Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe there are things the government can do to alleviate some injustices.
Like requiring providers to insure ALL citizens, even in the case of pre-existing conditions - but there would have to be a limit to what they could charge for the premiums.
Providers should not be allowed to turn anyone away.
I believe there are things the government can do to alleviate some injustices.
Like requiring providers to insure ALL citizens, even in the case of pre-existing conditions - but there would have to be a limit to what they could charge for the premiums.
Providers should not be allowed to turn anyone away.
Or allowing them to cross state lines. Access, yes. Mandatory and subsidized, no.
A GOP senator coming out and trashing an Obama plan - and we are supposed to find that newsworthy??? ROFLMAO!!!
Now I KNOW that those who oppose UHC are grasping at straws...
The majority of the country is firmly behind national health care - and it WILL happen - in spite of many many many scare tactics by detractors...
ROFLMAO!!!
I wondered how long it would take someone to come in and trash Graham. Congratulations. What part of $1.5 Trillion and only 16 million more insured do you not understand? I guess you didn't see congressional Democrat's position on the issue? No surprise there.
Last edited by AeroGuyDC; 06-21-2009 at 08:26 PM..
The algorithm for collecting the data is not provided, therefore it is impossible to verify the legitimacy of the poll.
Whatever you mean by "algorithm", it isn't relevant. Sample size is dependent primarily upon the error range you are willing to tolerate and the confidence level you wish to have that your survey results will lie within the bounds of that error range. Commonly seen values for those would be a 95% confidence level and an error range of +/- 4%. Here is an elementary sample size calculator on the internet...
Go there and select or enter those values. Since the US population is about 300,000,000, put that in for the population, but omit the commas. Click the Calculate button and see what it says.
In the real world, you would do a much more detailed analysis than this, but this should give you an idea of why 825 would be quite a sufficient sample size in most basic survey applications.
I do believe I have listed a few of the problems but to summarize - it is top-heavy with obama supporters.
No, you have done nothing but snort at the sample size of 825 as if that were not sufficient to produce conventionally reliable results. You have mentioned nothing else, including any means you might have used to infer that the sample was top-heavy with Obama supporters. You just make this stuff up as if no one will notice.
Remind me again how that plan is working out? Ooh and btw, make sure you review Obamas plan to pay for Health Care, because the plan does so at the Medicare expense, $665 BILLION if I recall in cuts...
Yeah, the Dems seem to be more than willing to take from the ederly to give to themselves. It figures.
Whatever you mean by "algorithm", it isn't relevant. Sample size is dependent primarily upon the error range you are willing to tolerate and the confidence level you wish to have that your survey results will lie within the bounds of that error range. Commonly seen values for those would be a 95% confidence level and an error range of +/- 4%. Here is an elementary sample size calculator on the internet...
Go there and select or enter those values. Since the US population is about 300,000,000, put that in for the population, but omit the commas. Click the Calculate button and see what it says.
In the real world, you would do a much more detailed analysis than this, but this should give you an idea of why 825 would be quite a sufficient sample size in most basic survey applications.
I'm speaking about the sampling extraction algorithm.
I am merely stating that selecting 825 samples must be taken in a more random method than the sampling algorithm provided. Since it's now known a larger proportion of the sample data were Obama supporters than the actual values as an aggregate, it unvariably skews the results. The sample data needs to reflect the population almost precisely in just about every demographic and idealogy to be reliable. The error % is available but even this is an unscientific method to generalize the possible range. The range itself is only 90 or 95% accurate depending on the type of analysis they're performing.
Although 825 is a sufficient sample size, if it is all taken from a middle class suburban community or a low income section 8 apartment complex, it will likely produce garbage results. As they say in the computer field, garbage in garbage out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
