Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized

[Amy Blankenship]

"rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 26, 2:05 pm, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> messagenews:[email protected]...
>> The healthcare system in this country is totally broken and I don't know
>> of
>> anyone (except the rich - always a very small minority) who is happy with
>> it. What is needed is a single payer system like they have in every
>> other
>> industrialized nation in the world.
>
> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.

How often do polls reach people without phones?

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 9:16 am, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Jul 26, 2:05 pm, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> messagenews:[email protected]...
> >> The healthcare system in this country is totally broken and I don't know
> >> of
> >> anyone (except the rich - always a very small minority) who is happy with
> >> it. What is needed is a single payer system like they have in every
> >> other
> >> industrialized nation in the world.
>
> > Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
> > then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
> > problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
> > that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
> How often do polls reach people without phones?

Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.

 

[A Muzi]

>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
-snip the usual-

> "rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.

Amy Blankenship wrote:
> How often do polls reach people without phones?

Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. You'd
have to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed
persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Amy Blankenship]

"A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> -snip the usual-
>
>> "rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
> margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. You'd have
> to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed
> persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it.

People who cannot afford a phone are less likely to be happy with their
healthcare, so, yes they are very significantly different from those likely
to be polled. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess not.

 

[A Muzi]

>>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -snip the usual-

>>> "rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>>>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>>>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>>>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.

>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>> How often do polls reach people without phones?

> "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
>> margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. You'd have
>> to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed
>> persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it.

Amy Blankenship wrote:
> People who cannot afford a phone are less likely to be happy with their
> healthcare, so, yes they are very significantly different from those likely
> to be polled. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess not.

I have no personal telephone, either land or cell. I do not fit the
demographic you had in mind I bet. Pointedly I have no systemic
healthcare gripes.

(Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street
force a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on we employers here, as
they currently threaten)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Amy Blankenship]

"A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> -snip the usual-
>
>>>> "rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>>>>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>>>>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>>>>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
>>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
>> "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
>>> margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. You'd
>>> have to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed
>>> persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it.
>
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> People who cannot afford a phone are less likely to be happy with their
>> healthcare, so, yes they are very significantly different from those
>> likely to be polled. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess
>> not.
>
> I have no personal telephone, either land or cell. I do not fit the
> demographic you had in mind I bet. Pointedly I have no systemic healthcare
> gripes.
>
> (Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street force
> a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on we employers here, as they
> currently threaten)

Just for future reference, "on we" is probably good enough for the type of
informal communications going on here, but when you are using a form of the
plural pronoun in business communications as the object of a preposition,
you may want to consider using "us".

HTH;

Amy

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Jul 26, 2:05 pm, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> messagenews:[email protected]...
>>> The healthcare system in this country is totally broken and I don't
>>> know of
>>> anyone (except the rich - always a very small minority) who is happy
>>> with
>>> it. What is needed is a single payer system like they have in every
>>> other
>>> industrialized nation in the world.
>>
>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
> How often do polls reach people without phones?

Who doesn't have a phone? It's the best technique we have, and errors are
accounted for in the polls. That still doesn't reflect what occured in
Massachusetts and Oregon referendums.

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.

It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this newsgroup.

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> People who cannot afford a phone are less likely to be happy with their
> healthcare, so, yes they are very significantly different from those
> likely to be polled. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess
> not.

Who the hell doesn't have any sort of phone? It's not likely to be any
different than any other country:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel_mai_lin_in_use_percap-main-lines-use-per-capita

Don't quote me on this, but I don't think this includes cell phone either.

 

[Mark]

A Muzi wrote:
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> -snip the usual-
>
>> "rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
> margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies.

Well, actually, the reported margins of error routinely line up with
those for 95% confidence intervals for simple random samples of the same
size.

In non-technical language, if they /hadn't/ taken phoneless people into
account, and used the most common margin-of-error estimate of random
sampling error, in most cases they'd get the _same_ margin of error as
is reported in the press.

I check this a lot, since I routinely use survey reporting in teaching
my statistics classes.

It's not that the pollsters aren't smart, they certainly know that the
phoneless (and the land-line-less) could be a cause of systematic error
in their polls. Further, most(!) pollsters have strong incentives to
accuracy (it's what they sell) - they don't want another embarrassment
like calling the '48 race for Dewey over Truman.

On the other hand, with the exception of election predictions, there are
very few opportunities for phone-only polls to be proven wrong because
of missing the phoneless (they will only be compared to other phone-only
polls, seemingly), and you can even argue away weak election predictions.

It's possible that the pros (Gallup, etc) have made estimates that show
that !currently! the land-line-less aren't systematically different
enough (or numerous enough) to make a difference. Or it could be that
the problem is being brushed under the rug because there's little to be
done about it.

Mark J.

You'd
> have to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed
> persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it.
>

 

[Brian Huntley]

On Jul 27, 2:36 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Just for future reference, "on we" is probably good enough for the type of
> informal communications going on here, but when you are using a form of the
> plural pronoun in business communications as the object of a preposition,
> you may want to consider using "us".


As in "Us, the people...."

The usage was "we employers." Sounds right to me.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 3:48 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> > Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.
>
> It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this newsgroup.

It's more rational than saying bike lanes are bad for bikes. Are car
lanes bad for cars? Or should we erase all lines between lanes and let
drivers do as they please? Please!

