navwin » Discussion » The Alley » ....And the Race is On
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic ....And the Race is On Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

0 posted 2009-12-17 07:06 PM


Yep, the push is on to get the defense spending bill and the health care bill signed by Christmas Eve.

The defense spending bill is interesting. It calls for buying 10 C-17s for 2.5 billion, 9 f-18s for 500 million and an F-35 engine for  465 million. What do these things have in common? What they have in common is that the Pentagon claims they don't need or want any of these things. Why, then, does Congress insist on having it passed so quickly. Easy....it contains 4.2 billion dollars encompassing 1700 earmarks. These earmarks include:

20 million for a World War II museum in N.O. sponsored by Landrieux and Bitters
5 million for the  Presidio Heritage Center in S.F. sponsored by Pelosi
18 million for the Edward M. Kenedy Institute sponsored by Kerry and 3 others.

Since these are piggy-backed onto the defense spending bill, THAT is the reason why the bill must be passed so quickly. Obama, in an interview on ABC, basically said that he had over 500 congressmen he needed to keep satisfied. I must suppose keeping the citizenry satisfied comes in a distant second.

The health care bill? Even Charles Gibson, one of Obama's strongest supporters, asked on the nightly news "WHY this incredible rush to get this bill passed by Christmas?" He only needs to go back to the Stimulus and cap and trade bill tactics to get his answer. He's finally questioning something.

Congress and the Pesident are on a shopping spree unmatched in American history and the pretense of doing it for job creation is not even used any more. They are simply gorging themselves while they can before they have to go on a diet in the coming election year.

You wanted change? You have it.

© Copyright 2009 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
1 posted 2009-12-19 10:13 AM


Well, congrats, Democrats. Nelson has just been bought off, surpassing the shortly-held title as the highest paid prostitute, previously held by the gal from Louisiana. One could wonder how much the administration, or the bought-off congressmen, really care about the good of the country or is their own personal kudos and rewards their main concern?

The desperation to get this passed by a fake deadline should tell people something. The fact that they are being asked to pass a bill they haven't yet seen should tell people more. They fact that it takes bribes of hundreds of millions of dollars to win over their own party senators should tell people even more.

Take a bow....

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

2 posted 2009-12-19 04:38 PM


These people are even more despicable than ever before imagined.

They would all definitley lose re-election next year, except that's probably already been bought and paid for as well.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
3 posted 2009-12-19 08:36 PM


I'm curious. Do you guys vote for politicians who promise to NOT do anything for your state or district? What part of "bread and circuses" has you confused?

Or have I just reached the age of cynicism?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
4 posted 2009-12-19 09:38 PM


Actually, Ron, to be honest I vote for politicians that I think will do the best for the country. If that doesn't include any perks for me personally or my town or state, that's ok with me. If they do the best for the country, then they will be doing the best for me.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

5 posted 2009-12-20 12:31 PM


I don't see this as anything other than bribery to get some hold out votes in order to ram through this very bad piece of legislation, and the 'sweet deals'/payoffs given to Louisiana and Nebraska come at the expense of the other States whose budgets will have to pick up the deficit created by the payoffs, and also come at the expense of more of our liberties lost to big government.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
6 posted 2009-12-20 12:34 PM


We need more people like you, Mike.

I don't, however, expect to see that happen in my lifetime. So long as most people "want" something from their government they're going to keep right on electing politicians who promise to give them that something. And they're going to be especially fond of the few who actually deliver on their promises.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

7 posted 2009-12-20 02:19 AM




     When I talk about civil liberties, and government encroachment and stuff like that, Mike almost always confronts me about it.  I generally come back with a decent reply, to my mind at least, because I really do feel that the government is chewing away at our civil liberties and this is one place where I think the left and the right have some agreement.

     Denise, I haven't really spoken with you about this sort of stuff, and I'm nervous about doing so because I'm afraid that we'll bump heads before we can get any areas of common understand laid out.  But I am curious if you see any areas of commonality here as well?

Curiously, Bob Kaven

    

Klassy Lassy
Member Elite
since 2005-06-28
Posts 2187
Oregon
8 posted 2009-12-20 08:24 AM


1700 Earmarks????   Whew!  I read these discussions with interest. It truly is a dig anymore to get close to the truth about bills being "pushed" through.  It's been a long time since I've read about one that wasn't full of ulterior motives and special interests--that actually had the best interest of the people at heart.  The rich get rich and the poor get poorer.  And that seems to be the bottom line.  We aren't allowed much voice these days in the name of "expediency."  

I agree that we need more minds that question and contend... like Mike.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

9 posted 2009-12-20 04:05 PM


I don't know, Bob. I'm for as little government in our lives as possible, just as the founders had intended. With the way things are going we will be just as bad off as we were under King George, if we aren't already....taxation without representation, taxation with representatives who don't represent us...not much difference that I can see.

Do you see any common ground?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

10 posted 2009-12-21 11:24 AM




     Actually, Denise, I do.  I am not certain that you would agree.  I believe we have both shared concern about having our  points of view shut down by the government at one time or another, for example.  You have seen that as resulting from intrusion from the left.  I have seen that as a result of intrusion from the right.  But the basic concern is the same:  A basic assault on our personal liberties by the government.

     I'd also include a sense that the government is not particularly reflective of the will of the people but more reflective of the will of people with checkbooks large enough to influence election outcomes.  I'd suspect that we share a frustration about that.

     This isn't to say that we agree on what actual positions the government should take.  I think we part company on many of those issues.  I don't want to force artificial agreement here.  I simply want to acknowledge that there is common ground to work from.  And to ask you if you saw it or if it was simply my own fevered invention.  And then to ask where you saw it, if indeed you saw it at all, and where our views might overlap.

