Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG
I don't know if anything special was done for this survey, but Gallup typically uses sample sizes of 1,000. This is fairly standard for social science studies. Pew Research defaults to samples of 1,000 as well, although they sometimes adjust for special populations. Most academics agree that these are representative sample sizes which it is reasonable to make extrapolations from.
I think it is fair to say that, at best, the number of uninsured has not significantly improved.
|
no? it starts in 2008.. now, i don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed.. but wasn't there, like, a massive bailout with huge economic problems that resulted in a great deal of job loss?
and, according to that poll, something that occurred in the past.. 7-8 months? has managed to bring the percentage of uninsured back to almost the levels of 'pre-economic-bank-heist'?
what exactly IS 3% of 316,148,990? cause, if that was managed to be done in 6 months with very little economic improvement.. this might actually work when it's finally fully implemented.. set for next year.
anyway. as i said originally. one poll isn't 'being slapped in the face with reality'. do you, and the academics, disagree with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG
Seriously? You think something citing The Commonwealth Fund is more reliable than data directly from Gallup?
I know I'd never suspect an offshoot of Standard Oil to have an agenda in favor of big money and big corporations. Oh wait, yes, I would.
|
has the commonwealth fund been indicted and settled for a series of things that would put its reputation and credibility into question? in any event, they managed to list some reference to how they did the poll. pretty prestigious.