55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 12:21 pm
@Diest TKO,
TKO wrote:
You bring the support for his claim every time you click "reply." Nobody can prove how bad you are at debate better than you ican. Nobody.

Your post is your opinion unsupported by valid evidence.

By the way, it is my opinion, admittedly unsupported by valid evidence, that you WREDA are growing more desperate each day to deny the probability that you are losing contact with reality. Your repeated villifications of those with whom you disagree are mere anecdotal evidence of that, but I nevertheless urge you to seek counseling. Lost contact with reality is usually only a temperary condition except for those fiercely determined to deny truth.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 12:32 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
(1) The President Said: “Buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer."

The Reality Is: “Premiums for employment-based plans are expected to average about $5,000 per year for single coverage and about $13,000 per year for family coverage in 2009. Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower"about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies.”

It seems that the first "REALITY" in your statement is nothing more than opinion unsupported by valid evidence.

No source is given for the numbers. No comparison of equal policies is made. Rather it seems the author pulled 2 numbers from completely different sources and claimed they can be compared and doing so proves Obama wrong.
The most likely source of his numbers are
http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/Individual_Market_Survey_December_2007.pdf
And the Kaiser Family survey of business
http://www.kff.org/insurance/7672/upload/76723.pdf

Of those buying policies on their own, the industry report states that only 82% of those that apply even get offered policies. 11% were denied for medical reasons. Of those that were offered a policy 9% had conditions restricting coverage and another 11% were above the standard rate. 25% of the individual polices are written for people 24 and younger with 12% of the polices for those less than 18. In Business NO ONE is denied. So to start with, you are comparing 100% coverage to 82% coverage.

23% of the personally obtained policies were issued in conjunction with HSAs which are low cost/high deductible policies while that number is only 5% of business offered insurance.

So the author you cited ican is guilty of misusing statistics. He compares apples to oranges and then declares Obama wrong while he (your author) is lying with statistics.

Now, could you tell us what "actual evidence" the author give us in his response ican?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 12:37 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

By the way, it is my opinion, admittedly unsupported by valid evidence, that you WREDA are growing more desperate each day to deny the probability that you are losing contact with reality. Your repeated villifications of those with whom you disagree are mere anecdotal evidence of that, but I nevertheless urge you to seek counseling. Lost contact with reality is usually only a temperary condition except for those fiercely determined to deny truth.


...said the ridiculous conspiracy theorist as he adjusted his tinfoil hat.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 12:39 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:
The I don't have to prove my source right, you have to prove my source wrong game is logical error.

More evidence in the case against your debate skills.

In my opinion, generally you are not responsible for proving my source's claim wrong any more than I am responsible for proving my source's claim right. The exception to that occurs when I post a source's claim, and you post your claim, not your opinion, that the source's claim is wrong. For your claim to have credibility you must provide valid evidence to support your claim.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 12:57 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
All your post is merely your opinion unsupported by valid evidence.


That would depend upon the nature of the post--this is mere ipse dixit.

Quote:
When I posted claims from "Righttruth," I DID NOT assume the responsibility to support the claims from "Righttruth."


If you assert that it is the truth, and you expect to be taken seriously in a debate, then you certainly are assuming the responsibility of proving the claims. Once again, you indulge ipse dixit, and you demonstrate why you really have no business in a debate--at least, if you expect to be taken seriously.

Quote:
If you were to claim that those claims of "Righttruth" were invalid, then you too, along with Cycloptichorn, would be responsible to support your claim.


Well, for my part, at least, i'm saying that the claims have not been demonstrated, so there is no reason to believe them. I defy you to show me the post in which i claimed they were "invalid."

Quote:
By the way, In my opinion, "Righttruth's" opinions are more worthy of trust than are your opinions.


I have no doubt that that is the case. Given that you so often appear here as a right-wing "ditto-head" who offers little to no substantive material of his own, but just parrots what he has read elsewhere, this makes perfect sense. "Right truth" is so obviously a right-wing, partisan organization that anything it posts is suspect.

But, none of that is the point, which is why i did not bring up the probably reliability of that site before. Because the point is, none of the claims made there, which you have copied and pasted here, have been substantiated, so there is no reason to take them seriously.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 01:03 pm
@ican711nm,
parados wrote:
So the author you cited ican is guilty of misusing statistics. He compares apples to oranges and then declares Obama wrong while he (your author) is lying with statistics.

Now, could you tell us what "actual evidence" the author give us in his response ican?

The author did not give actual evidence to support his claims. Neither did you give actual evidence to support your claims. Again, this is what the author gave:
Quote:

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2009/09/analysis-of-president-obamas-speech-to-congress-on-healthcare.html
September 10, 2009
Analysis of President Obama’s Speech to Congress on Healthcare
From Tennessee Center for Policy Research http://tennesseepolicy.org/

Based on a compilation of independent sources, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has analyzed President Obama’s September 9th speech to a joint session of Congress outlining his new healthcare plan. That analysis is below:

(1) The President Said: “Buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer."