     I'm ready enough to rumble, I should also be ready to see common ground where it exists.  That's about it, really.

Bob Kaven

  

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
11 posted 2009-12-21 11:34 AM


Time for a pig roast, yeah?

Mike I think you bring up a good arguemment though. I mean how can you rate an earmark as being good or bad.  

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
12 posted 2009-12-21 06:52 PM


Well, the bill gets passed at 1 am on a weekend morning, after having paid off dissident senators of their same party for hundreds of millions of dollars to get it through and the press calls it a great victory for Obama. The bill, wherever it is, has been butchered in order to get votes, public option cut out, abortion lopped off, pre-existing conditions for adults delayed for 4 years....and it's a great victory for Obama.

I see it as a victory for republicans. This entire ordeal has shown the country exactly how Chicago politics, embodied by Obama, works.  This sneaking through of unread bills in the middle of the night by congressmen paid off like prostitutes for their support or threatened for their lack of it clearly shows that this is an Obama ego trip only and it's effect on the country or it's citizens is secondary. For people of decency and integrity, this will be seen for what it is....shoddy politics and, hopefully, it will expose him and come back to haunt him and his Democrat cohorts.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
13 posted 2009-12-21 11:18 PM


You're dreaming again, Mike. This bill is what it is not because of the people who supported health care reform but rather because of the people who opposed it. They've taken a poor idea and compromised it into a truly horrendous idea. When the bill fails it won't be the supporters who will be blamed. It will be the opposition.

That's not a victory for anyone.



Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

14 posted 2009-12-22 03:10 AM




Dear Ron,

          You're right, I'm afraid.

     I'm also afraid that many of the Republican politicians agree with Mike in this, and that they feel that the damage done to the country was worth it.  They are trumpeting the same sort of Democratic loss — and it is a Democratic loss, I'm afraid — that Mike is trumpeting, and are blind to the damage done to the country in the process.

     The Democratic talking points on the radio this morning focused on the fact that this stuff wasn't even on the agenda until the Democrats brought it up, and that it's now clearly very much a part of the agenda.  These are true but are have a hefty element of spin, as well as being true.  If the Bill had been done right, the point would never have had to have been raised.  Overall, it's a victory for the insurance companies and those whom the insurance companies have in their pockets, regardless of party.

     As they used to say in the detox, in less polished language, Money talks and bull frisbees walk.  That would be an extraordinarily loose translation.  Then we'd bring them some extra niacin tablets and a little bit more minor tranquilizer, to keep the little crawling things moving in the other direction, te dum, te dum.

     This is not may favorite moment in history.  I wish my fellow Democrats had gotten an injection of lumbar fortitude or six.  Maybe somebody will wake up and start enforcing, good luck, some anti-trust provisions on the insurance companies and the communications companies as well.

     Grrr, I say, and repeat again, Grr.

Sincerely; nay, More Sincerely Than Usual, Bob Kaven

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
15 posted 2009-12-22 12:33 PM


.


‘At least the president got a health-care bill through the Senate. But what problem does it "solve" (Obama's word)? Not that of the uninsured, 23 million of whom will remain in 2019. Not that of rising health-care spending. This will rise faster over the next decade.

The legislation does solve the Democrats' "problem" of figuring out how to worsen the dependency culture and the entitlement mentality that grows with it. By 2016, families with annual incomes of $96,000 will get subsidized health insurance premiums. Nebraska's Ben Nelson voted for the Senate bill after opposing both the Medicare cuts and taxes on high-value insurance plans -- the heart of the bill's financing. Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln, Indiana's Evan Bayh and Virginia's Jim Webb voted against one or the other. Yet they support the bill. They will need mental health care to cure their intellectual whiplash.

Before equating Harry Reid to Henry Clay, understand that buying 60 Senate votes is a process more protracted than difficult. Reid was buying the votes of senators whose understanding of the duties of representation does not rise above looting the nation for local benefits. And Reid had two advantages -- the spending, taxing and borrowing powers of the federal leviathan, and an almost gorgeous absence of scruples or principles. Principles are general rules, such as: Nebraska should not be exempt from burdens imposed on the other 49 states.

Principles have not, however, been entirely absent: Nebraska's Republican governor, Dave Heineman, and Republican senator, Mike Johanns, have honorably denounced Nebraska's exemption from expanded Medicaid costs. The exemption was one payment for Nelson's vote to impose the legislation on Nebraskans, 67 percent of whom oppose it.

Considering all the money and debasement of the rule of law required to purchase 60 votes, the bill the Senate passed might be the only bill that can get 60. The House, however, voted for Rep. Bart Stupak's provision preserving the ban on public funding of abortions. Nelson, an untalented negotiator, unnecessarily settled for much less. The House also supports a surtax on affluent Americans and opposes the steep tax on some high-value health insurance plans. So to get the bill to the president's desk, the House, in conference with the Senate, may have to shrug and say: Oh, never mind.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/21/AR2009122102244.html  

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
16 posted 2009-12-22 01:16 PM


When the bill fails it won't be the supporters who will be blamed. It will be the opposition.

You could be right, Ron, but I happen to think not. First, unfortunately, I don't think the bill will fail. If the Democrats do not maintain the 60 votes, they will go the other route which requires only 51. They can't afford to let this bill fail and become a defeat for Obama.

If it DOES fail, I think people will be breathing a sigh of relief. No doubt the Democrats will try to blame the defeat on the republicans but I think people will also remember the closed door manipulations, the payoffs, the midnight votes, the vote on Christmas Eve at 9 pm, the bribes and threats used by Reid and Pelosi to bring their own rogue congressmen on board and they will be thankful of the bill's failure.

