I should also say that I suspect a larger amount is spent on experimental medicine that may extend people's lives for a short time with a questionable quality-of-life. These patients would basically be subsidizing phase IV trials.
The point is when comparing cost vs outcome between countries, it is those of this 5% that should be focused on. Most "analysis" done in the news assumes the costs are normally distributed (by reporting cost per capita, etc), when they are not.
I understood you meant conservative in what you describe as the "expect AT LEAST the change that they are predicting" sense... Although I highly disagree with your characterization of conservative science here.
A conservative approach to science simply means being as un-speculative as practically possible. Wait until you have strong results before drawing any conclusions. This is the way research with such huge societal implications should be reported. When the media is looking to sensationalize anything and everything you say, this is the only ethical way to report your results. Even then they will still be dumbed down and sensationalized, but it is the responsibility of the researcher to minimize this as much as possible. It is unethical to do otherwise.
Read the stories on the PI of the group that reported FTL neutrinos, he was forced to resign even though he was quite conservative in his statements compared to many climate change researchers. Why? Because an uproar like this over a false positive seeds public distrust in science, it is bad for everyone. These things need to be communicated to the public very carefully and some climatologists do not appear to have been doing so.
This is why many scientists from other fields get disgusted with the few big mouths in climate science, and then the entire field for not taking care of their own.
You can witness the results of this non-conservative scientific reporting for yourself, half the public does not trust them and the other half know almost nothing about climate change but believe whatever the media feeds them, appearing as drones to former.
Catastrophe models have shown an increase in projected damage from storms, and those models are factored into your insurance premiums. Those models have become more aggressive because the underlying data has shown an increase in property destruction storms.
Very interesting if true. I doubt this data is publicly accessible. Although if the pricing is government enforced it may be.
Slashdot Mirror
And why you think this accounts for a large part of the "healthcare spending gap"?
Interesting, so what does that mean?
I should also say that I suspect a larger amount is spent on experimental medicine that may extend people's lives for a short time with a questionable quality-of-life. These patients would basically be subsidizing phase IV trials.
Yes, this is exactly the analysis I would like to see. We should not assume this.
The point is when comparing cost vs outcome between countries, it is those of this 5% that should be focused on. Most "analysis" done in the news assumes the costs are normally distributed (by reporting cost per capita, etc), when they are not.
Where is your data? This is not what the data I have seen shows.
5% of the population (15 million people) account for 50% ($1 trillion) in spending.
http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/expendria.htm
I heard Spazmania belongs to an online sex cult.
I agree on that. Argument from consensus should be recognized for what it is: A useful heuristic but logical fallacy.
That link is wierd. What does any of this have to do with religion? Epigenetic inheritance is just much less obvious than genetic inheritance.
Right, I'm just wondering if raising the quality of life of "the poor" may require increased carbon emissions.
Almost all the economists...
And what will the additional tax revenues be spent on?
Farmers...Wow.
Yep, psychopathic politicians are unelectable. Therefore lets put the elected officials in charge of ...
Be honest with yourself, you watched a couple documentaries and substituted that for thinking for yourself.
And.. unregulated futures markets would take care of this.
What is an evidence gate?
So add a 40 cent tax on gas and AGW will go away? What are you basing this on? I really don't understand where you are coming from.
I know nothing about the organization other than the description provided.
I understood you meant conservative in what you describe as the "expect AT LEAST the change that they are predicting" sense... Although I highly disagree with your characterization of conservative science here.
A conservative approach to science simply means being as un-speculative as practically possible. Wait until you have strong results before drawing any conclusions. This is the way research with such huge societal implications should be reported. When the media is looking to sensationalize anything and everything you say, this is the only ethical way to report your results. Even then they will still be dumbed down and sensationalized, but it is the responsibility of the researcher to minimize this as much as possible. It is unethical to do otherwise.
Read the stories on the PI of the group that reported FTL neutrinos, he was forced to resign even though he was quite conservative in his statements compared to many climate change researchers. Why? Because an uproar like this over a false positive seeds public distrust in science, it is bad for everyone. These things need to be communicated to the public very carefully and some climatologists do not appear to have been doing so.
This is why many scientists from other fields get disgusted with the few big mouths in climate science, and then the entire field for not taking care of their own.
You can witness the results of this non-conservative scientific reporting for yourself, half the public does not trust them and the other half know almost nothing about climate change but believe whatever the media feeds them, appearing as drones to former.
I bet it was "fiscally". He read up to there then made the post.
Really, placing "conservative" after "fiscally" is redundant. Nobody calls themselves "fiscally liberal".
You should stop being socially conservative though, imo.
Confirmed Reptilian right there.
Ok, "more familiar than 99% of people." I agree that risk management is what we should be discussing.
Very interesting if true. I doubt this data is publicly accessible. Although if the pricing is government enforced it may be.
Really? It shocks you when people associate snow with cold?
AC: "You think more snow means it is colder? My goodness, well then!"