The Reality Is: “Premiums for employment-based plans are expected to average about $5,000 per year for single coverage and about $13,000 per year for family coverage in 2009. Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower"about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies.”

(2) The President Said: “There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get health insurance] coverage.”

The Reality Is: As many as 75% of the uninsured could afford coverage, meaning that less than 10 million uninsured Americans may be unable to afford coverage.

(3) The President Said: “We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it.”

The Reality Is: While Americans do in fact spend more on healthcare than any other nation, “When you compare the outcomes for specific diseases, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world. Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the United States than in other countries.”

(4) The President Said: If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”

The Reality Is: Many employers will be forced to modify their plans to meet the new government standards and still others will simply drop coverage for their employees, forcing employees to obtain their own coverage or join the government-run plan. The Urban Institute estimates that up to 47 million Americans will lose their current coverage, while the Lewin Group estimates that as many as 114 million Americans’ coverage will be dropped.

(5) The President Said: “[Insurance companies] will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies…”

The Reality Is: Forcing insurance companies to eliminate caps and cover routine treatments will drastically increase health insurance costs and compel insurance companies to skimp on important and necessary treatments. Individuals can purchase coverage for the treatments mentioned, but it should be optional, not compulsory.

(6) The President Said: “[Insurance companies] will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies…”

The Reality Is: Forcing insurance companies to eliminate caps and cover routine treatments will drastically increase health insurance costs and compel insurance companies to skimp on important and necessary treatments. Individuals can purchase coverage for the treatments mentioned, but it should be optional, not compulsory.

(7) The President Said: “Under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance…”

The Reality Is: Despite the fact that the President pledged not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year, a senior member of his own Administration admits that a mandate “will act as a very regressive tax, penalizing uninsured people who genuinely cannot afford to buy coverage.”

(8) The President Said: “An additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.”

The Reality Is: Public entities never compete on a level playing field with private companies. First, public entities have an unlimited supply of investors"the American taxpayer. Second, the public entities set the rules that the private companies must abide by, giving them an unfair advantage. A public option would actually “reduce competition by driving lower-cost private health plans out of business.”

(9) The President Said: “I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.”

The Reality Is: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also intended to be self-sufficient, but they have been bailed out and could eventually cost taxpayers upwards of $200 billion.

(10) The President Said: “I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.”

The Reality Is: Actually, the President proposes setting up a bureaucracy between patients and doctors, called the Independent Medicare Advisory Council. This new body “would enhance Medicare’s ability to deny care to the elderly and disabled based on government bureaucrats’ arbitrary valuations of those patients’ lives.”

(11) The President Said: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future.”

The Reality Is: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the leading current plan, H.R. 3200, will increase the deficit by $239 billion over the next ten years alone.

(12) The President Said: “This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies.”

The Reality Is: While geared toward “Cadillac” insurance policies, this fee will be passed on to consumers, so those forced to purchase expensive policies because they are unhealthy or need expansive treatment will be hit the hardest.



parados
 
  3  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 01:15 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
The author did not give actual evidence to support his claims. Neither did you give actual evidence to support your claims. Again, this is what the author gave:
I didn't? I specifically cited 2 studies. The author cited NONE. The studies are not my opinion. They are published surveys.

Quote:
(1) The President Said: “Buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer."

The Reality Is: “Premiums for employment-based plans are expected to average about $5,000 per year for single coverage and about $13,000 per year for family coverage in 2009. Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower"about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies.”
Repeating it only continues to point out that there is no evidence in the statement. Claiming it was correct when you demand evidence from others only shows how ridiculous you are ican.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 02:32 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
I specifically cited 2 studies. The author cited NONE. The studies are not my opinion. They are published surveys.

You did not cite wherein those two studies can one find evidence that your analysis is valid, and your claim is valid that Analysis (1) is false.

Parados, when someone claims evidence is false, I expect them to provide evidence, not merely their opinion, that the evidence is false. On the otherhand, they needn't supply any evidence to support their opinion evidence is false.

Also, when are you going to supply evidence to support your claim that Analyses (2) through (12) are false? If you were to actually show Analysis (1) is false, that would constitute zero evidence that Analyses (2) through (12) are false.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 02:40 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
If something's dumb, repeating over and over doesn't make it smarter.

You've posted the equivalent of this more than once.

I shall post it again whenever it appears to me to be pertinent to the current discussion.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  5  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 03:00 pm
I'm waiting for Foxfyre to show up and call ican a "numbnut" for spamming the thread by posting the same copy-and-paste job over and over again while, at the same time, refusing to have any kind of actual discussion, based on data, of the claims he's been asserting are "the truth"...
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 05:25 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:
I'm waiting for Foxfyre to show up and call ican a "numbnut" for spamming the thread by posting the same copy-and-paste job over and over again while, at the same time, refusing to have any kind of actual discussion, based on data, of the claims he's been asserting are "the truth"...

