[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Have you noticed that the Republicans are using the phrase, "patient centered care" these days??? Maybe not just yet, but you'll be hearing it a LOT. Those words don't mean anything, really. They're a euphemism for free market care, but Republicans have been told by Frank Luntz that they can't use the words free market... They're hoping that THEIR words will replace the truth.

In that same sense, you wingers want the words "free contraceptives" to replace the words "medicine that's paid for by INSURANCE"... You certainly don't think your medical care is free, do you???

Your words, free contraceptives, are right wing talking points. They are NOT fact.. Indeed, it's a bald faced LIE, and you bought it hook, line and sinker.

excon

And you guys fell for "hope and change."

The insurance company doesn't pay for it and you know it, the policyholder pays for it and the result is free contraceptives to the user, so where did I lie?

[talaniman]

Basically you don't lie, you just don't know what you are talking about, or have no knowledge of how things work.

In other words, your premise is not based in facts!! If I am wrong, SHOW ME!!

[speechlesstx]

Basically you don't lie, you just don't know what you are talking about, or have no knowledge of how things work.

Really, Tal? You're resorting to insulting my intelligence again?

In other words, your premise is not based in facts!! If I am wrong, SHOW ME!!

No sir, your turn. An insult does nothing to refute my point, "The insurance company doesn't pay for it and you know it, the policyholder pays for it and the end result is free contraceptives to the user."


Feel free to point out which part is wrong and why. Shifting the burden from the employer to the insurance company is smoke and mirrors. No insurance company is going to give coverage away, it will be reflected in your premiums. I think you know that, as much as you whine about how big business does nothing but prey on others. But feel free to contradict one of your stock arguments.

[cdad]

Your words, free contraceptives, are right wing talking points. They are NOT fact.. Indeed, it's a bald faced LIE, and you bought it hook, line and sinker.

excon

Am I missing something here??

Beginning in August, woman of all income brackets will be able to obtain contraception, annual well-woman visits, screenings for sexually transmitted infections and gestational diabetes, breastfeeding support and supplies, and domestic violence screenings without any co-pays or deductibles.


It sounds like free to me ? Most of the medicines that people take carry a co-pay.

Even Michelle says so and has been touting it around the country.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/michelle-obama-boasts-obamacare-mandates-basic-things-like-contraception-as-catholics-start-2-week-protest-against-unjust-law?f=must_reads

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/obamacare-women-supreme-court-contraception-pregnancy_n_1634480.html

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mrs-obama-boasts-obamacare-mandates-basic-things-contraception-catholics-start-2-week

[excon]

Hello again, dad:

Looks like we got TWO issues going on.. One is the coverage Obamacare is going to provide, and the other is the order to the Catholic church to cover contraceptives.

excon

[cdad]

Hello again, dad:

Looks like we got TWO issues going on.. One is the coverage Obamacare is going to provide, and the other is the order to the church to cover contraceptive coverage.

excon

Yes two separate yet intermingled issues. Regardless it still appears that the contraceptives are going to be free as provided by the carrier.

As far as the church issue goes Im expecting a court challenge to come forth because of the "moral" issue presented by the situation. I also believe the line may be drawn at the point of being "self insured" as opposed to those that buy a policy from an outside source.

[TUT317]

First, you can disagree all you want but facts are facts and I thought you liked facts.

In this case the facts are not the facts. I didn't get much past the preamble and the first graph to realize this.



The study says that the government estimates the number of poor to be about 30 million. On what basis are we talking. Income, possessions? Both? The 30 million is probably an underestimation because it is clear the report wants to define poverty in terms of material possessions owned. This is clear from the onset.

This assumption is further enhanced by using asking the average person their definition of poverty. There is always the danger of overestimating your potential and underestimating the potential of others. It can work the other way depending on how you word the question. Anyone conducting this sort of survey would know that. It is not surprising that poverty is seen by the average person as someone living in some sort of degradation.

Armed with the 'average persons' understanding of poverty we are expected to believe that the average poor person doesn't fit this definition because of the number of possessions they have.

In order to prove that poor people are not really poor in terms of possessions they set up a null hypothesis by comparing two sets of statistics in the form of a graph. Namely, 'All Households Which have Various Amenities' and 'Poor Households Which Have Varies Amenities'. Even if valid, which it is not- the hypothesis cannot be proven.

