Slashdot Mirror
HHS Plans To Delete 20 Years of Critical Medical Guidelines Next Week (thedailybeast.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Daily Beast: The Trump Administration is planning to eliminate a vast trove of medical guidelines that for nearly 20 years has been a critical resource for doctors, researchers and others in the medical community. Maintained by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [AHRQ], part of the Department of Health and Human Services, the database is known as the National Guideline Clearinghouse [NGC], and it's scheduled to "go dark," in the words of an official there, on July 16. "Guideline.gov was our go-to source, and there is nothing else like it in the world," King said, referring to the URL at which the database is hosted, which the agency says receives about 200,000 visitors per month. "It is a singular resource," Valerie King, a professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Director of Research at the Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University, added. [She] said the NGC is perhaps the most important repository of evidence-based research available.
Medical guidelines are best thought of as cheatsheets for the medical field, compiling the latest research in an easy-to use format. When doctors want to know when they should start insulin treatments, or how best to manage an HIV patient in unstable housing -- even something as mundane as when to start an older patient on a vitamin D supplement -- they look for the relevant guidelines. The documents are published by a myriad of professional and other organizations, and NGC has long been considered among the most comprehensive and reliable repositories in the world. AHRQ said it's looking for a partner that can carry on the work of NGC, but that effort hasn't panned out yet. Not even an archived version of the site will remain, according to an official at AHRQ.
Medical guidelines are best thought of as cheatsheets for the medical field, compiling the latest research in an easy-to use format. When doctors want to know when they should start insulin treatments, or how best to manage an HIV patient in unstable housing -- even something as mundane as when to start an older patient on a vitamin D supplement -- they look for the relevant guidelines. The documents are published by a myriad of professional and other organizations, and NGC has long been considered among the most comprehensive and reliable repositories in the world. AHRQ said it's looking for a partner that can carry on the work of NGC, but that effort hasn't panned out yet. Not even an archived version of the site will remain, according to an official at AHRQ.
Point of fact: ~20% voted for him, not 45%. ~21% voted Clinton, another ~1% wasted their votes on throwaway protest "message" which effectively let Trump eke out an electoral victory. The others, nearly 60% of the US population, did not vote at all.
You're spot on, but it's not "all Americans" who are at fault for that. It's Republican traitors who sell out their country - daily. This is ENTIRELY a Republican focus and they control all 3 branches. AS they weaken health care, etc.
" to the point that we prioritize who kneels at a sports game over who will guarantee a civilized level of medical coverage" They weaken the US to attack their political rivals, the brown & blue collar people who aren't corporate whores.
Hang the traitors, America will be great again.
> You're spot on, but it's not "all Americans" who are at fault for that. It's Republican traitors who sell out their country - daily
There it is. The same kind of idiot blaming one side of a corrupt political system, showing a complete lack of situational awareness. You sir, are part of the problem.
You're right. Government run everything seems to be working well in Venezuela.
I really don't get the attitude of "we hate clinton so much we'll vote for [anyone else]!".
I'm not sure very many people have that attitude. The Trump supporters I know actively like him (that's why they're supporters). Everyone I've talked to who voted for him can articulate some reason why they think he is better than Hillary. It's not always a fact-based reason, but they feel like they voted for the best candidate.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2016 was different from 2000. In 2000, Gore won a plurality of the popular vote (but not a majority), and liberal parties (Gore + Nader) won a majority of the popular vote. The Electoral college did not reflect a majority of the popular vote in 2000.
In 2016, Clinton won a plurality (but not a majority) of the popular vote. However, Conservative parties combined won more popular votes than liberal parties combined (49.88% vs 49.13%, with the rest being cast for candidates without a party affiliation). So in 2016, the Electoral College awarded the election to the candidate whose ideology came closest to winning a majority of votes, rather than the individual who came closest to winning a majority. I didn't vote for Trump, but he was probably the correct winner in 2016.
People like to criticize the Electoral College. But IMHO the plurality-wins system they propose be used instead is nearly as bad (consider the California primaries where some candidates won one of two slots in the general election with barely 20% of the vote). We really need to switch to instant run-off voting, which is designed so that a candidate always gets a majority of votes before being declared the winner.
Gerrymandering has almost ZERO impact on US Presidential elections.
Unless one considers state borders to be gerrymandered. Because 48 states use a winner-takes-all method for allocating electoral college votes. That is, the person receiving the most presidential votes within a state gets all the EC votes from the state. Maine and Nebraska have different rules that are impacted somewhat by district lines, but they have so few districts that its hard to figured gerrymandering has much impact. Maine has all of two districts, with Augusta and Portland and the section of the state between them comprising one district, and the rest of Maine the other, and Nebraska has 3 and their map is hardly what I'd consider gerrymandered, with the tow countries comprising Omaha in one, the suburbs of Omaha in another, and the rest of the state comprising the 3rd.
Further, gerrymandering does not impact Senate seats either. Senate seats are at-large within each state (no districts, only state borders).
Gerrymandering does impact the House of Representatives. It also impacts State legislature seats.
But please stop throwing gerrymandering around as a problem for Presidential elections...
Absolutely correct.
The GP has tried to work around the problem rather than finding a solution for it. The solution is preferential or ranked voting.
As an example of how this works, see what Maine just did for their primaries. And that's what will happen there in November too.
Yes, it's more complicated, but it's far less complicated than the "solution" that the GP describes. Imagine that happening twice in a row!
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor