McCain States that:

[TheGoodShepherd]

No it isn't. It is a conclusion based on observed evidence. Do you not understand the difference?

What you're attempting to do here is to obscure the issue with, quite frankly, weak "gotcha" message board journalism and a really bizarre sentence.

If a "fact" is not a conclusion based on observed evidence as per your claim, than what is it?

If my friend asks me whether or not it is raining outside and looking out my window, I see that it is raining outside, does he say "Well it's not a fact it's raining! It's only your conclusion based on observed evidence!"

You're making no sense whatsoever.

 

[manifold]

What you're attempting to do here is to obscure the issue with, quite frankly, weak "gotcha" message board journalism and a really bizarre sentence.

If a "fact" is not a conclusion based on observed evidence as per your claim, than what is it?

Are you serious? Perhaps my taking it on faith that we shared the universal understanding of what consititutes a fact was in error.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Are you serious? Perhaps my taking it on faith that we shared the universal understanding of what consititutes a fact was in error.

Again, since you failed to answer.

If a "fact" is not a conclusion based on observed evidence as per your claim, than what is it?

If my friend asks me whether or not it is raining outside and looking out my window, I see that it is raining outside, does he say "Well it's not a fact it's raining! It's only your conclusion based on observed evidence!"

You're making no sense whatsoever.

 

[manifold]

Hey Shep, here's a hint: Conclusions about causality based on statistical evidence has never been considered a FACT in the real world.

 

[midcan5]

For 47 million Americans health care resembles that of a third world nation, but this is what you get when you vote 'the social darwinist philosophy of me first fluk the rest of you.'

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/healthcare/whatswrong/

 

[jreeves]

Wrong again. It's because Canadians have access to "free" pre-care, so they do not develop preventable diseases at the rate Americans do. That saves billions in drugs and treatments that would have otherwise severely impacted the Canadian health budget.

Surely then it comes as no surprise that a team of academics from Harvard published a peer-reviewed study that showed the Canadian government spends less on health care per person than in the United States, covers more people than the US;and also has lower operating costs than the U.S., even though Canadians maintain a national health system.

How is cost correlated to overall health of a population? That's a false correlation unless you can show proof of your claim.

 

[manifold]

Again, since you failed to answer.

If a "fact" is not a conclusion based on observed evidence as per your claim, than what is it?

If my friend asks me whether or not it is raining outside and looking out my window, I see that it is raining outside, does he say "Well it's not a fact it's raining! It's only your conclusion based on observed evidence!"

You're making no sense whatsoever.

Nice spin.

The only fact you cited originally was observed differences in the proliference of health related issues. The part that wasn't fact was when you assigned causality for these observed differences to free access to pre-care. That's speculation. I'm sorry if I used "conclusion" when I meant "speculation," but in this particular context, they really mean the same thing.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Nice spin.

The only fact you cited originally was observed differences in the proliference of health related issues. The part that wasn't fact was when you assigned causality for these observed differences to free access to pre-care. That's speculation. I'm sorry if I used "conclusion" when I meant "speculation," but in this particular context, they really mean the same thing.

No they do not mean the same thing.

 

[Ravi]

No they do not mean the same thing.

I think he's trying to tell you that some other factor/factors could and most likely are responsible for the statistics you are claiming.

 

[manifold]

No they do not mean the same thing.

Fine. It's speculation of causality based on observed evidence.


Still not a fact.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

How is cost correlated to overall health of a population? That's a false correlation unless you can show proof of your claim.

This question has a very obvious answer. It is so obvious there is no need for me to answer it.

 

[manifold]

I think he's trying to tell you that some other factor/factors could and most likely are responsible for the statistics you are claiming.

Not even. While that is likely true, I wasn't commenting on the causality speculation per se. I just happened to see him attack others for speculating in another thread and then turn around ten minutes later and advance his own biased speculation here.

You know how much hypocrisy irks me.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Fine. It's speculation of causality based on observed evidence.


Still not a fact.

No, it is not "speculation." It is a fact.

You can find the study at the New England Journal of Medicine website. It is their in its entirety.

Do not tell me it is "speculative" when you have not even read the academic paper.

 

[manifold]

It is not "speculation." It is a fact.

If you insist on insisting that statisical causality can ever be a fact, then you are betraying a deep seeded ignorance for both statistical analysis and the universally accepted understanding of what a "fact" is.

Carry on.

 

[jreeves]

This question has a very obvious answer. It is so obvious there is no need for me to answer it.

Couldn't higher healthcare costs be associated with new technological advances in medicine rather than some pseudo explaination? Candian patients are less likely to receive the benefits of new technological advances in medicine than are American patients.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

If you insist on insisting that statisical causality can ever be a fact, then you are betraying a deep seeded ignorance for both statistical analysis and the universally accepted understanding of what a "fact" is.

Carry on.

Again, since it remains a major problem for some posters, quote me properly or do not quote me at all.

I have never, nor will I ever claim or "insist" that "statistical causality can ever be a fact"

You are dreaming up text, I have never, never written.

If you think I made the claim that "statistical causality can ever be a fact" than quote me, prove I said it.

There are features available via this message board to accurately quote any poster so there is no misunderstandings of what a poster said or did not say.

However, you will fail to find any quote where I forward such a claim, because it does not exist.

 

[manifold]

No, it is not "speculation." It is a fact.

You can find the study at the New England Journal of Medicine website. It is their in its entirety.

Do not tell me it is "speculative" when you have not even read the academic paper.

It's got nothing to do with the paper or the study dude. It's about a fundamental understanding of statistical analysis and causality. Causality is never a fact...ever.

 

[manifold]

Again, since it remains a major problem for some posters, quote me properly or do not quote me at all.

You're delusional. I haven't misquoted you once.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

You're delusional. I haven't misquoted you once.

Are you going to post the alleged quote where I "insist that statistical causality can ever be a fact"

Or are you going to lose face?

 

[manifold]

If you think I made the claim that "statistical causality can ever be a fact" than quote me, prove I said it.

Ok, I'll entertain the notion that perhaps I misunderstood your position.

My understanding was that you were claiming that it was a FACT that access to free pre-care was the reason for observed differences in health related issues.

Go on record right now to the contrary and I'll gladly concede.