LogFAQs > #888960282

gunplagirl posted...

So are we just ignoring the paragraph above your last bolded statement as well as that the passage before your first bolded part demonstrates it was only after accounting for (unlisted) factors? You know, things necessary for the credibility to actually be determined for readers who aren't fully aware of the study and the unfiltered results?

I'm not ignoring anything, nor does it seem like you know how to read.

1. The paragraph above the last bolded statement is the conclusion of a biased study. It's flawed in that it uses inaccurate parameters and flawed methodology similar to the bunked IoM's 2002 study, and the two authors/co-authors are part of an organization that pushes for Single-payer insurance.

2. The passage before the first bolded part is a different study than the Harvard/IoM study. It's saying that after accounting for unlisted factors, there exists no difference between the uninsured and those that are insured.

Holy **** lmao.