benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System 

https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns

How much will my taxes go up?  Where is the money coming from to pay for this?

With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?

So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?

And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.

So lets take it in the right order.

The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).

BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.

I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.

But in the words of David Letterman



But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.

Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?

As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.

Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore. 

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System 

https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns

How much will my taxes go up?  Where is the money coming from to pay for this?

With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?

So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?

And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.

So lets take it in the right order.

The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).

BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.

I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.

But in the words of David Letterman



But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.

Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?

As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.

Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore. 

Name another country that can be compared to the US?

I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons. 

The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System 

https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns

How much will my taxes go up?  Where is the money coming from to pay for this?

With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?

So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?

And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.

So lets take it in the right order.

The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).

BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.

I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.

But in the words of David Letterman



But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.

Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?

As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.

Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore. 

Name another country that can be compared to the US?

I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons. 

The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.

I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.

So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System 

https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns

How much will my taxes go up?  Where is the money coming from to pay for this?

With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?

So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?

And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.

So lets take it in the right order.

The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).

BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.

I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.

But in the words of David Letterman



But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.

Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?

As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.

Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore. 

Name another country that can be compared to the US?

I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons. 

The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.

I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.

So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?

And to answer your second question - I'll reiterate exactly what I said before. You need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons. This is the art of fair polling is understanding the factors and the way one population functionally differs from another, so that when you compare them, you account for those realities. Without insights to how these numbers were produced, they are not worth anything, no matter how extreme the differences appear. I too can put five different-length bars on a piece of paper and put numbers beside them and claim facts. I hope people wouldn't believe me in that situation either.

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

dignin said:

The Juggler said:

cincybearcat said:

The Juggler said:

I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago. 

I’m more concerned. 

Mostly because

1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there.
2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result.
3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.

But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night. 

I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.

But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.

The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner

Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"

So, its not the same. 

Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live

When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?

Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.

Just giving some context.

Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.

Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks. 

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System 

https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns

How much will my taxes go up?  Where is the money coming from to pay for this?

With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?

So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?

And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.

So lets take it in the right order.

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System 

https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns

How much will my taxes go up?  Where is the money coming from to pay for this?

With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?

So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?

And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.

So lets take it in the right order.

The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).

BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.

I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.

But in the words of David Letterman



But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.

Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?

As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.

Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore. 

Name another country that can be compared to the US?

I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons. 

The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.

I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.

So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?

And to answer your second question - I'll reiterate exactly what I said before. You need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons. This is the art of fair polling is understanding the factors and the way one population functionally differs from another, so that when you compare them, you account for those realities. Without insights to how these numbers were produced, they are not worth anything, no matter how extreme the differences appear. I too can put five different-length bars on a piece of paper and put numbers beside them and claim facts. I hope people wouldn't believe me in that situation either.