is that individuals now have reasonably priced genetic tests available to them, which they can take advantage of to tilt the odds. Insurers will now have to assume that anyone who purchases insurance for a disease for which genetic tests can show an increased risk, is in fact at increased risk of that disease. This unjustly discriminates against those at low risk for that disease, by forcing them to subsidize those at increased risk. Worst case, the coverage simply becomes unavailable, so no one benefits.
the point of insurance is to share equal risk (to the extent that risks can be known). When some class of participant is allowed to tilt the odds in their favor, others lose.
I'm sure his primary reason is because there is no Consitutional authority for this sort of thing, in general.
But the reason none of them should have supported this is that the result can and will drive up the cost of health care for everyone.
If someone knows they are genetically disposed to malady "x", there is now a law which guarantees that they can get insurance coverage at the same price as someone who is at less risk. What does Congress expect them to do, not take advantage of that fact? If insurance companies can't set pricing based on full knowledge and actuarial statistics, but people can, it will increase costs.
Finally, why shouldn't people at greater risk pay more? Discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing. People discriminate all the time - employers discriminate by choosing more skilled workers over less skilled ones, consumers tend to discriminate against higher priced retailers, the President discriminates against the proles by shutting down traffic as his motocade makes it's way though a city. (Well, maybe that last one is bad discrimination).
In fact, this law discriminates against those who are at less risk for genetically identifiable diseases, by forcing them to pay higher insurance rates than they otherwise would.
That the point - the self-selected group is clearly NOT experiencing any symptoms of EM sensitivity, or at least not at a greater rate than the general population
That's it? That's your point? So FUCKING WHAT? I said that long ago.
Now, if you simply had a group selected at random and you got a result that was double what you'd expect through random chance, then you might have a point in saying that perhaps some of the people are more sensitive.
So, if one study takes the data from the group selected at random, it would correctly determine that there is a causal relationship due to the correlation being better than random chance.
But, you claim, a second study, using exactly the same data, but which also includes a separate look at a self-selected "sensitive" group, would determine there is no causal relationship.
No, you can't have it both ways.
Change the self selected group to "people who think they'll get hit by a car next March" and the control to a random selection. When next March comes along, come back and tell us all how because the same percentage of each group got hit by a car, no one did.
You are making the unreasonable assumption that either everyone is sensitive, or no one is. It is much more realistic for some fraction of the population to be sensitive (as is the case with "real" allergies, like pollen).
If, after a million trials (instead of 6), the results showed that there was a correlation twice what pure chance predicted, then that would indicate that there IS a portion of the population which is sensitive.
Please refrain from further posting. I don't know much formal statistics, but I know enough to recognize that you're completely off base.
that the results show that BOTH groups are about equally sensitive, but that doesn't answer what the study claims - "the range of symptoms and physiological response does not appear to be related to the presence of either GSM or 3G signals."
Indeed, if the results were statistically significant (and it is my contention they are NOT, due to the small sample size of only 6 "tests"), then it would seem to show that all people (even those not claiming sensitivity) are indeed sensitive to the RF fields in the test.
2 (on/off) ^6 (tests) = 64, so 1/64 would be expected to be correct with purely random guesses. I'm sure someone who knows statistics better than I will jump in, but 2/44 or 5/114 "correct" (even though better than chance) no doubt has little significance, given the small sample size.
I live in a corporate Exchange environment, too. I would like to point out one good thing about it - Exchange supports IMAP and POP, so my Eudora client works very nicely.
Now if I could only get all my clueless co-workers to stop sending HTML formatted email.
Slashdot Mirror
give him the -1 troll he deserves.
it's just a Nibblonian latrine.
One only needs to change the question to: "How many angles can dance on the head of a pin?"
cheaper than the slashvertised 4 gb one, too.
...and only twice the price of a generic one from Microcenter.
Has Bill already forgotten about the Softcard. That was a pretty good product from when Microsoft was in their prime.
because it was a revolver.
