YellowLinesandArmadillos

DC Tom you must have had the same professor I had in college, but I am betting "John" still doesn't get that even he has to have faith in order to make the arguments he is making, whether he knows it or not, ironic isn't it.

The problem with your theory of evidence John is that their is no such thing as provable. It renders itself and infinite regression and therefore science is still unprovable... there is no such thing, so at some point you have to have faith in the unprovable to even exist or you are just in one helluv a case of denial... then in that case I suggest you find some good shrooms and come back and give us some more of your insight as to the provability of the scientific method.

First place, all stats are based on initial assumptions, so yes by definition. That being said... what DC Tom said.

Correlation according to who???? Corrected.

Exactly and so are FOX and for that matter CBS and MSNBC... duh... There is no such thing as fair and balanced in the NEWs and probably never was. There may have been greater independence at one time or another, but even that assertion is suspect. Look who owned the News agencies over history in the US and re-think what you mean by independent news on all sides.

Read my argument, despite my shot at FOX, I put in the analogy of the Katie Couric debacle as how not to do it. In this case there were a lot of reasons to send FOX a message both politically and because of air time. Forget about what I perceive as consistent lies and the pure partisanship of Fox nationally would prevent me from advising Obama to appear on their National Station. That being said if the shoe were on the other foot, I would consider the same strategy with CBS and possibly MSNBC too.

Another absolutists assumption and a qualification of that assumption "always", "seem to be"

If he were a Republican... say kinda like Sarah Palin, would you recommend him being interviewed by Katie Couric or for that matter anyone on CBS News? I wouldn't and look at the results. Faux Spews is bought and paid for by the insurance companies and since the plan is still being worked out, I, as a political adviser wouldn't give Faux Spews the time of day, especially since they refused to cover his last couple of prime time speeches. Foget about it. How hard is that to figure out or are you that politically stupid.

5th paragraph and yes it is offensive because of the segregationist mentality of the statement. In the middle paragraph stating basically that women are the ones carry the burden (victimology) especially ironic because of the activism of espoused by the left for equal treatment and inclusion. You can't have it both ways and the ultra left and right are constantly excluding people. This is just an example of the left doing it.

Pretty face, angry F..., still not sure I would do that with what is hanging between your legs.

Ah, and there is the flaw in your understanding of being, or lack of understanding. Your sentence... "you "must" come to a conclusion" asks for an assumption, because it has yet to be fully described. Assumptions are made because of a lack of knowledge and therefore require a certain amount of faith that they are correct. Truth or evidence is only that by definition is true. Limited by of our perception and communication of our perceptions to others, therefore, things are only true by definition. Since we cannot prove that our perceptions are correct because the link between the senses to the brain and sole cannot fully be described... i.e., "the conscious mind", by science, or link to the physical world. Things otherwise are either true by definition or a man made utilitarian construct that cannot be proven... Science because of this ends up in an infinite regression argument and religion because of faith ends up in circular reasoning. Neither can be proven incorrect nor true because a direct link between the brain and the conscious mind has yet to be made for certain. Therefore, as a practicality we all rely on assumptions and faith, otherwise this whole existence thing could be a farce and not really any different the idea behind the matrix and we cannot disprove it because of the limits of our own perceptions. Take a class in Philosophy of Evidence sometime, it can mess with your head.

Or as some would describe things exist that science has yet to be able to describe. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that there are many things that science has yet to be able to describe or fully understand... or to coin a phrase not supernatural but superscience.

The problem with the younger generation is that they think the older generation hasn't worked through their premises and arguments about religion or spiritual beliefs... P.S. "There are no atheists in a foxhole." Forget where the quote came from or even if I got it exactly right. However the deal for the next generation to come to grips with is science cannot or may never explain the essence of the sole and while organized religion may be suffering currently, spirituality and belief in higher power of some sort, IMO, isn't. Either this is a gap in knowledge as some would describe and or as others would argue science is just a discovery of what is and was created, ergo no conflict between the two. Either way it is important for the younger generation to discover this on their own, so I say have at it and in the process give us a greater understanding of the manifestations of our creator.

Yeh, like drunk and Buffalo.

Believe???, no... Know they can get that dead person registered to vote... on both sides. Depends on the County. In Philli it would be Dem, in OH it would be a Rep.