I'm also afraid that many of the Republican politicians agree with Mike in this, and that they feel that the damage done to the country was worth it

I really don't know what that means, Bob. The "damage" to the country would be the democrat push for this bill. The republicans are guilty of trying to STOP the damage. You sound like the boy who killed his parents telling the judge, "Go easy on me. I'm an orphan." I see no damage the republicans have done at all. If  you want to see real damage, let this bill pass. Then you'll see plenty.

Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
17 posted 2009-12-22 01:35 PM


I have read all these anti-Obama threads with great interest, as you know I think he is the greatest thing since the wheel.  He has not even been in office long, fell into a pile of (well I can't say that here,) and still smiles like a politician should.  

I shouldn't even get into this but as a Canadian, we, (most of us.) won't even take a job unless there is medical and dental offered.  I worked over 50 years, and never had a job without it.  Yes, we pay a bit to have it, but brother when you need it - it is there for you!  I was talking to Nan yesterday, who informed me that Maine is one of the first states with medical insurance, and I was wondering why it can't start state by state and give it a shot?  I actually picked Florida for the trial run Michael because of all the seniors there.  

Perhaps I think to simply to grasp the resistance to the Health Bill, and I do keep trying to see your viewpoint, I really do.

Seems to me even your private health insurances writes their own rules when they feel like it, here it is the same all across the country - but, you can upgrade to private rooms either by paying, OR being so sick you are in isolation as I was last year for 10 days, with a paid private nurse.  If I had to pay that bill I would be homeless I am sure!  

Joni Mitchell sings,
"Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone

This is the age unfortunately of dying "Baby Boomers" me being one of them, and I am so grateful my family won't be left with medical bills, or funeral bills, only memories of love!

You know, I love your President, and am behind him 100%, and have been behind that man since he was elected a Senator.  I didn't see color, I saw a man with a vision for a better America, and my bet is still on him, regardless of all the propaganda out there.

Please hold the eggs and tomatoes, this is just my viewpoint, which I know is different.  That is the greatest thing of all about American, I can speak it!

I love my health care and dental.  That $50 a month is worth it to me to protect my family and myself from hardships that would develop without it.  I spend more than that at Starbucks!


            
Happy Holidays
♥ Mysteria ♥

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
18 posted 2009-12-22 01:35 PM


Democrats have shown the country that their interests relate to only what's best for them, on a power level, and not the country. This is nothing more than a Pelosi-Reid-Obama power play, nothing more, and they will do whatever necessary to get it through. They will ignore the polls, which indicate the public is against it in every major poll, they will make behind closed door deals with Big Pharma, the AMA and AARP....they will buy off their own congressmen with bribes in the hundreds of millions of dollars...whatever it takes, they will do - and it has nothing to do with the good of the country. The congressmen who have taken these bribes have shown that their concern for the country, which had been causing them to oppose the bill, is secondary to what they can get for themselves and their state, even at the expense of the rest of the country. The democrat logo should be a donkey laying on it's back with it's legs spread because they have shown that they will prostitute themselves if the price is right. It is also a good example for the younger generation on what it takes to get ahead in this country.
If I were to bribe a congressman to get concessions on something I was trying to get passed, I'd go to jail. Reid, Pelosi and Obama do it and receive applause. It would be bad enough if they were trying to bribe Republicans to cross over to the dark side but they are bribing their own party members to "get them in line".

If I were a Democrat, I wouldn't be  proud of that fact right now.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
19 posted 2009-12-22 03:32 PM


quote:
You could be right, Ron, but I happen to think not. First, unfortunately, I don't think the bill will fail.

Clearly, I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase.

When the program fails, it will be the fault of the health care reform opposition who compromised the bill half to death. You won't be able to blame Obama, Mike, because he didn't get what he wanted. He settled for a consolation prize that is much worse than what the Administration originally proposed. We went from the frying pan into the fire, and while you might blame Obama for the frying pan, the fire is only peripherally his fault.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
20 posted 2009-12-22 08:22 PM


Yes, I see your point and that clarification DOES make a difference.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

21 posted 2009-12-22 08:52 PM


But it really will be his fault, Ron, even though he will scapegoat it somewhere else. He's the one twisting the arms of the Democrats with bribes, at the expense of taxpayers, to bend them to his will to pass something, anything, for his own political gain through his surrogates, Pelosi & Reid, isn't he? I mean, really, what is the rush for something that won't even go into effect until 2014, if not for political face-saving, to put this health care 'reform' feather in his cap, to give himself that solid A- grade. Isn't that what he said to Oprah last week? And I guess the fact that the tax increases and surcharges on everyone and their mother beginning this January has something to do with it too. What a bunch of crooks and charlatans.  Yes, he'll take whatever glory he can, for as long as he can, and all the problems that arise from it due to its very nature, whether it be to personal choice, liberty, quality and availability of health care services, or to the economy and our paychecks, will be somebody else's fault. Typical Obama.

If I could give him to you for Christmas with gold and silver bows and ribbons, Sharon, I would! Just kidding! I wouldn't do that to a friend. I wouldn't even do that to an enemy. I've never seen a more blatant example of contempt and disregard for the Constitution as he displays, along with his cohorts in Congress.

I do believe something like this has been tried in a couple of States, with not too  much success.

I do have health coverage with my job that I like. I think that is where most Americans get their health coverage. I pay around $34 towards it per month, while my employer pays the balance of $300 plus. It is considered a part of my compensation, in lieu of dollars.