(1) I have expert testimony that I am a "numbnut" because I repeatedly post the same evidence in rebuttal of the same repeated allegations, and because I refuse to provide evidence that the evidence I have provided that the evidence I have provided is valid evidence..
(2) BUT I have not refused to any kind of actual discussion, based on data, of the claims I have been asserting are "the truth."

My evidence that Barach Obama is incompetent is derived from the following links:
(a) http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
(b) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/obama-speech-text-to-congress.html
(c) http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2009/09/analysis-of-president-obamas-speech-to-congress-on-healthcare.html
(d) ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
(e) http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp?FirstYear=1965&LastYear=2008&Freq=Year&SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&MaxValue=14412.8&MaxChars=8&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Legal=&Land=
(f) http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/02/18/afx6067181.html
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 06:57 pm
@ican711nm,
NO need to move on to 2 - 12 until we dispense with 1.

Quote:
You did not cite wherein those two studies can one find evidence that your analysis is valid

Are you that incapable of reading what I linked to? If you feel I didn't post what was in the 2 pieces than feel free to show what you think is actually there. I summarized parts of it.

If you are arguing that what I posted isn't in the published pieces I linked to then say so, and I will give direct quotes to support what I said. If you are just blowing smoke out your *** because you have no other argument then you are free to admit that as well.

Simple fact- the author you used provided no evidence for his first statement. You are arguing that others are wrong simply on the basis that you think they provide no evidence.
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 01:04 am
@parados,

Quote:
Are you that incapable of reading what I linked to?


Ican is incapable of lots and lots of things, as he so amply, regularly and often, demonstrates.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 10:06 am
Rather than limit their posts to arguments against those arguments with which they disagree, they add arguments against those people with whom they disagree. That of course is a common characteristic of WREDA posts.

I perceive such behavior exhibited by WREDA’s posts to be at least equivalent to great insecurity regarding the validity of their own arguments. In some cases, such behavior appears to be equivalent to conceding their arguments are invalid.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 10:23 am
@ican711nm,
aren't you the guy with secret information?

isn't liberal bashing fun.

they do this. they do that.

nice big brush, ican...
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 11:06 am
Quote:

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2009/09/analysis-of-president-obamas-speech-to-congress-on-healthcare.html
...
The President Said: “{B}uying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer."

The Reality Is: “Premiums for employment-based plans are expected to average about $5,000 per year for single coverage and about $13,000 per year for family coverage in 2009. Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower"about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies.” 1
...
References:
1. “Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals,” Congressional Budget Office, Dec. 2008, p. XIV.
2. M. Kate Bundorf and Mark V. Pauly, “Is health insurance affordable for the uninsured?,” National Bureau of Economic Research, No. 9281, October 2002.
3. Michael Tanner, “The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World,” Cato Institute, No. 613, March 18, 2008, p. 5.
4. John Holahan and Linda J. Blumberg, “Is the Public Plan Option a Necessary Part of Health Reform?,” Urban Institute, June 26, 2009, p. 8; “Analysis of the July 15 draft of The American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” The Lewin Group, July 17, 2009.
5. Sherry A. Glied, Ph.D., “Universal Coverage One Head at a Time " The Risks and Benefits of Individual Health Insurance Mandates.”
6. Michael F. Cannon, “Fannie Med? Why a "Public Option" Is Hazardous to Your Health,” Cato Institute, No. 642, July 27, 2009.
7. “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bailouts of $200 Billion?,” New York Times, July 23, 2009.
8. Michael F. Cannon, “Sorry folks, Sarah Palin is (partly) right,” Detroit Free Press, August 19, 2009.
9. Congressional Budget Office, <http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf> (accessed September 10, 2009).

Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 11:08 am
@ican711nm,
apples and oranges, my silly friend.

coverage that folks buy without a big group to help (their employer) are not of the same caliber.

now ima get out my big brush...

this is the problem (one of them) with you MAC's arguments.

whatever you wanna say that can be twisted to work for you is fine. and if you keep throwing it fast enough, some of it might stick...

sillyness...
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 11:13 am
@Rockhead,
ican's comments
Rockhead wrote:
aren't you the guy with secret information? NO!

isn't liberal bashing fun. NO!

they do this. they do that. WREDA ARE NOT FUN, BECAUSE THEY ARE INCOMPETENT.

nice big brush, ican... SMALL BY COMPARISON TO WREDA BIG BRUSHES.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 11:14 am
@ican711nm,
so it's ok for you , since they did it first?

lousy logic.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 11:21 am
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
apples and oranges, my silly friend.

coverage that folks buy without a big group to help (their employer) are not of the same caliber.

now ima get out my big brush...

this is the problem (one of them) with you MAC's arguments.

whatever you wanna say that can be twisted to work for you is fine. and if you keep throwing it fast enough, some of it might stick...

sillyness...

?HUH?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 01/09/2025 at 09:10:39