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 27, 3:48 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>>
>> > Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.
>>
>> It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this
>> newsgroup.
>
> It's more rational than saying bike lanes are bad for bikes. Are car
> lanes bad for cars? Or should we erase all lines between lanes and let
> drivers do as they please? Please!

So what was your point, that they only poll "Lexus and Mercedes dealers"?
You're such a nut, you're hardly worth debating. But this is fun.

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:40:26 -0700, Brian Huntley
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jul 27, 2:36 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> Just for future reference, "on we" is probably good enough for the type of
>> informal communications going on here, but when you are using a form of the
>> plural pronoun in business communications as the object of a preposition,
>> you may want to consider using "us".
>
>
>As in "Us, the people...."
>
>The usage was "we employers." Sounds right to me.

Dear Brian,

Sorry, but it's common to confuse subjective and objective case.
Whether we-employers or us-employers is correct depends on whether the
phrase is used as the subject or the object of a phrase or clause.

We, the people, are the proud subject of this sentence.

But this sentence refers to us, the people, as merely the object of a
preposition.

Thus we (not us) grammarians write that he (not him) must be goofing
on us (not on-we).

We like to sneer at whoever/whomever . . .

Sorry, not enough information yet--will whoever/whomever be the
subject or the object of the as-yet unknown subordinate clause?

.. . . at whoever is dumb enough to screw up ****ling little points.
(he is dumb enough, subjective)

.. . . at whomever we can catch screwing up ****ling little points.
(we can catch him, objective)

A dollar and such expertise (expressed with typical snottiness) is
usually enough to get a cup of hot coffee spilled on your lap by a
waiter who/whom . . .

.. . . who (not whom) is annoyed by us jerks.
Subjective case--he is annoyed, not him is annoyed.

.. . . who (not whom) we thought would not be annoyed by jerks like us.
Still subjective case--we thought (that) he, not him, would not be
annoyed.

.. . . whom (not who) we also failed to tip.
Objective case--we failed to tip him, not he.

Another deadly trap is the linking verb, such as to be, which restates
or renames the subject and therfore uses the subjective case.

Technically, you should reply, "It is I" when someone shouts "Who the
hell's at the door?" The predicate noun takes the objective form, so
only an ill-educated policeman will yell "It is me" before kicking the
door in.

Language, however, is an arbitrary collection of customs, not a
logical system resembling computer programming. The proper grammatical
reply "It is I" is never contracted to "It's I"--we say "It's me,
who'd ya think it was?"

Or perhaps _we_ should say, "It is we"? Aaargh! It's us!

Time to go for my ride before it starts raining, whatever "it" may
refer to.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Amy Blankenship]

"Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>>
>> Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.
>
> It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this newsgroup.

You are _so_ not in touch with your inner crackpot. What are you doing
here, anyway?

 

[Amy Blankenship]

"Brian Huntley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 27, 2:36 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Just for future reference, "on we" is probably good enough for the type
>> of
>> informal communications going on here, but when you are using a form of
>> the
>> plural pronoun in business communications as the object of a preposition,
>> you may want to consider using "us".
>
>
> As in "Us, the people...."
>
> The usage was "we employers." Sounds right to me.

Yes, it is sad that it sounds right to too many of us Americans.

Your problem is that you do not realize that the usage is:

We... do ordain and establish... "...the people of the United States of
America" is modifying we, but has nothing to do with why we was chosen over
us. We is the subject. The dependent clauses in between are also not
relevant to its selection.

For purposes of deciding what pronoun to use, the OP should have truncated
the sentence like this:

"Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street
force a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on we."

When you do that, it becomes more clearly evident that it is incorrect and
should be:

"Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street
force a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on us."

Hope this clarifies;

Amy

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 4:58 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Jul 27, 3:48 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> >> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> >> > Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.
>
> >> It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this
> >> newsgroup.
>
> > It's more rational than saying bike lanes are bad for bikes. Are car
> > lanes bad for cars? Or should we erase all lines between lanes and let
> > drivers do as they please? Please!
>
> So what was your point, that they only poll "Lexus and Mercedes dealers"?
> You're such a nut, you're hardly worth debating. But this is fun.

That the poll among the well-to-do (those that can afford Lexus and
health insurance) are no evidence that we don't need health insurance.

You may ask THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE INSURANCE if you want to have some
credibility.

And the same applies to bikes. Ask the working class if they want to
have bike lanes to get to work. I bet you they go for it.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 26, 4:31 pm, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "The effect of the cycle lane studied in this report is to reduce the
> amount of roadspace available to cyclists, and therefore makes
> conditions significantly worse for cyclists."
>
> Tony

They can't get any worse. People just don't go out and ride in
practical situations. The few that do ride sidewalks thereby
endangering pedestrians and themselves.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 6:08 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> >> Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.
>
> > It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this newsgroup.
>
> You are _so_ not in touch with your inner crackpot. What are you doing
> here, anyway?

I think he represents motorized lobby. You know, they are very crafty
in lying. Big Tobacco hired some PR agents to throw smoke on the whole
issue even after they knew smoking lead to cancer. Now Big Oil is
doing the same with Global Warming. Never trust the fox and follow the
money to find his trail.

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> With the way that most employer provided health care plans treat
> people, they greedy profiteers will have brought it upon themselves if
> they are legislated out of business. Certainly, the free market has
> failed here, since the users are not the one's making the purchasing
> decisions.

The free market has NOT failed here, the notion that the US has a free
market health care system is completely false. Nothing could be further from
the truth.