<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Poll: 80% Want Public Health Option</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ihavenothing.org/2009/08/28/poll-80-want-public-health-option/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ihavenothing.org/2009/08/28/poll-80-want-public-health-option/</link>
	<description>Really, I Have Nothing...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:51:49 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Slothen</title>
		<link>http://www.ihavenothing.org/2009/08/28/poll-80-want-public-health-option/comment-page-1/#comment-555</link>
		<dc:creator>Slothen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 08:08:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ihavenothing.org/?p=1837#comment-555</guid>
		<description>I would prefer that everyone just stopped using polls altogether. They have never been anything more than a means of of falsifying public opinion so you can sell peer pressure to people who disagree with you. This is a better article than the one I used earlier. I would have used this one, but it came out like a week after this article was posted.

http://reason.com/news/show/135873.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would prefer that everyone just stopped using polls altogether. They have never been anything more than a means of of falsifying public opinion so you can sell peer pressure to people who disagree with you. This is a better article than the one I used earlier. I would have used this one, but it came out like a week after this article was posted.</p>
<p><a href="http://reason.com/news/show/135873.html" rel="nofollow">http://reason.com/news/show/135873.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: loreandlaw</title>
		<link>http://www.ihavenothing.org/2009/08/28/poll-80-want-public-health-option/comment-page-1/#comment-553</link>
		<dc:creator>loreandlaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:48:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ihavenothing.org/?p=1837#comment-553</guid>
		<description>Just because Slothens statement points out flaws in an article you want to believe in does not make him a fan of fox news. He was simply stating there are flaws in the polling system. And I happen to agree, a poll can be made to agree with anything you want. I suggest watching the polling Bullshit episode. Here is a link I have for ya. http://jumbodump.com/2006/07/17/penn-and-teller-bullshit-poll-numbers-bible-prostitution-video-nsfw/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just because Slothens statement points out flaws in an article you want to believe in does not make him a fan of fox news. He was simply stating there are flaws in the polling system. And I happen to agree, a poll can be made to agree with anything you want. I suggest watching the polling Bullshit episode. Here is a link I have for ya. <a href="http://jumbodump.com/2006/07/17/penn-and-teller-bullshit-poll-numbers-bible-prostitution-video-nsfw/" rel="nofollow">http://jumbodump.com/2006/07/17/penn-and-teller-bullshit-poll-numbers-bible-prostitution-video-nsfw/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nox</title>
		<link>http://www.ihavenothing.org/2009/08/28/poll-80-want-public-health-option/comment-page-1/#comment-550</link>
		<dc:creator>Nox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:09:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ihavenothing.org/?p=1837#comment-550</guid>
		<description>Yes, yes, this data is wrong because it does not relate to the 20% approval of fox news subscribers who cared to vote in their pole, which they now HAVE to claim as non-scientific.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, yes, this data is wrong because it does not relate to the 20% approval of fox news subscribers who cared to vote in their pole, which they now HAVE to claim as non-scientific.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Slothen</title>
		<link>http://www.ihavenothing.org/2009/08/28/poll-80-want-public-health-option/comment-page-1/#comment-545</link>
		<dc:creator>Slothen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:48:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ihavenothing.org/?p=1837#comment-545</guid>
		<description>http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_public_option_no_perfect_p.php

This article touches on some key problems with the polling process and this subject in general. It points out that these polls are not just a flat rate of asking x persons whether they are for of against the public option. It starts with the basic question, then continues with hypothetical questions about a nebulous &quot;public &#039;option&#039;&quot; that has not even been fully fleshed out by it&#039;s creators. These hypothetical can include any number of items which have no bearing on the actual subject at hand, but are created to obtain a false positive on the side of those who disagree with the reality of the public &#039;option&#039;. Those false positives are added to those who already said yes, to create astronomical false numbers such as your 80%. This is also completely ignoring the use of regional bias to tilt an issue in whatever direction, while keeping a marginal quantity of dissenters to fallaciously suggest an unbiased sampling. As I&#039;ve already stated, polls are bullshit.

The linked article is good for exposing the flaws of polling, but still fails to address the fact that the so called &quot;public &#039;option&#039;&quot; is nothing of the sort. It was designed and marketed to the democratic candidates to leech customers from private insurance agencies to leech customers from private firms by offering an almost unlimited pool of cash siphoned off the taxpayers. No private insurance agency can compete with an unlimited cash flow. This is nothing more than an attempt to covertly nationalize a private industry. The plan that claims to increase choices will suck all competition dry, killing all other choices while offering unreasonable payouts to anyone who switches over. Once it has a monopoly on the industry, it will restrict care to make up for the glut of spending in it&#039;s competitive days. By that time it will be a a voting block all on it&#039;s own, and even though a vast majority will wish for the days of personalized care, quick results, and medical innovation, the sprawling mass of bureaucrats and jobless dependents will fight tooth and nail to keep their stranglehold on everyone-else&#039;s money.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_public_option_no_perfect_p.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_public_option_no_perfect_p.php</a></p>
<p>This article touches on some key problems with the polling process and this subject in general. It points out that these polls are not just a flat rate of asking x persons whether they are for of against the public option. It starts with the basic question, then continues with hypothetical questions about a nebulous &#8220;public &#8216;option&#8217;&#8221; that has not even been fully fleshed out by it&#8217;s creators. These hypothetical can include any number of items which have no bearing on the actual subject at hand, but are created to obtain a false positive on the side of those who disagree with the reality of the public &#8216;option&#8217;. Those false positives are added to those who already said yes, to create astronomical false numbers such as your 80%. This is also completely ignoring the use of regional bias to tilt an issue in whatever direction, while keeping a marginal quantity of dissenters to fallaciously suggest an unbiased sampling. As I&#8217;ve already stated, polls are bullshit.</p>
<p>The linked article is good for exposing the flaws of polling, but still fails to address the fact that the so called &#8220;public &#8216;option&#8217;&#8221; is nothing of the sort. It was designed and marketed to the democratic candidates to leech customers from private insurance agencies to leech customers from private firms by offering an almost unlimited pool of cash siphoned off the taxpayers. No private insurance agency can compete with an unlimited cash flow. This is nothing more than an attempt to covertly nationalize a private industry. The plan that claims to increase choices will suck all competition dry, killing all other choices while offering unreasonable payouts to anyone who switches over. Once it has a monopoly on the industry, it will restrict care to make up for the glut of spending in it&#8217;s competitive days. By that time it will be a a voting block all on it&#8217;s own, and even though a vast majority will wish for the days of personalized care, quick results, and medical innovation, the sprawling mass of bureaucrats and jobless dependents will fight tooth and nail to keep their stranglehold on everyone-else&#8217;s money.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nox</title>
		<link>http://www.ihavenothing.org/2009/08/28/poll-80-want-public-health-option/comment-page-1/#comment-536</link>
		<dc:creator>Nox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:36:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ihavenothing.org/?p=1837#comment-536</guid>
		<description>Options? I want options!  Giveme giveme giveme!  Slow, fast, cheap, taxes?  I don&#039;t care, just make me, standard American think their opinion matters!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Options? I want options!  Giveme giveme giveme!  Slow, fast, cheap, taxes?  I don&#8217;t care, just make me, standard American think their opinion matters!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