In order to further substantiate the claim that the poor are not really poor the writer introduces erroneous comparisons (fallacy of false analogy). That is, by comparing people in poverty in other countries against the standard of the poor in their country. This fallacy is further enhanced by comparing people of an earlier time to his own time.

That's as far as I wanted to go into that report.

Tut

[speechlesstx]

In this case the facts are not the facts. I didn't get much past the preamble and the first graph to realize this.



The study says that the government estimates the number of poor to be about 30 million. On what basis are we talking.? Income, possessions? both? The 30 million is probably an underestimation because it is clear the report wants to define poverty in terms of material possessions owned. This is clear from the onset.

This assumption is further enhanced by using asking the average person their definition of poverty. There is always the danger of overestimating your potential and underestimating the potential of others. It can work the other way depending on how you word the question. Anyone conducting this sort of survey would know that. It is not surprising that poverty is seen by the average person as someone living in some sort of of degradation.

Armed with the 'average persons' understanding of poverty we are expected to believe that the average poor person doesn't fit this definition because of the number of possessions they have.

In order to prove that poor people are not really poor in terms of possessions they set up a null hypothesis by comparing two sets of statistics in the form of a graph. Namely, 'All Households Which have Various Amenities' and 'Poor Households Which Have Varies Amenities'. Even if valid, which it is not- the hypothesis cannot be proven.

In order to further substantiate the claim that the poor are not really poor the writer introduces erroneous comparisons (fallacy of false analogy). That is, by comparing people in poverty in other countries against the standard of the poor in their country. This fallacy is further enhanced by comparing people of an earlier time period to his own time period.

That's as far as I wanted to go into that report.

Tut

The report is directly from Census Bureau information. You mean our government lied and the average person in poverty as defined by our government is really much worse off?

You can dismiss the summary, but you cannot dismiss the facts.

[paraclete]

I had a quick look at that report and it seemed the defining difference between the middle class and the poor was whether the family owned a dishwasher and a dryer. According to the graph a small percentage of poor people own jucuzzi. There would appearently be some serious question as to who created these definions whether they come from the Bureau of Statistics or elsewhere because they seem a little out of touch with real poverty or is that reality

[NeedKarma]

The facts of who owns a dishwasher comes from the Census Bureau but the using that as a definition of poverty is entirely from the ultra-conservatibe Heritage Foundation 'think tank': "The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies"

[TUT317]

The report is directly from Census Bureau information. You mean our government lied and the average person in poverty as defined by our government is really much worse off?

You can dismiss the summary, but you cannot dismiss the facts.

Yes, I do dismiss the summary for good reasons. I don't dismiss the facts. What I am dismissing is the way the facts are being used in the report. The way they are being used borders on dishonesty.



We are supposed to accept the reports new definition of poverty. Not the definition that one would normally expect governments to use in accessing poverty .For example, income, availability of goods and services.

The reports working definition for poverty doesn't take into account all of these things. In fact the definition employed for this purpose is something called 'the average persons definition of poverty'

What sort of methodology is this? We have a Census Bureau's definition of poverty and an average man in the street definition of poverty. So we go with the definition that tells us that poor people are not that poor because they have almost as many amenities as most wealthier people.

So, our method of analysis in order to determine poverty becomes availability of amenities. Did it every occur to the people compiling the report that the government uses a variety of methods to determine poverty rather than relying on just on determining factor?

The facts of the report attempt to do the following:

Compare two hypotheses. The government hypothesis ( which is never presented in any detail what so ever) and the alternative hypothesis.

In refuting the Census definition of poverty ( we can only assume that is what it is trying to do) it is hoped to establish the alternative. That alternative being that poor people are appliance rich therefore they are not really poor. Not poor in terms of what the average person understands as being poor.

Another way of saying this is, the report refutes the first hypothesis by proving the second.

This is very bad science and I am very sure that wouldn't be just my opinion.

This cannot be a government funded research, surely.

[TUT317]

Just read NK's post. That would explain it.