Premium costs are expected to rise about 108% to 174%, depending on individual circumstances, when the government takes control of the health care and insurance industry, which they will do even without any public option.

So premiums will increase, the employee paid portion will most likely increase, taxes will increase, personal choice in health care decisions will decrease as government bureaucrats will be issuing payment and treatment guidelines to insurers and doctors, complete with compliance reporting by doctors to the government bureaucrats. And then down the road when the whole thing collapses in upon itself, it will be sombody else's fault.

We share some common frustrations, Bob, but from different sides of most issues, I would guess. But I'm not much in the mood to rumble anymore.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

22 posted 2009-12-22 10:26 PM




     Wasn't offering to rumble, Denise; just the opposite.

     Mike, if the Democrats could have gotten the bill through with 51 votes, this whole thing wouldn't have been necessary.  There has been the constant threat of Filibuster that has made the notion of majority rule a thing of the past in this country.  Filibuster is much easier, and tying up the senate is much easier.  The mutual acrimony has made it much more likely.

     I'm ashamed that the Democrats haven't gotten the right bill through, one with a strong public option.  Better would be something like the Canadian or the English system.  I think the Democrats could likely have gotten 51 votes for that, though I don't know for sure.  But I think, yeah, maybe likely.  I am very unhappy with the conservative Democrats.  I think they're idiots.  But that's nothing like the feelings that I have for the Republicans in the Senate.  I believe they are pretty much as happy as you are about all this.  

     With the current solution, you can bet that premiums will go up.  There's no serious competition to bring them down.

Holy cow! Guys.  Bob Kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
23 posted 2009-12-22 11:25 PM


f the Democrats could have gotten the bill through with 51 votes, this whole thing wouldn't have been necessary.

Not true, Bob. The 51 vote ploy is to be used only as a last resort. It is recognized by all as an act of desperation, one that no one really wants to be attached to. They know how they will look by going that route but, in their desperation, they may attempt it.

The republicans SHOULD be happy. If they can get this bill voted down, they should be ecstatic....and with good reason. They will have saved the country from one of the worst bills in the history of the country. I would call that more than enough reason to celebrate.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
24 posted 2009-12-22 11:46 PM


HUNTSVILLE, Ala. – A U.S. House Democrat who opposes the health care overhaul announced Tuesday he is defecting to the GOP, another blow to Democrats ahead of the midterm elections.

U.S. Rep. Parker Griffith spoke to reporters at his home in northern Alabama, a region that relies heavily on defense and aerospace jobs.

"I believe our nation is at a crossroads and I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt," Griffith said as his wife Virginia stood by his side.

Griffith also slammed the health care overhaul making its way through Congress. He was one of 39 House Democrats to vote against a version of the bill that narrowly passed.

"I want to make it perfectly clear that this bill is bad for our doctors," he said. "It's bad for our patients. It's bad for the young men and women who are considering going into the health care field."


Looks like one that Pelosi forgot to bribe...or perhaps one of the few honest ones.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

25 posted 2009-12-23 08:54 AM


Yes, Bob, I know what you meant, and I appreciate your willingness to find common ground wherever it may exist. I'm sorry that my response didn't convey that.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

26 posted 2009-12-23 02:04 PM




     Mike, you make it sound that everybody who doesn't agree with you is a crook or has to be bought in order to do something that many of us think is a matter of conscience.  I know you disagree with me here and in other places, but I'm not interested in being a crook and I don't believe that the folks in my party are any more crooked than yours.  In fact, I hold the actual hope that they may be less so.  I may even be correct, who knows?

     I think that it would have been better to pass with 51 votes in the Senate.  In fact, near as I can tell, these days it almost always takes sixty votes to get a bill through the Senate, which isn't the way I suspect it was supposed to be.  I think that the two parties were supposed to have such a difficult time mustering the two thirds to block or over-ride, that they were supposed to dicker and negotiate with each other.  Perhaps not.  But having almost every bill require getting a filibuster proof majority to get through instead of a simple majority was definitely not in the cards.  To have it thought as an inferior position seems to me to be a statement of how far the damage this partisanship has done seems to have gone into the heart of the democracy.

     You may safely put me down in the "I don't like this" column.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

27 posted 2009-12-23 03:58 PM


I couldn't have said it any better:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/note.php?note_id=213042303434&id=24718773587&ref=nf

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
28 posted 2009-12-23 04:25 PM



I hope the bill, in its current eviscerated form, is kicked into touch.

If I were a Democrat I’d certainly vote against it, wait for the current system to collapse, and start again from scratch.

Denise,

Not the old death panel twaddle again - don't you get tired of repeating that particular lie?



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
29 posted 2009-12-23 04:39 PM


Calling Bob K! Calling Bob K!

Grinch called Denise's comments twaddle and accused her of repeating lies, both displays of disrespect (He had actually called my comments twaddle, too, but I guess you missed that)

As a man who claims to have the right and obligation to speak out when someone has been spoken to abusively in the Alley, no matter by whom,  I will wait for your condemnation of his comments.
      

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

30 posted 2009-12-23 06:12 PM




     The comments and the factuality of them are open to debate, aren't they?  Denise, I would assume, knows that the facts are in dispute.  And the comments were addressed to them and the disputed factuality.  If I thought he was being abusive of Denise, I would be upset with him, too.  I don't, however.

     To be clear it sometimes helps to ask, however.

     Grinch, Sir, were directing contempt and abuse at Denise, or did you find something about her assertions to be other than reasonable?   Or is there some other option that I may have overlooked that you've reacted to?

