% who do not like it. That statement is absolutly true and very obvious, just like it would be true if you simply stated that if you added the 35% who dislike it because it went too far with the 44% who do like it you would have 79% who did not agree with 16% percent of the responders who said they wanted it to go farther. These are just simply facts from the survey that could never be argued and coming from this source I would have fully expected to see it noted the way it was and I'm fine with that. I tend to read things in the context of the source."
Wow, this is over the top. Just read what I posted and you would see I completely agree that 60% either like the law or would like it expanded and have said so. What I disagree with is what you posted. The link also disagrees with what you said. It does not say anywhere that if the law was more liberal 60% would support it but that is what you keep claiming it says. It is false and irrational to claim that and the link does not say that. If I'm wrong please show me and I would be happy to apologize for questioning your comment.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 23, 2014 8:18:44 GMT -5
Yeah I agree this debate is going no where.. not even sure how we got here now. It has probably gotten a bit ridiculous at this point. Back to the start... You posted that half (50%) of the people who disliked ACA do so because it don't go far enough. i changed that to approximately 1/3. that is right within 1%. i consider that a settled point. don't you? You are correct. Many posts later you said "I concede that point"I did some research and found that most polls showed that this number was actually 25-30%, posted what I thought would have been a link from a neutral/left leaning source that chould have clarifed your gross exageration of this number. 9% is not a gross exaggeration. i just didn't recall it correctly. i apologized for that. can we move on, please? No idea yet where the 9% comes from. It was you stating 50% vs the reality of 25-30%. Doubling a number would be a gross exaggeration where I come from.Instead of thanking me for the clarification and acknowledging this error YOU QUOTED a different segment from the link I POSTED and said this was precisely what you said. it did, in terms of the 60% thing, which was my point. the % that wanted it improved was actually immaterial to my MAIN POINT. GottchaIn doing so you again completely misstated what the author of the link said. no, i did not. i QUOTED THE AUTHOR. Yep, you quoted the author and then misstated what he said.The link said that if you added the 16% who thought ACA should have gone further with the 44% who like it now you have 60% who do not agree with the 35% who do not like it. That statement is absolutly true and very obvious, just like it would be true if you simply stated that if you added the 35% who dislike it because it went too far with the 44% who do like it you would have 79% who did not agree with 16% percent of the responders who said they wanted it to go farther. i totally disagree with your 79% number. those that like it would not stop liking it if it were expanded in my opinion. i illustrated this through examples that you are either ignoring, or also disagree with. but i FERVENTLY disagree that the 35% can be grouped meaningfully with the 44%. they are on OPPOSITE SIDES in this debate in a way that the 16% are NOT. I never claimed anything about meaningful groupings. I consistently said the survey did not allow for any meaningful groupings. The raw numbers are however what they are, simple facts from the respondents. 79% choose something other then making it go farther, 60% choose something other then making it less. The largest single segment preffered keeping it at the current level. Those are just straight up facts. These are just simply facts from the survey that could never be argued and coming from this source I would have fully expected to see it noted the way it was and I'm fine with that. I tend to read things in the context of the source. except that you don't accept the quoted conclusion of the report. i sympathize with that. it is awfully embarassing to cite an article that actually loses the argument for you. again...from YOUR ARTICLE: Please feel free to point out what the quoted conclusion was and I will be happy to attach an embarassed icon. The report simply gave the raw numbers and then pointed out how both sides attempt to spin them to show favor to their position. Nowhere do I find your stated conclusion that if the law were more liberal then 60% would support it.
Supporters of the law point to the second number in the survey: That 35% oppose the health care law because it's too liberal, with 16% saying they oppose the measure because it isn't liberal enough. Add that 16% to the 44% who say they favor the law and that means that six in ten either support the law or don't think it goes far enough. Or in other words, 60% are on the other side of the most vocal conservative critics of Obamacare.
now, you can disagree with that if you like. that's fine. but this is basically the same thing that i said. and you have failed to even ACKNOWLEDGE that fact, thusfar. I have stated and acknowleged on several occasions that I agree with that. It is obvious and fact. 60% of the respondents did not choose less then our current law. Does that satisfy your expectation? Now, could you acknowledge that in this same survey 79% did not choose the option of going further with this law? That does not mean some would not it just could never be concluded or assumed from this survey and was not suggested in this article. You then took this quote and again expounded on what was written and claimed that he said if the law was more liberal then 60% of the respondents would have supported it. That is again a gross exageration, YOU think so. i don't. i think it is perfectly reasonable. I have no issue with you thinking disagreeing with me on this point, but the article did not say that as you claim.not even possible to know from this survey and certainly not what the author of the link said. Further more even based on your own previous posts it would not be a reasonable assumption that moving this legislation further to the left would have gotten the full support from all of the respondents except the 35% who think it went too far. But yeah I'm about beating my head against the wall on this one. You obviously really, really hate being wrong. no, you obviously hate being wrong. i have already said that i got "the number that wanted it expanded" wrong, i stated that plainly, apologized for it, and you acknowledged it. where have YOU admitted that your article stated in it's conclusion that 60% either like the law or want it expanded? oh that's right...nowhere. No idea why you can't see that I have agreed with that statement all along. I just disagree that it says more then that. I will apologize though if my posts did not make that clear. I do make many mistakes and say things wrong. I don't mind acknowledging that at all.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 23, 2014 11:00:49 GMT -5
Back to the start... You posted that half (50%) of the people who disliked ACA do so because it don't go far enough.
i changed that to approximately 1/3. that is right within 1%. i consider that a settled point. don't you? You are correct. Many posts later you said "I concede that point" it took "many posts" because i didn't understand your objection. when i DID, i edited my post, and apologized for it. you acknowledged that. and yet here we are, a page later, and you are still giving me flack for it. I did some research and found that most polls showed that this number was actually 25-30%, posted what I thought would have been a link from a neutral/left leaning source that chould have clarifed your gross exageration of this number.
9% is not a gross exaggeration. i just didn't recall it correctly. i apologized for that. can we move on, please? No idea yet where the 9% comes from. 25%-16% = 9% It was you stating 50% vs the reality of 25-30%. NO!!!!! i said 50% of THOSE THAT DID NOT LIKE THE LAW = 25%. so, it turns out that we are in agreement, if you think it is 25%. Doubling a number would be a gross exaggeration where I come from. what is misreading the claim where you come from? i said HALF OF THOSE THAT DISLIKED THE LAW, not half of those surveyed!!!! seriously !!! you have been picking over the carcass of that comment for NOTHING ? jesus.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 23, 2014 11:01:49 GMT -5
i totally disagree with your 79% number. those that like it would not stop liking it if it were expanded in my opinion. i illustrated this through examples that you are either ignoring, or also disagree with. but i FERVENTLY disagree that the 35% can be grouped meaningfully with the 44%. they are on OPPOSITE SIDES in this debate in a way that the 16% are NOT. I never claimed anything about meaningful groupings. well, on that we can agree.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 23, 2014 11:04:47 GMT -5
he respondents would have supported it. That is again a gross exageration,
YOU think so. i don't. i think it is perfectly reasonable. I have no issue with you thinking disagreeing with me on this point, but the article did not say that as you claim.
i never said it made that exact claim. i said it was pretty much saying the same thing, or that it could be inferred from the results. i KNOW you disagree, and i am comfortable with that. so long as you agree it is a reasonable assumption, we have nothing more to argue about.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 23, 2014 12:54:33 GMT -5
he respondents would have supported it. That is again a gross exageration, YOU think so. i don't. i think it is perfectly reasonable. I have no issue with you thinking disagreeing with me on this point, but the article did not say that as you claim. i never said it made that exact claim. i said it was pretty much saying the same thing, or that it could be inferred from the results. i KNOW you disagree, and i am comfortable with that. so long as you agree it is a reasonable assumption, we have nothing more to argue about. Ok maybe I'm all wet about your claim but your earlier posts seem to show different. All the same I'm comfortable with it if you are. I could however never accept that your conclusion from the results could be made from a reasonable assumption so I guess we can still argue!
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 23, 2014 13:07:34 GMT -5
Back to the start... You posted that half (50%) of the people who disliked ACA do so because it don't go far enough.
i changed that to approximately 1/3. that is right within 1%. i consider that a settled point. don't you? You are correct. Many posts later you said "I concede that point" it took "many posts" because i didn't understand your objection. when i DID, i edited my post, and apologized for it. you acknowledged that. and yet here we are, a page later, and you are still giving me flack for it. I did some research and found that most polls showed that this number was actually 25-30%, posted what I thought would have been a link from a neutral/left leaning source that chould have clarifed your gross exageration of this number.
9% is not a gross exaggeration. i just didn't recall it correctly. i apologized for that. can we move on, please? No idea yet where the 9% comes from. 25%-16% = 9% It was you stating 50% vs the reality of 25-30%. NO!!!!! i said 50% of THOSE THAT DID NOT LIKE THE LAW = 25%. so, it turns out that we are in agreement, if you think it is 25%. Doubling a number would be a gross exaggeration where I come from. what is misreading the claim where you come from? i said HALF OF THOSE THAT DISLIKED THE LAW, not half of those surveyed!!!! seriously !!! you have been picking over the carcass of that comment for NOTHING ? jesus. It appears you are confusing so many numbers it really is difficult to even know where to start. You said half (50%) of the people who don't like the law do so because they think it don't go far enough. That number turned out to be 25-30% 50 minus 25 equals 25 not 9! Again you said 50% of the people who do not like the law do so because it don't go far enough which turns out is simply not true. Of the people who do not like the law only about 25-30% oppose it because it don't go far enough. Please refer to the link that started this firestorm! That means your original post greatly exaggerated the claim and you eventually conceded that point. Apparently now you revert back to the original claim? That means there is still meat on these bones
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 23, 2014 13:43:27 GMT -5
You mentioned earlier that I either ignored or disagreed with your previous examples explaining why you think your assumptions are reasonable. I intentionally wanted to let this whole number mess sort itself our before we confused this thread with more areas of disagreement. Since we appear to winding some of that down I will now present why I feel your assumption that 60% would support a more liberal version of ACA does not pass the sniff test.
My example might be something like this:
In 2008 a man named Harry Pelosi wanted to pass a mandate that required every American to purchase a new car, there were town hall meetings, plenty of hand wringing, accusations, arguements, money exchanges, begging, bribery, promises but at the end a group was put together that allowed the suggestion to become law and it was determined that everyone would have to buy a "Cadillac". Some in the group wished that it only mandated a minimum of a cheap but functional "Chevy" while others wanted everyone mandated to go all in and purchase the very expensive "Rolls Royce".
Several years later CNN did a survey to see how people now felt about this mandate and the results were as followed: 44% thought the choice to make everyone purchase a "Cadillac" was about right. (Snazzy but not crazy) 35% still wanted the option to buy or keep their "Chevy" (The old work truck needed some updates but still ran well) 16% were still mad that Harry didn't go for broke and make every get the "Rolls Royce" (Awesome car from their perspective regardless of the cost)
Never satisfied with raw numbers the "Chevy" spinners said "Look 51% of the people don't like the new mandate so we need to get rid of it" The 'Rolls Royce" spinners took the same numbers and said "Look 60% of the people choose something other then only mandating Chevys so maybe if we would have required everyone to get a Rolls Royce we would have 60% support for that also"
In conclusion my opinion remains that both are taking raw numbers and extracting results that fit their agenda or opinion but both are actually very disingenous and making unreasonable assumptions without supporting data.
Hope all enjoy a wonderful and sunny Memorial Day Weekend.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 23, 2014 19:27:53 GMT -5
he respondents would have supported it. That is again a gross exageration, YOU think so. i don't. i think it is perfectly reasonable. I have no issue with you thinking disagreeing with me on this point, but the article did not say that as you claim. i never said it made that exact claim. i said it was pretty much saying the same thing, or that it could be inferred from the results. i KNOW you disagree, and i am comfortable with that. so long as you agree it is a reasonable assumption, we have nothing more to argue about. Ok maybe I'm all wet about your claim but your earlier posts seem to show different. All the same I'm comfortable with it if you are. I could however never accept that your conclusion from the results could be made from a reasonable assumption so I guess we can still argue! nah! i prefer the big picture arguments to the little nitpicky ones.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 23, 2014 20:01:38 GMT -5
It appears you are confusing so many numbers it really is difficult to even know where to start. You said half (50%) of the people who don't like the law do so because they think it don't go far enough. That number turned out to be 25-30% 50 minus 25 equals 25 not 9! um....no. first of all, i was talking about my error -vs- the survey. that error was 9%. approximately 1/2 of 51% = 25% approximately 1/3 of 50% = 16% the difference is 9% if that is the error you are talking about, i already conceded it. but thinking something was 1/4 when it was actually 1/6th is not a huge error, rockon. i simply forgot. and i apologized for it. and you accepted it. why are you insisting on salting it? thanks for correcting me. 1/3 of those surveyed who don't like the law want it expanded. fine. that means that 60% of those surveyed either like the law, or want it expanded, right? let's just agree on those two points, and leave it at that. that is the number i remembered (the 60%), not the 16%. there were more people that LIKED THE LAW than i remembered.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 23, 2014 20:07:49 GMT -5
........ Never satisfied with raw numbers the "Chevy" spinners said "Look 51% of the people don't like the new mandate so we need to get rid of it" The 'Rolls Royce" spinners took the same numbers and said "Look 60% of the people choose something other then only mandating Chevys so maybe if we would have required everyone to get a Rolls Royce we would have 60% support for that also" i am not sure that analogy works for me. but i understand your reasoning now. let me offer a "tweak". here is how i would put it. IF THE PUBLIC OPTION WERE OFFERED: the 44% would have no change in their Cadillac whatsoever, other than it could have an optional 4 speaker Bose system in it. the 16% could get their much coveted Bose system in the Caddy, which would make them happy with it. the 35% never wanted a Caddy in the first place, and still hate it. THAT is how i see it, rockon. the 16% (LIKE ME) want a public option. if we had that OPTION, we would like the ACA. but we don't have that option. so, we hate this law. i don't see how offering that OPTION would cause the 44% to hate it. but if you do, yes, have a nice weekend, since we are never going to agree on this. ;]
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 24, 2014 7:59:23 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 24, 2014 11:00:17 GMT -5
The public option has been offered. the public option was never offered, in the context of this discussion. nice try tho.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 20:17:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 8:03:38 GMT -5
The regional hospital (250 bed)somewhat close to me is now one of the plaintiffs' in a lawsuit due to payment delays from medicare since the inception of the ACA. Over 150 hospital positions eliminated since ACA's inception due to revenue delays and reductions.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 31, 2014 13:08:06 GMT -5
The VA scandal is pretty much the death of socialized medicine. It has provided us all with a preview.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 31, 2014 20:34:54 GMT -5
The VA scandal is pretty much the death of socialized medicine. It has provided us all with a preview. And that makes no sense at all-but blabber away...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 26, 2014 16:19:10 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2014 19:11:24 GMT -5
The VA scandal is pretty much the death of socialized medicine. It has provided us all with a preview. agreed. but the ACA is not socialized medicine. so, i guess you are saying that it is fine, right?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jun 29, 2014 15:33:17 GMT -5
|
|