Down goes another GOP talking point

[Orton's Arm]

Me embarrass myself, when you introduce Medicare spending into a study that specificallystates that it sampled adults 18-64?

 

Keep it coming, genius.

838066[/snapback]

You obviously didn't understand my post. What else is new?

[Orton's Arm]

And a dozen other people who do statistics for a living agree that you're fundamentally an ignoramous.

 

But go ahead and argue economics with GG...this should be just as much fun to watch. 

838061[/snapback]

A dozen other people who do statistics for a living participated in that thread, and they all called me an idiot? Who are they, and why haven't they been fired yet?

 

How is your dirty dozen claim consistent with your other claim that the three statistics experts on the PPP boards are yourself, Ramius, and Coli?

[Chilly]

A dozen other people?    Who are they, and why haven't they been fired yet?

838164[/snapback]

 

Because they aren't wrong.

[Orton's Arm]

Because they aren't wrong.

838165[/snapback]

If you don't understand what's being debated, feel free to keep silent.

[EC-Bills]

If you don't understand what's being debated, feel free to keep silent.

838169[/snapback]

 

Mee-oww

[Chilly]

If you don't understand what's being debated, feel free to keep silent.

838169[/snapback]

 

Practice what you preach.

[GG]

You obviously didn't understand my post. What else is new? 

838162[/snapback]

 

Dear God you're a buffoon. I understood your post, just like everyone else understands your posts, and has the same response, "you don't have a clue of what you're talking about!!!"

 

What in the world do total US expenditures on health care have to do with the question of how much does US government spend on illegal aliens' health care?

 

I'll give you an answer, "NOTHING" I think someone else gave you the same answer, but (I know) you're misunderstood.

 

Now, before I answer another cry of how I don't understand, I'm going to contribute to that $1.7 trillion health care spend by downing a bottle of aspirin. I bet that would reduce the government's share of spending on Pedro's appendicitis.

[Chef Jim]

Dear God you're a buffoon.  I understood your post, just like everyone else understands your posts, and has the same response, "you don't have a clue of what you're talking about!!!"

 

What in the world do total US expenditures on health care have to do with the question of how much does US government spend on illegal aliens' health care? 

 

I'll give you an answer, "NOTHING"  I think someone else gave you the same answer, but (I know) you're misunderstood.

 

Now, before I answer another cry of how I don't understand, I'm going to contribute to that $1.7 trillion health care spend by downing a bottle of aspirin.  I bet that would reduce the government's share of spending on Pedro's appendicitis.

838216[/snapback]

 

Actually it's Pedro's liver. You know those Mexicans and their tequila.

[Alaska Darin]

What I got out of it is that if not for immigrants, California would see a net outflow of people, and be on a path to fiscal ruin given the demographic trends and a happily spending government.

 

I wonder why these action groups rarely focus on the positive impact of immigrants and "illegals" on the current and future economy?

837854[/snapback]

Saying illegals are saving California is the equivalent of sticking a finger in the dike. Bad policies are going to sink the state in time, the exact same predicament the fed is facing because the people have figured out they can vote themselves stuff at the expense of some faceless "other."

[Bungee Jumper]

If you don't understand what's being debated, feel free to keep silent.

838169[/snapback]

 

Physician, heal thy !@#$ing self.

[Orton's Arm]

Dear God you're a buffoon.  I understood your post, just like everyone else understands your posts, and has the same response, "you don't have a clue of what you're talking about!!!"

 

What in the world do total US expenditures on health care have to do with the question of how much does US government spend on illegal aliens' health care? 

 

I'll give you an answer, "NOTHING"  I think someone else gave you the same answer, but (I know) you're misunderstood.

 

Now, before I answer another cry of how I don't understand, I'm going to contribute to that $1.7 trillion health care spend by downing a bottle of aspirin.  I bet that would reduce the government's share of spending on Pedro's appendicitis.

838216[/snapback]

Wow! I've seen plenty of false confidence on these PPP boards, but your post takes the cake. That's amazing.

 

Not only did you fail to understand my post, but you also didn't understand the Bungee Jumper post which you're trying to reference. Nor, evidently, did you understand the press release to which I was replying.

 

The study looked at a specific $88 billion portion of U.S. healthcare spending. Of the $88 billion it looked at, it concluded $1.1 billion represented taxpayers paying for illegal aliens' healthcare. But the $88 billion the study looked at represents just 5% of U.S. healthcare spending. Because it apparently ignored the other 95%, it can't quantify the extent to which illegal aliens are imposing costs on the U.S. healthcare system. Sorry if this burst your ill-founded sense of smug self-superiority. Well, not really.

[Bungee Jumper]

You didn't understand my post. I said that it wasn't a methodological mistake to look at only a 5% slice of healthcare costs. I also said that because the study only looks at that slice, it can't be used to support the conclusion that illegal aliens only impose $11 per household in added healtcare costs.

838161[/snapback]

 

No, I understood your post. You're just - again - wrong. It's not a methodological error to look at government expenditures when you're looking at...government expenditures. It would be a methodological error to look at total consumer expenditures when you're looking at government expenditures, as you're suggesting, because they're different !@#$ing things!!!!

 

You're a real piece of work; you actually manage to make the same mistakes through different disciplines. You can't figure out what your measurable is, and you can't tell when different things are actually different.

[Bungee Jumper]

Wow! I've seen plenty of false confidence on these PPP boards, but your post takes the cake. That's amazing.

 

Not only did you fail to understand my post, but you also didn't understand the Bungee Jumper post which you're trying to reference. Nor, evidently, did you understand the press release to which I was replying.

 

The study looked at a specific $88 billion portion of U.S. healthcare spending. Of the $88 billion it looked at, it concluded $1.1 billion represented taxpayers paying for illegal aliens' healthcare. But the $88 billion the study looked at represents just 5% of U.S. healthcare spending. Because it apparently ignored the other 95%, it can't quantify the extent to which illegal aliens are imposing costs on the U.S. healthcare system. Sorry if this burst your ill-founded sense of smug self-superiority. Well, not really. 

838242[/snapback]

 

 

"The total public spending on healthcare for undocumented aliens between the ages of 18 and 64 comes to $1.1 billion, or about $11 in taxes per U.S. household. Total government spending on healthcare for all adults in the same age group comes to $88 billion."

 

What part of "public" and "government" do you not understand? Jesus...

 

You are honestly too !@#$ing stupid to discuss it. Amazing.

[Orton's Arm]

Physician, heal thy !@#$ing self. 

838240[/snapback]

Okay, fine. I'll start believing that chemists and engineers in East Germany got their careers based strictly on party loyalty and connections; without any reference to merit whatsoever. I'll start believing that the HyperStat examples and explanations of regression toward the mean are utterly moronic. I'll adopt these beliefs because you say I should, and against my better judgement. This, I'm afraid, is what you mean by "healing myself."

[Bungee Jumper]

Okay, fine. I'll start believing that chemists and engineers in East Germany got their careers based strictly on party loyalty and connections; without any reference to merit whatsoever. I'll start believing that the HyperStat examples and explanations of regression toward the mean are utterly moronic. I'll adopt these beliefs because you say I should, and against my better judgement. This, I'm afraid, is what you mean by "healing myself."

838250[/snapback]

 

That...would be a really good start.

 

A better start would be learning something about it - or economics, or anything, really - rather than taking other people's words (like Hyperstat - pick up a stats textbook and work through the examples instead, dumbass.)

 

But best would be to do what I actually meant: shut up when you don't know what you're talking about. Go make mud pies or something while the grown-ups talk...

[Orton's Arm]

No, I understood your post.  You're just - again - wrong.  It's not a methodological error to look at government expenditures when you're looking at...government expenditures.  It would be a methodological error to look at total consumer expenditures when you're looking at government expenditures, as you're suggesting, because they're different !@#$ing things!!!! 

 

You're a real piece of work; you actually manage to make the same mistakes through different disciplines.  You can't figure out what your measurable is, and you can't tell when different things are actually different. 

838244[/snapback]

I don't believe I've insulted your intelligence, but you're tempting me to do it here. I did not use the $88 billion/$1.7 trillion discrepancy to criticize the study's methodolgy. Do you understand? I am not attacking the study' methodology here.

 

What I am saying--and please drill this fact through your three foot thick skull--is that if you only look at a 5% slice of total U.S. healthcare spending, you can't conclude that illegal aliens are only imposing $11 per household in extra healthcare costs. Am I accusing the study's authors of drawing this incorrect conclusion? Of course not. But I've seen that conclusion erroneously drawn on this thread, and that's what I'm taking issue with.

[Chef Jim]

Alrighty.........here we go again.

[Orton's Arm]

That...would be a really good start.

 

A better start would be learning something about it - or economics, or anything, really - rather than taking other people's words (like Hyperstat - pick up a stats textbook and work through the examples instead, dumbass.)

 

But best would be to do what I actually meant: shut up when you don't know what you're talking about.  Go make mud pies or something while the grown-ups talk...

838253[/snapback]

Perhaps you should start following your own advice. You don't know anything about how careers were allocated in East Germany, but you act like you do. You know literally less than nothing about regression toward the mean. At least someone with no ideas at all wouldn't be able to confuse himself on the subject the way you've done.

 

Yet you act like you're a divine authority on both these issues. You're not, so shut up.

[Bungee Jumper]

I don't believe I've insulted your intelligence, but you're tempting me to do it here.

 

Go right ahead. Given your incredible penchant for being wrong, it'd be complimentary.

 

I did not use the $88 billion/$1.7 trillion discrepancy to criticize the study's methodolgy. Do you understand? I am not attacking the study' methodology here.

 

I confess, I misread...I saw "was" where you typed "wasn't" (I'm working at an ultra-high resolution...and paying more attention to the Sabres than your stupid ass.) Mea culpa.

 

What I am saying--and please drill this fact through your three foot thick skull--is that if you only look at a 5% slice of total U.S. healthcare spending, you can't conclude that illegal aliens are only imposing $11 per household in extra healthcare costs. Am I accusing the study's authors of drawing this incorrect conclusion? Of course not. But I've seen that conclusion erroneously drawn on this thread, and that's what I'm taking issue with.

838256[/snapback]

 

Still...I call bull sh--. Simply because it's a stastical argument from a guy who once said a die had a "true value" of three and a half. Whatever the flaws in analysis other people are making, I guarantee that you're completely clueless on this topic.

[Bungee Jumper]

Perhaps you should start following your own advice. You don't know anything about how careers were allocated in East Germany, but you act like you do. You know literally less than nothing about regression toward the mean. At least someone with no ideas at all wouldn't be able to confuse himself on the subject the way you've done.

 

Yet you act like you're a divine authority on both these issues. You're not, so shut up.

838259[/snapback]

 

You know, I don't feel like retyping my arguments. Just read the previous 20 pages explaining how you are, in fact, a moron who can't distinguish "error" and "probability".

 

And I'm not a divine authority, not in the absolute sense. Just the relative sense, compared to you. The only thing more amusing than the degree to which you embarrass yourself is the degree to which you're totally ignorant of it.