Curiously, Bob Kaven

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
31 posted 2009-12-23 07:16 PM



quote:
Grinch, Sir, were directing contempt and abuse at Denise


Mike seems to think so Bob and as a Moderator of these Forums I guess we’ll have to take his word for it and accept his judgement on the matter.

quote:
someone has been spoken to abusively in the Alley


Denise,

I apologise for speaking to you in an abusive manner.

Mike,
I won’t wait for the official email.

Ron,
Thanks for the chance to read and reply.

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

32 posted 2009-12-23 11:40 PM




There you go, Mike.  The miscreant has been bearded in his den.  All is right with the world.  He has confessed.

     And all the time, I hadn't actually thought it was so bad.  That shows me, I guess.  I will let it be a lesson.

Yours, Bob

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
33 posted 2009-12-24 12:11 PM


Of course you wouldn't think it bad, Bob. I wasn't the one who said it

Just proving a small point, nothing more....and my being a moderator has nothing to do with anything. I'm a mod in the Open forum. Here I'm just a twaddle peddler.

Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
34 posted 2009-12-24 01:20 PM




Merry Christmas All!

Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
35 posted 2009-12-24 06:14 PM


Reuthers On Health Reform

Now it is just a matter of ironing out the "kinks" I guess?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
36 posted 2009-12-24 06:44 PM


Very interesting, miss.. I think the US Chamber of Commerce summed it up quite well..

"The business community has been consistent in calling for health care reform, but the bill that was passed by the Senate today is counterproductive, does little to lower the cost of health care, and it is not reform. It implements crippling new taxes, and hurts our ability to create jobs at the worst possible time for the economy...

"We recognize that the health care debate is not over yet. We are hopeful that a conference between the Senate and House can bring all stakeholders back to the table. Since employers are the ones who will be responsible for putting this reform into practice, their concerns must be addressed."


No wonder Obama doesn't like them. The "kinks" are going to be very interesting. There are so many differences between the two, we are in for a very interesting time indeed.

Here are some of the kinks..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091224/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_comparing_the_bills

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

37 posted 2009-12-25 01:30 PM




Dear Mike,

          I was doing some research for another topic and I ran across this photo, which I thought priceless.  I was hoping you might think the same, and anybody else who sense of humor run a bit to the raw side.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/10/your-tax-dollars-at-work-bovine-tailpipe-intervention/

Happy New Year!

Mr. Bob

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
38 posted 2009-12-25 01:42 PM


I like it, Bob! If they could attach tailpipes to congressmen, they wouldn't even need the cow's participation.

I like the article, too. Certainly pokes a hole in the co2 doomsayers..

Happy holidays, Bob, to you and yours.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

39 posted 2009-12-26 08:57 AM


Merely more twaddle?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574613992408387548.html

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
40 posted 2009-12-26 04:31 PM


.


“In the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, traffic moves as slowly as blood through a corpse. Streams of motorcycles part for SUVs and diesel-spewing buses, and everyone gets nowhere fast. The air is clogged from the vehicle exhaust and from the frequent forest fires that break out around Indonesia. Once home to some of the most extensive rainforests in the world, Indonesia is now losing trees at a faster rate than any other nation in the world, to flames but also to rampant logging. Since equatorial trees soak up carbon dioxide when they're alive and release the gas when they're cut down or burned, Indonesia's rapid deforestation is the main reason why this country of 245 million is the third-biggest carbon emitter in the world after the U.S. and China. But like other developing countries, the Indonesian government says it needs to focus on economic growth to raise its people out of poverty — and that likely means that trees will be cut, cars will be added and carbon emissions will only go up.
Keep Indonesia in mind as the world digests the third and final chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest assessment on global warming, which was released Friday morning in Bangkok. While the first two sections made for depressing reading — nailing down the scientific basis for global warming and laying out nightmare scenarios of the havoc climate change could wreak — the last chapter is comparatively optimistic. Drawing on the work of thousands of scientists vetted by officials from over 100 countries, the IPCC reported that future carbon emissions could be controlled using current technology like nuclear or renewable energy — and that it could be done without bankrupting the global economy. "Measures to reduce emissions can, in the main, be achieved at starkly low costs, especially when compared with the costs of inaction," said Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), one of many prominent international environmental officials who attended the Bangkok press conference for the report's release. European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimos drilled home the message: "There is no excuse for waiting."

But while the technological path to climate-change action is clear, the politics are getting even more complicated. As economic growth shifts to the developing world — especially in Asia — so will future carbon emissions. So whether the world can effectively combat climate change will be determined by countries like Indonesia and India — and especially China, which could pass the U.S. as the world's top carbon emitter any day. . .
Developing nations make the point that they're not responsible for the vast majority of carbon dioxide hanging around in the atmosphere, which was put there by Western countries during their own development over the past 150 years. They argue that their own per-capita emissions rates are still far lower than those of Western nations, and that therefore climate change isn't their responsibility. True, but wrong. Future global warming will hinge on how we deal with future carbon emissions, most of which will come from developing Asia. The gravity of climate change politics has moved east, to China, India and Indonesia. Their decisions will largely determine what kind of world we'll be living in. “


http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1617639,00.html


China, which just begun to develop, has already surpassed the US, and Indonesia,
primarily because it’s burning trees to make way for small time agriculture,(anyone remember the annual smoke clouding Korea that used to be reported), ranks third.  India . . . Now who thinks Asia is going to sign up?

Has everyone forgotten the decades of EPA here?


.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

41 posted 2009-12-28 12:02 PM


The following is an email I received:


Universal Health Care ????  No Thanks !!!