Tut

[excon]

Hello again,

Let me throw in my two cents... Research, schmeasearch... The right wing BELIEVES that poor people are poor because of CHOICES they themselves made, and they're LOATHE to offer them ANYTHING.

Human beings, on the other hand, KNOW that NOT to be true at ALL. Therefore, they're willing to step up to the plate to help.

All this talk of the right wing being WILLING to help the poor, if ONLY they could tell WHO the poor actually are, is BOGUS, BOGUS, and even BOGUSER.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Yes, I do dismiss the summary for good reasons. I don't dismiss the facts.

Thank you.

What borders on dishonesty, Tut, is the way the left spins poverty in this country. This report seeks to counter that narrative with the facts, which you don't dismiss. Heritage (nor I as I've done repeatedly) doesn't dismiss the poor or pretend poverty isn't an issue, but on average those in "poverty" in America have it pretty darn good. Fact.

But to get back on track, my point - again - is it's a tremendously stupid idea to hamstring the church in it's ministries to "the least of these" and replace it with a heartless, inefficient, government nanny.

We'll be glad to help the poor and needy, but don't pretend Jesus taught that forced government redistribution was how to be "my brother's keeer" as is the gospel according to the Obamas.

We spent 8 years listening to American liberals scream "separation of church and state" over their irrational Bush theocracy fears, and yet nary a peep over the current administration preaching social Christian state.

[speechlesstx]

The facts of who owns a dishwasher comes from the Census Bureau but the using that as a definition of poverty is entirely from the ultra-conservatibe Heritage Foundation 'think tank': "The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies"

And yet you and your sources are completely free of ideology, right?

[NeedKarma]

And yet you and your sources are completely free of ideology, right?

My what and what sources of mine? I don't have a dog in this race.
I realize that conservatives view personal wealth/success has a goal to be reached above all else. Others don't have that same life ambition I guess. You just need to learn that people can have different views and ambitions without insulting or denigrating them all the time.

[excon]

and yet nary a peep over the current administration preaching social Christian state.

Hello again, Steve:

Here's the deal. Michelle Obama is NOT the administration.. I didn't vote for HER. She's a FREE citizen of this great country of ours practicing her religion just like YOU do. Sounds to me, like you think she SHOULDN'T. That's NOT very American of you...

I suppose you'll next tell us that Obama supports sh!tting in the yard because his dog, I mean his administration, is doing it...

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again,

Let me throw in my two cents... Research, schmeasearch... The right wing BELIEVES that poor people are poor because of CHOICES they themselves made, and they're LOATHE to offer them ANYTHING.

BS, ex. When did doing everything you could to take care of you and family without a government nanny stop being a virtue?

Human beings, on the other hand, KNOW that NOT to be true at ALL. Therefore, they're willing to step up to the plate to help.

My wife and I support 4 children every month, 2 in Guatemala, 1 in El Salvador and 1 in Peru. But I already said that. How many do you support?

In fact, I'm the one that repeatedly for years has suggested to these users to give to the poor for Christmas rather than buy themselves another useless trinket. Don't talk to me about stepping up to the plate, we've given and given and given and you want to take, and take and take. Sorry, but my money goes much further to help the needy my way than Obama's way. When the federal government becomes as efficient as say, World Vision we can talk.

All this talk of the right wing being WILLING to help the poor, if ONLY they could tell WHO the poor actually are, is BOGUS, BOGUS, and even BOGUSER.

Like that poor law student that needed help with her $3000 contraceptive bill who didn't know she buy them at Target for $9.00 a month?

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Here's the deal. Michelle Obama is NOT the administration.. I didn't vote for HER. She's a FREE citizen of this great country of ours practicing her religion just like YOU do. Sounds to me, like you think she SHOULDN'T. That's NOT very American of you...

I suppose you'll next tell us that Obama supports sh!tting in the yard because his dog, I mean his administration, is doing it...

excon

Um , Obama is the one that played the "brother's keeper" card. He is the president.

P.S. It is the Obama administration's contraceptive mandate, not Michelle's.

[speechlesstx]

My what and what sources of mine? I don't have a dog in this race.
I realize that conservatives view personal wealth/success has a goal to be reached above all else. Others don't have that same life ambition I guess. You just need to learn that people can have different views and ambitions without insulting or denigrating them all the time.

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.