It must suck, being you, and never being able to understand the humor in a pun.
That "monster" settlement infringes on the trademarks of Monster Cable, Inc.
shut the fuck up. This discussion has to do with US legislation, and is none of your fucking business.
So, if I'm laid off, and it's "absolutely out of my control," you'll gladly pay my bills. Great, what's your address, just in case?
is that individuals now have reasonably priced genetic tests available to them, which they can take advantage of to tilt the odds. Insurers will now have to assume that anyone who purchases insurance for a disease for which genetic tests can show an increased risk, is in fact at increased risk of that disease. This unjustly discriminates against those at low risk for that disease, by forcing them to subsidize those at increased risk. Worst case, the coverage simply becomes unavailable, so no one benefits.
the point of insurance is to share equal risk (to the extent that risks can be known). When some class of participant is allowed to tilt the odds in their favor, others lose.
I'm sure his primary reason is because there is no Consitutional authority for this sort of thing, in general.
But the reason none of them should have supported this is that the result can and will drive up the cost of health care for everyone.
If someone knows they are genetically disposed to malady "x", there is now a law which guarantees that they can get insurance coverage at the same price as someone who is at less risk. What does Congress expect them to do, not take advantage of that fact? If insurance companies can't set pricing based on full knowledge and actuarial statistics, but people can, it will increase costs.
Finally, why shouldn't people at greater risk pay more? Discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing. People discriminate all the time - employers discriminate by choosing more skilled workers over less skilled ones, consumers tend to discriminate against higher priced retailers, the President discriminates against the proles by shutting down traffic as his motocade makes it's way though a city. (Well, maybe that last one is bad discrimination).
In fact, this law discriminates against those who are at less risk for genetically identifiable diseases, by forcing them to pay higher insurance rates than they otherwise would.
But, you claim, a second study, using exactly the same data, but which also includes a separate look at a self-selected "sensitive" group, would determine there is no causal relationship.
No, you can't have it both ways.
Change the self selected group to "people who think they'll get hit by a car next March" and the control to a random selection. When next March comes along, come back and tell us all how because the same percentage of each group got hit by a car, no one did.
it depends on the statistical significance.
You are making the unreasonable assumption that either everyone is sensitive, or no one is. It is much more realistic for some fraction of the population to be sensitive (as is the case with "real" allergies, like pollen).
If, after a million trials (instead of 6), the results showed that there was a correlation twice what pure chance predicted, then that would indicate that there IS a portion of the population which is sensitive.
Please refrain from further posting. I don't know much formal statistics, but I know enough to recognize that you're completely off base.
tin foil hats have been found to be a government conspiracy, don't you? They have exactly the opposite effect you desire.
"Preservatives might just be preserving you I think that's something you missed Ya you missed it..." - Grace Slick, Jefferson Airplane
that the results show that BOTH groups are about equally sensitive, but that doesn't answer what the study claims - "the range of symptoms and physiological response does not appear to be related to the presence of either GSM or 3G signals."
Indeed, if the results were statistically significant (and it is my contention they are NOT, due to the small sample size of only 6 "tests"), then it would seem to show that all people (even those not claiming sensitivity) are indeed sensitive to the RF fields in the test.
2 (on/off) ^6 (tests) = 64, so 1/64 would be expected to be correct with purely random guesses. I'm sure someone who knows statistics better than I will jump in, but 2/44 or 5/114 "correct" (even though better than chance) no doubt has little significance, given the small sample size.
"double blind test."
Allergic?, yeah sure you are.
he has exactly as much evidence as there is for the existance of gravitons or Higgs bosons or exotic dark matter.
find the missing socks, and you've found God. They're all in Heaven, you get them back when you die. All the Bic lighters, too.
I live in a corporate Exchange environment, too. I would like to point out one good thing about it - Exchange supports IMAP and POP, so my Eudora client works very nicely.
Now if I could only get all my clueless co-workers to stop sending HTML formatted email.
yes, Al Gore is a socialist, but that doesn't have much to do with this.