This article is from the "Investor's Business Daily."  It provides some very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S.     65%

England    46%

Canada     42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S.    93%

England    15%

Canada    43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S.     90%

England    15%

Canada     43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S.    77%

England   40%

Canada    43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S.     71

England   14

Canada     18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":

U.S.    12%

England   2%

Canada     6%

I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to  England or  Canada .

Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."  WELL, SHIP HIS BUTT TO  CANADA OR  ENGLAND !

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

42 posted 2010-01-02 01:58 AM




Dear Denise,

          While I'm sure you got the email, Ms. Denise, I haven't.  So while I have the benefit of your referencing of that email, I don't have the thing itself, and I can't check it out for it's references.  The details, frankly, seem spurious to me, and need fact checking before I will take them at face value.  I believe somebody is lying to you about these details, and I want to know the article and the date, so I can see for myself.

     Could you forward them when you get a chance, please?

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven.

     I had a good New Year, by the way, and hope you did as well.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

43 posted 2010-01-02 08:46 AM


I'll see what I can find, Bob.

I'm glad you had a nice New Year. I did too, thanks!

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

44 posted 2010-01-02 09:57 AM


I couldn't find this in the archives of IBD, but some things you have to join to be able to read, so it could be in an article that I couldn't access. I did find other links citing studies that essentially seem to tell the same story:
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html
http://www.rollcall.com/news/34276-1.html?page=1
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/healthcare_release.html
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/070226
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg1973.cfm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551098/Cancer-survival-rates-worst-in-western-Europe.html
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001666.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Socialized+failure%3a+dissecting+health-care+data+from+Britain%2c+Canada%2c...-a0199802195

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
45 posted 2010-01-02 06:39 PM


quote:
...by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Is there even an organization officially called "United Nations International Health Organization"?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

46 posted 2010-01-02 06:45 PM


Ess, the World Health Organization, their official name, is an arm of the United Nations.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
47 posted 2010-01-02 07:17 PM


I think the name makes a difference, Denise.  Would you like to be blamed for what Dennis the Menace says/does, just because your name is close to his?      

What are the actual statistics from the World Health Organization?    


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

48 posted 2010-01-02 07:41 PM


I didn't call them by their descriptive non-official name, the writer of the email did.

One of the articles listed aboved referenced statistics from WHO, I believe.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
49 posted 2010-01-02 08:19 PM


Aha...Denise the Menace. I always knew it!

The name doesn't change the articles  or the information contained within. It does, however, serve as a tool to divert attention.

Some of the links are worth reading for someone with an open mind interested in facts.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
50 posted 2010-01-02 08:25 PM


for example...


It makes far more sense to look at the diseases and conditions to which we know medical science can make a real difference--cancer, diabetes, and hypertension, for example. The largest international study to date found that the five-year survival rate for all types of cancer among both men and women was higher in the U.S. than in Europe. There is a steeper increase in blood pressure with advancing age in Europe, and a 60 percent higher prevalence of hypertension. The aggressive treatment offered to U.S. cardiac patients apparently improves survival and functioning relative to that of Canadian patients. Fewer health- and disability-related problems occur among U.S. spinal-cord-injury patients than among Canadian and British patients.

Do Patients in Other Countries Have Better Access to Care?

Britain has only one-fourth as many CT scanners per capita as the U.S., and one-third as many MRI scanners. The rate at which the British provide coronary-bypass surgery or angioplasty to heart patients is only one-fourth the U.S. rate, and hip replacements are only two-thirds the U.S. rate. The rate for treating kidney failure (dialysis or transplant) is five times higher in the U.S. for patients between the ages of 45 and 84, and nine times higher for patients 85 years or older.

Overall, nearly 1.8 million Britons are waiting for hospital or outpatient treatments at any given time. In 2002-2004, dialysis patients waited an average of 16 days for permanent blood-vessel access in the U.S., 20 days in Europe, and 62 days in Canada. In 2000, Norwegian patients waited an average of 133 days for hip replacement, 63 days for cataract surgery, 160 days for a knee replacement, and 46 days for bypass surgery after being approved for treatment. Short waits for cataract surgery produce better outcomes, prompt coronary-artery bypass reduces mortality, and rapid hip replacement reduces disability and death. Studies show that only 5 percent of Americans wait more than four months for surgery, compared with 23 percent of Australians, 26 percent of New Zealanders, 27 percent of Canadians, and 36 percent of Britons.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
51 posted 2010-01-02 08:28 PM


and...

Congress is preparing to debate health care reform proposals this summer.  However, legislation allowing the government to take over health care decisions for families could have dire consequences.  A close examination of government-run health care in Canada and the United Kingdom shows sharp contrasts in the quality of medical services:

•    Delay is denial of care.  In the U.S., only 26 percent of sick adults waited more than four weeks to see a specialist.  In Canada and the UK, more than twice as many citizens wait longer than a month to receive the care they need (60 percent and 58 percent, respectively).  Source: 2008 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Sicker Adults.
  
•    The sickest patients need intensive care.  In Britain, government hospitals maintain nine intensive care unit beds per 100,000 people.  In America, we have three times that number at 31 per 100,000.  Source: High-Priced Pain: What to expect from a Single-Payer Health Care System, Heritage Foundation, 9/22/2006.

•    U.S. Care for infants outpaces UK and Canada.  In the U.S., we have over six neonatologists per 10,000 live births.  In Canada, they have fewer than four and in Britain fewer than three.  In the U.S., we have over three neonatal intensive care beds per 10,000 births, just 2.6 in Canada and less than one in Britain.  Source: High-Priced Pain: What to expect from a Single-Payer Health Care System, Heritage Foundation, 9/22/2006.
  