Ooooh thaaat Barry Seriously, thinking more about it, coming out with a agreed upon statement about what was discussed is typical for these discussions and not that big a deal. It is way that everyone can feel free to talk frankly without having their words used against them later or for the discussions being a set up for a press hit... that doesn't mean that what was discussed has to result in an agreement or that there can't be disagreement, just what was discussed is agreed to before hand and anything ancillary or off the record stays off the record. Still can't acknowledge the insult.

Not sure who Barry was, but the AMA needs to be at a separate table with his own group of Doctors and any other independent Doc groups with him, not with the insurance Cos, which is whom I am assuming your are referring to as Barry.

Unfortunately there are nuts and extremists in all the major religions that take things too far. That doesn't mean the tenants of religion are illegitimate, just the crazies. I am not advocating one over another, just that this discussion is for lack of a better word, off base and brings credence to the crazies.

Good... and I agree with the insurance execs comment which is part of the reason everyone including doctors are getting a raw deal every time there is a political discussion on Capitol Hill. If you are not at the table effectively and as coordinated group or coordinated groups, you will be at least partially dismissed and much less effective. Do it.

Show me a link to some ligit stats... I am not against Tort Reform, because I think without it it abdicates responsibility of the doctor to perform better and because though frivolous lawsuits I remembering being only a small portion of claims still are morally bankrupt. I just don't think they are a cure all, still it is a great political issue for those for tort reform and it makes sense to do something.... still I would like to see actual stats. Interesting this is a national issue when insurance is regulated by the states, how do you deal with that jurisdictional conflict in the bill?

I love this lack of responsibility, it is the insurance cos fault and the AMA's fault and the educational system itself. Like Doctor's have nothing to do with this. That is disingenuous at best and at worst a downright abdication of one's responsibility towards your profession. You wouldn't let welfare cheats or for that matter not complain about the reimbursement rates of Medicare, but you let the insurance cos and the AMA... run by Doctors perpetuate this crap. P.S. While I think the image of unfettered lawsuits are a pr problem from what I understand it is only a small portion of the overall premiums doctors pay into the system including settlements. I still think torts need reform from a moral standpoint with great criminal penalties to doctors who mess up. But to be honest, I would need to see some updated stats on this. Also IMO tort reform while nice for insurance cos is not likely to reduce Doctors Liability insurance cos premiums because it is too much of a cash cow for insurance cos yet Doctors do little about it except complain. I would love to see a risk assessment analysis of current torts and the over risk to insurance cos.

"All The World is a stage, but they forget to mention that I am the chief critic?"

I am envious, I wouldn't mind going in a circle in Yosemite anyday! Hope you have a camera and are taking lots of photos... enjoy!

Whether you know it or not, you made his point... have you ever studied econ? In this case, one could argue that the AMA limits the amount of Doctors in the field, promotes specialists, raising demand for their services and works with the education establishment to keep ed costs high. One of those, supply demand deals without any anti-trust enforcement. There is still a group out there that believe this is all to keep us in demand for these high priced services, paid both out of pocket and from the public trough, especially through research grants and does little to actually cure us. That is an extreme view IMO, but I do think that the way our system is set up a certain amount of that de facto happens, planned or not.

"Michelle Obama said women are being “crushed by the current structure of our health care” because they often are responsible for taking care of family illnesses, arranging checkups and monitoring follow-up care. “Women are the ones to do it,” she said to an audience of 140 people, including representatives from groups such as the Women’s Chamber of Commerce and the National Council of Negro Women. “Mothers are the ones that do it. And many women find themselves doing the same thing for their spouses.” Horse crap, that is my problem with this statement and yours and others like it. You and she are singling out one group in this case women as both the victims of the system and martyrs and P.S. I do most of the above as an increasing number of stay at home run a business out of my home do or have been laid off by the economic downturn, instead of saying I know a lot of you have these responsibilities. However, that is beside the point, I get frustrated when the party of inclusion becomes exclusionary in its rhetoric and divides itself up. It has enough problems when others try and divide and conquer... I know this rhetoric is suppose to be supportive, but it is narrow minded as constructed and exclusionary and as the wife of the leader of the free world it should be about raising all ships not picking and choosing. If that is the case then why not become Republicans. They don't seem to have any conscience about picking winners and loosers.