4 ms·

"Also that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, guess what those studies have in common?" No, please do tell me exactly what those studies have in common, with citati

"Also that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, guess what those studies have in common?" No, please do tell me exactly what those studies have in common, with citations. You asked for something that isn't rumor and second hand stories. I provided. Now you move the goalposts and ask for my single best story. Please clarify your behavior and your motivations in engaging in this discussion: Do you actually wish to process data that is contrary to your belief on how the world functions?

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
The people who produce them benefit from the result. Who says we need massive governmental spending in healthcare? Why governmental healthcare authorities of course! I'm skeptical, especially when the specific examples provided don't match up with the rhetoric. Also the burden would not even be that people die from lack of healthcare in the US, it would be that more people die from lack of healthcare in the US than people die from healthcare rationing in the UK. He's a case of someone who actually died from that[0]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "The people who produce them benefit from the result." Can you cite specific studies, their specific researchers, and their specific funding grants? "Also the burden would not even be that people die from lack of healthcare in the US, it would be that more people die from lack of healthcare in the US than people die from healthcare rationing in the UK" This is not what you claimed. Please clarify the contradiction between your statements.
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    Readers will see my point, I don't need to get into the weeds with you like this over minor details.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      Please clarify: What is your point? You asked for any evidence, and when provided, denied it as evidence, reiterated that you had always asked for specific evidence.
      - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        Nobody can seem to find a specific person who died due to lack of healthcare with anything more than a tweet to back it up. Lots of "almost" cases but no definitive deaths. Why do you think that is given you claim this is happening all day every day.
    - close04 7y ago
      At least one reader certainly doesn't. You're asking everybody for evidence that could stand up even in court while you respond with anecdotal data and personal experience based on biased, incomplete, or generic data. "I live and work in rural US and suddenly I can afford a lot more than I could if I had one of those jobs I found after an internet search for London" does not pass the bar you expect other people's evidence to. Not by a long shot.
      - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        "People are dying due to lack of healthcare!" "Who?" "This guy tweeted about it" "I'm going to need more than that" "Here is a study where they claim it happens in aggregate" "Who died specifically and what were the circumstances of that death" "PEOPLE ARE DYING" pretty much how this debate goes every single time
        close04 7y ago
        If you consider that study data bad so be it. But then accept that your data is equally bad at best. And I'm being generous here, you provided no "data" to speak of. No aggregate data, no study, not even a hint of specificity. On one hand you talk about London (very specific), on the other it's "rural US" (97% of US!). Nothing about the actual job or its conditions, what you looked at to compare, etc. I mean it's absurd to discredit a study with sources and actual figures but try to pretend your claim looks like anything more than an impulse comment.
- foldr 7y ago
  It’s dishonest to refer to the Charlie Gard case as an instance of healthcare rationing. Doctors refused (experimental, zero-chance) treatment for purely medical reasons: it wasn’t the best thing for the baby. The resulting court case was over the question of whether doctors are required to (a) act in accord with the best interests of the child or (b) do whatever the child’s parents want. The answer turns out to be (a). Financial considerations never entered into the decision. The deciding factor was medical: a series of epileptic seizures which reduced the chance of a successful outcome to ~0. It isn’t ethical to torture a baby with ineffectual treatments just because the parents are (understandably) not ready to accept that the baby is going to die.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago

The people who produce them benefit from the result. Who says we need massive governmental spending in healthcare? Why governmental healthcare authorities of course! I'm skeptical, especially when the specific examples provided don't match up with the rhetoric. Also the burden would not even be that people die from lack of healthcare in the US, it would be that more people die from lack of healthcare in the US than people die from healthcare rationing in the UK. He's a case of someone who actually died from that[0]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"The people who produce them benefit from the result." Can you cite specific studies, their specific researchers, and their specific funding grants? "Also the burden would not even be that people die from lack of healthcare in the US, it would be that more people die from lack of healthcare in the US than people die from healthcare rationing in the UK" This is not what you claimed. Please clarify the contradiction between your statements.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  Readers will see my point, I don't need to get into the weeds with you like this over minor details.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    Please clarify: What is your point? You asked for any evidence, and when provided, denied it as evidence, reiterated that you had always asked for specific evidence.
    - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
      Nobody can seem to find a specific person who died due to lack of healthcare with anything more than a tweet to back it up. Lots of "almost" cases but no definitive deaths. Why do you think that is given you claim this is happening all day every day.
  - close04 7y ago
    At least one reader certainly doesn't. You're asking everybody for evidence that could stand up even in court while you respond with anecdotal data and personal experience based on biased, incomplete, or generic data. "I live and work in rural US and suddenly I can afford a lot more than I could if I had one of those jobs I found after an internet search for London" does not pass the bar you expect other people's evidence to. Not by a long shot.
    - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
      "People are dying due to lack of healthcare!" "Who?" "This guy tweeted about it" "I'm going to need more than that" "Here is a study where they claim it happens in aggregate" "Who died specifically and what were the circumstances of that death" "PEOPLE ARE DYING" pretty much how this debate goes every single time
      - close04 7y ago
        If you consider that study data bad so be it. But then accept that your data is equally bad at best. And I'm being generous here, you provided no "data" to speak of. No aggregate data, no study, not even a hint of specificity. On one hand you talk about London (very specific), on the other it's "rural US" (97% of US!). Nothing about the actual job or its conditions, what you looked at to compare, etc. I mean it's absurd to discredit a study with sources and actual figures but try to pretend your claim looks like anything more than an impulse comment.
foldr 7y ago
It’s dishonest to refer to the Charlie Gard case as an instance of healthcare rationing. Doctors refused (experimental, zero-chance) treatment for purely medical reasons: it wasn’t the best thing for the baby. The resulting court case was over the question of whether doctors are required to (a) act in accord with the best interests of the child or (b) do whatever the child’s parents want. The answer turns out to be (a). Financial considerations never entered into the decision. The deciding factor was medical: a series of epileptic seizures which reduced the chance of a successful outcome to ~0. It isn’t ethical to torture a baby with ineffectual treatments just because the parents are (understandably) not ready to accept that the baby is going to die.