•    Long waits increase pain and morbidity.  In the U.S., over 90 percent of seniors receive a hip replacement within six months. In Canada, less than half of patients are treated in the same time (43 percent) with many waiting over a year. In the UK, only 15 percent of patients are treated within six months.  Source: Doing Your Own Health Care Thing: American Seniors vs. Canadian Citizens, Heritage Foundation, 7/1/2005.
  
•    New technology finds cancer quicker.  In America, doctors use 27 MRI machines per million people. In Canada and Britain, it is less than a fifth of that at approximately five MRI machines per million people.  Source: Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S., National Bureau of Economic Research, September 2007.

•    Americans take advantage of preventative care.  Nearly 90 percent of American women age 40 – 69 have had a mammogram, while only 72 percent of Canadian women have had a screening.  Likewise, 96 percent of American women age 20 - 69 have had a Pap smear, with 88 percent of Canadian women undergoing the test for cervical cancer.  Source: Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S., National Bureau of Economic Research, September 2007.
  
•    Cancer survival rates higher in the U.S.  One study puts the five-year cancer survivability rate for American women at 63 percent, but only 56 percent for European women.  For men, the difference is starker with 66 percent survivability for Americans and only 47 percent for Europeans.  A separate comparison of U.S. and Canadian citizens shows similar results.  American women’s survival rate is 61 percent, compared to 58 percent in Canada.  American men’s survival rate is 57 percent, and 53 percent in Canada.  Sources:  Lancet Oncology, 2007, No. 8; Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S., National Bureau of Economic Research, September 2007.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

52 posted 2010-01-02 09:16 PM


I knew I couldn't fool you, Michael!

It seems to me that other nations should be emulating our system and our 'leaders' here should stop trying to shove the failed systems of other nations down our throats.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
53 posted 2010-01-02 09:42 PM


As you well know, Denise, it has nothing to do with health care. It's all about power....
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

54 posted 2010-01-02 09:57 PM


Yep, it sure does. And redistributing wealth and resources so that the whole world can be equal. Equally poor and enslaved. That's only fair, afterall.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

55 posted 2010-01-03 08:32 PM




     Still a bit crazed from the cross country flight.  These things affect me for longer than they do most people; but I did have a quick initial look at the health data from which the figures you quote seem to be derived.

     You may be correct, but I believe there are some problems with the data that need to be addressed before I could actually agree with you.  Not a large surprise there, I suppose, but the issues are real enough to my mind.  The European data seems to be from actual statistics from folks who’ve come in with various forms of cancer and who’ve gotten treatment in the various government and private facilities in those places.  The data is pretty solid and not what I’d consider particularly worth being thrilled about in general.  More machines and better access to meds are probably a good thing in many cases, though not necessarily in all cases.  In one of the sources Denise quotes, for example, the folks brag about the higher ratio of Papp smears and Mammograms given as well as the high number of prostate cancer screenings that are given here in the states.  This may not in fact be the best standard of care, and there is an ongoing medical debate about it.  Charities who want high awareness focused on “their” illnesses are always in favor of these tests for good reasons.  Not only does the money continue, but far more importantly, their particular illness may be dealt with more quickly.  It’s not all greed, after all.

     While the number of cases that the European data is based on are much closer to 100% of the actual cases in the population, because the  reporting is widespread, this is far from the case in the United States.  SEER, the governmental statistics keeper here, only was able to present about 26% of the population for study in the year 2001, which was one of the two years the study in the Lancet Oncology Issue studied.

     The reference to the SEER data is this:
http://seer.cancer.gov/statistics/types.html  


and here is an excerpt:

quote:


The NCI has recognized the need to better define the cancer burden in racial/ethnic minorities and medically underserved populations and supports research, applications and surveillance on the full diversity of the United States population. Since its inception in 1973, the the cancer registry system of the SEER Program has included large segments of diverse populations. Subsequent expansions increased the proportions of Hispanics, urban African Americans and Asian and Pacific Islanders in Southern California and the Greater Bay Area, rural African Americans in Georgia, northwestern populations in Seattle, Arizona Indians, and Alaska Natives residing in Alaska. An expansion in 2001 of four areas increased coverage of key populations, such as rural low-income whites, more geographically diverse American Indians, rural African-Americans and other Hispanic groups. This addition – the largest expansion to date – brings SEER coverage to 26% of the U.S. population.





     26%, by the way, would usually be considered a stellar sample size, but in this case, this was a large change from the nature of the previous sample in terms of racial and ethnic diversity as well as geographic diversity, including a large apparent influx of rural populations.  Tossing this population in the middle of a two year size sample is indeed something that could throw the data off significantly, and should have been  compensated for in some fashion in the statistical model.

     Since I don’t have the money to buy access for a fuller version of the article, I don’t know what was done here.

     Nor do I know what the effect of having a large proportion of the US population not available to have their data reported upon due to poverty and other lack of access problems.  Medical care for these folks, when it is available, tends to be available in a sporadic fashion.

     A look at the actual data from The Lancet Study seems to me — by the way — somewhat different than the data that Denise presented, and should be looked at more closely before the conclusions Denise offers could be supported.

     You should probably judge the conclusions for yourselves rather than accept the carefully cherry-picked and somewhat slanted data offered by the folks who have a political rather than a scientific point to make.  Here are the findings direct from the synopsis of the article.  The reference is below for your follow-up pleasure:

quote:


Findings
For all cancers, age-adjusted 5-year period survival improved for patients diagnosed in 2000—02, especially for patients with colorectal, breast, prostate, and thyroid cancer, Hodgkin's disease, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The European mean age-adjusted 5-year survival calculated by the period method for 2000—02 was high for testicular cancer (97·3% [95% CI 96·4—98·2]), melanoma (86·1% [84·3—88·0]), thyroid cancer (83·2% [80·9—85·6]), Hodgkin's disease (81·4% [78·9—84·1]), female breast cancer (79·0% [78·1—80·0]), corpus uteri (78·0% [76·2—79·9]), and prostate cancer (77·5% [76·5—78·6]); and low for stomach cancer (24·9% [23·7—26·2]), chronic myeloid leukaemia (32·2% [29·0—35·7]), acute myeloid leukaemia (14·8% [13·4—16·4]), and lung cancer (10·9% [10·5—11·4]). Survival for patients diagnosed in 2000—02 was generally highest for those in northern European countries and lowest for those in eastern European countries, although, patients in eastern European had the highest improvement in survival for major cancer sites during 1991—2002 (colorectal cancer from 30·3% [28·3—32·5] to 44·7% [42·8—46·7]; breast cancer from 60% [57·2—63·0] to 73·9% [71·7—76·2]; for prostate cancer from 39·5% [35·0—44·6] to 68·0% [64·2—72·1]). For all solid tumours, with the exception of stomach, testicular, and soft-tissue cancers, survival for patients diagnosed in 2000—02 was higher in the US SEER registries than for the European mean. For haematological malignancies, data from US SEER registries and the European mean were comparable in 2000—02, except for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.


The Lancet Oncology, Volume 8, Issue 9, Pages 784 - 796, September 2007




Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
56 posted 2010-01-03 09:47 PM


carefully cherry-picked and somewhat slanted data offered by the folks who have a political rather than a scientific point to make.

I saw nothing to indicate that they were politically slanted, unless figures contradicting democratic claims makes them automatically political to you, Bob. I considered them to be pretty fair links and reports.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
57 posted 2010-01-04 07:36 PM


WASHINGTON (AP) — House and Senate Democrats intend to bypass the traditional format when they negotiate a final compromise on health care legislation.

The move will exclude Republicans as well as reduce their ability to delay or force politically troubling votes in both houses.

The unofficial timetable calls for final passage of the measure to remake the nation's health care system by the time President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union Address, likely in early February.

Democratic aides said the final compromise talks would essentially be a three-way negotiation involving top Democrats in the House and Senate and the White House. That structure gives unusual latitude to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.


[URL=http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-04-health-care-legislation_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopSto ries+]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-04-health-care-legislation_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopSt ories+[/URL]  %28News+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

For the next democrat that tells me that the problem is the Republicans acting in a partisan manner......read my lips. This administration takes despicable to a new level and shows just how much of a liar Obama really is.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

58 posted 2010-01-05 04:50 AM




quote:


carefully cherry-picked and somewhat slanted data offered by the folks who have a political rather than a scientific point to make.

I saw nothing to indicate that they were politically slanted, unless figures contradicting democratic claims makes them automatically political to you, Bob. I considered them to be pretty fair links and reports.




Dear Mike,

           Denise printed the data she got.  I do not believe she would misprint data.  Therefore the data is likely accurate.  If it is not, you need to discuss that with Denise.  I expect there will be nothing to discuss.

     The data that The Lancet thought was the important data was the data reported in their summary.  

     If you have the money, of course, to get the full report, please do so.  It's about 32 or 33 dollars, and I'd love to have a look.

     The data the Lancet Oncology reported is different than the data that the sources quoted by Denise reported.  That data was partial and unprocessed data from earlier in the report that did not show the amount of progress made  in Eastern Europe or in Great Britain, that did not address the change in the data between 2001 and 2002 on the American reports either as to the populations or the areas from which the populations were gathered.

     The Study that The Lancet Oncology did was not designed to report these data separately, but only as part of a larger sample.  The statistical work that would have needed to be done to make the kinds of judgements that the publications that Denise quoted did in fact make do not show up in any of her material.  Nor did it show up in mine.  The material in The Lancet Oncology article would probably not have required these operations, such as — possibly — some form of end point analysis for the US data to either carry forward data from 2000 or in some other fashion to account for the change in data gathering and demographics in 2001.

     Failure to do these things would have skewed the meaning of the data, and skewed it heavily and predictably.  Failure to present the actual data at all, and presenting only raw and prejudicial data is, therefore, fairly clear and predictable cherry-picking.

     I am your basic statistical amateur, however; and there are others out there who could make me look foolish.  I would cheerfully accept a more experienced hand to explain where and how my thinking here has gone astray in large or small ways.  If I don't risk looking foolish every now and again, I risk learning nothing new.

     Any useful comments are welcome.

Best to all.  Bob Kaven  

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

59 posted 2010-01-05 10:00 AM


I think all science studies are based on averages, averages of something. Results would be dependent on what the criteria to be averaged is determined to be. I noticed with the Lancet, it said that it was 'age- adjusted'. I wonder what that means? Is that just referring to the five year period or the age of those studied?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

60 posted 2010-01-05 04:34 PM




Denise, you're starting to think about the data yourself.  I suspect it had to do with the ages of those studied, which are often grouped in five-year segments (20-25, 25-30, 30-35 and so on, up and down) as a way of offering smaller chunks of data to look at all at once.  That's my first take on it, at least.  But what's your thought and what's your thinking as you look at the actual material more closely?  I'm curious to know?

Bob Kaven

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

61 posted 2010-01-07 01:57 PM


I don't have any thoughts on it, Bob. I don't understand it, and statistical analysis is not one of my talents, unfortunately.
Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » ....And the Race is On

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary