As a habitually Republican leaning voter and a geek myself, I find this insulting. Of course being treated as an optimization problem for data analysts is something that happens all the time in commerce and advertising. But I am turned off by multiple disingenuous elements here. Let's name a few:
1. It isn't about "immigration reform", it's about amnesty. The Democrat agenda will do nothing to reduce illegal immigration, but rather increase it.
2. Bringing in lots of new workers is a direct cause of lower wages and more job competition and unemployment in the USA.
3. Really rich, corporate Republicans want more labor because it benefits them fiscally.
4. Lots of Democrats in general want more immigrants because it strengthens the power of the government and the welfare state, and shifts voting demographics favorably for them (e.g. when they turn Texas blue, they win the presidency for the foreseeable future). 5. So the bottom line is that when they approach a presumably low information Republican voter, they will have to lie their little tails off about their agenda to get him/her to go along with their so-called "immigration reform".
[...]affecting everything from mom-and-pop shops to power stations. This unpatchable hell is a problem with many fathers, from recalcitrant vendors to customers wary of[...]
This is a weighty issue. I will take it before the elders of my own company -- surely those wise fathers will know what to do. In the meantime, send forth the maidens to wail and weep in the streets, that all the people may know how grievous is this news.
Nonsense, there are lots of ways of countering the snarky objections of me and a few other folks around here by creatively applying "double blind" techniques. In the case of the test subjects, the light could just be turned on when ambient sensors detected that they were asleep (pulse and breathing monitors). Have a computer randomize subjects to light regimens, so the researchers can't consciously or unconsciously assign the perky people one place and the laggers another. See? Double blind.
Well, I guess by definition over-simplification involves some sort of fallacy. However, there's nothing inherently wrong with simplification; it just depends on what claims you make about the simplified perspective.
Your fallacy here is similar to those who claim that there's no such thing as IQ just because nature itself doesn't supply a simple linear scale. Psychopathy is complex and multivariate, just like intelligence. But there is usefulness in identifying a "boolean" here -- person A crosses a line and we'll call him a psychopath, person B is not a psychopath. Sure, it's a continuum. Sure, there are multiple variables. But a simplification can still be useful, and those who say otherwise are in denial about what is a pretty obvious phenomenon to an open minded person.
Sounds great. If it is not part of a natural cycle, but anthropogenic in origin, that's fantastic. What a wonderful possibility, that our species might not have to weather any more ice ages on this planet. But I guess we don't really know for certain.
This is the best long thread I've had the pleasure of participating in on slashdot. So civil! So reasonable! Usually things would devolve to ad hominem attacks at this point. Instead, you treat me to "you're certainly entitled to your opinion." Refreshing!
You can't possibly think that's what I mean, since I myself openly stated that I think the ACA is shitty.
No, I think I read your position pretty well. You're in favor of fully nationalized healthcare, taking the "for profit" companies out of the picture. As such, I would expect you to be cool with the ACA's less granular risk pooling and so forth. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
I merely pointed out that of all the things to point out as lies, the particular quote you're hung up on is relatively excusable.
I agree that it's possible for such a statement to be "mostly true", but leave out the fine print. That's not really what happened in this case. As far as I can tell, the ACA forced most plans to be canceled, regardless of whether the holders of those plans "liked them". In fact, to the degree that people "liked" their plans, they were more likely to be forcibly closed by the ACA. People who hated paying for the expense of their risk pools (and thus hated their plans before) were those who benefitted from the ACA. When you add the missing fine print, the meaning changes into pretty much the opposite of what it meant before. Do you see that distinction? It was not a simplification, it was a lie.
The original point being debated is whether Obama lied when he claimed that "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" -- and while we're at it, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". You already said you are inclined to give him a free pass on this. Words don't mean anything, right? Even the left-leaning political advocacy organization Politifact rated Obama's campaign promise as the "lie of the year" (but only after the election was safely won for the Democrats, mind you).
Apparently you're new to the ideas of risk and risk pooling
Oh, brother. Excuse me while I go barf. The only possible reason to disagree with the ACA would be out of ignorance, I'm sure. What luck that Obama and the Democratic party are here to rescue benighted America from the darkness of ignorance and backwardness.
I understand that the ACA forces risk pooling among groups where it didn't exist before. So you're right -- no plan can be good if it doesn't force you as a healthy person to subsidize smoking, being overweight, and having kids, even if you do none of those things. News flash -- Obama still lied. If he hadn't repeated that lie so often, he might not have won reelection.
I am not a sick person in Canada, so I don't have much personal knowledge of facts on the ground. I've heard (from Canadians I know) and read differing accounts. As in any massive system, the quality of your care probably depends on being in the right place at the right time with the right health problem. That goes for the US as well. There are some hospitals and medical practices that do a great job, and others that... don't...
I thought we were discussing healthcare. and Canada vs U.S. What do anecdotes about the old (and dead) Soviet Union have to do with anything?
When the government steps in to mandate a socialist approach to what had been a free market, it turns out that you see the same kinds of patterns.
Someone in need of healthcare is much better off being a Canadian.
Nah. Somebody with money who needs an elective procedure is much better off being in the USA, where the wait time will be shorter.
Somebody without money with a life threatening illness will probably be treated in either country.
Somebody without money who needs an elective procedure may be better off in Canada, but it's not clear because they may also be denied it or have to wait forever (denial by default).
In the meantime, it turns out that our medical professionals are compensated better. So where do you think the best doctors will want to work?
There were a lot of jokes made about socialized grocery stores in the Soviet era. It doesn't matter if they have guarantees about no favoritism based on personal wealth, or even if they have better quality and selection of groceries than the USA, if they only have 15 items to be distributed among a population of 300.
Nope, try again. Part of these sensible changes includes requiring 60 year old single men to have plans with maternity coverage -- which would NOT cover a significant other, so it really is as silly as it sounds.
Both the $5 and the $60 are out of pocket costs independent of insurance. Apparently you are unaware that the ACA precipitated a drastic cost increase in medical services and pharmaceuticals pretty much across the board. Unintended consequences and so forth.
Obama didn't "forget" anything. He lied. And people weren't forced to drop their "worthless" plans, they were in many cases perfectly good plans that the ACA torpedoed. You appear to have a really naive perspective here, if you were so completely duped by the president's lies and propaganda.
That's obviously an oversimplification, since there's a steady stream of medical tourism from Canada to the US. There's something here that people aren't getting up north.
OK, I grant that, in the specific sense of: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it". Baldfaced lies worked out pretty well for Obama in the 2012 election, at least among the masses of low information voters.
Those comparisons are still somewhat apples to oranges. The cost of living is cheaper in Mumbai than New York City, but most people would rather live in NYC. Here in the USA we have a lot of business startups that burn through piles of cash that would make the third world turn pale -- and of course most startups fail. So does the USA have it worse than third world countries? Of course not. Our failed entrepreneurs laugh, chalk it up to experience, and try again.
With medicine I grant that some of your criticisms are true in a sense, but a fair evaluation is more complicated than you let on, and in fact our healthcare is the envy of almost all of the world. We burn through a lot of cash in our healthcare system, but we also have more cash to burn. The lower classes had many options (even before the ACA) to make sure that the most essential needs get met. The USA is a great place to live in terms of healthcare, and those who claim otherwise have some kind of agenda they're trying to push. (Not saying things can't be improved further, because there's always room for improvement.)
Not one Republican in Congress has voted for any bill supported by Obama.
That's a silly thing to say, and it's obviously false. Obama has signed legislation for which Republicans voted.
That's more an indication of hyperpartisanship than merit of the legislation itself. The ACA was pushed down Republicans' throats, for sure. Americans in general, however, supported it to various extents.
According to polls, many Americans were opposed to the passage of the ACA; sometimes a majority. Some Americans liked the sound of the promises attached to it, and when it turned out later that Obama was just telling baldfaced lies about the ACA in order to get elected, people were disappointed. The "Republican/Tea Party wave" election of 2010 could be seen as a referendum on the popularity of the ACA, and it will be very interesting to see what happens this year.
US healthcare is competitive with the best healthcare around the world. There are a few metrics in which a few countries rate higher, but most of the comparisons you'll see are misleading. In particular, looking at life expectancy is not really fair. Does your doctor follow you around and stop you from eating Twinkies or smoking?
Right, I completely agree that everybody wants "healthcare reform" in some shape or fashion. That's why I specifically referred to the ACA as being pushed down Americans' throats. Not one Republican in Congress voted for it (though I concede that some parts of it have been supported by Republicans from time to time).
The ACA was only passed by means of telling some really bold lies, and shutting out the opposition in the most major act of extreme partisanship that Capitol Hill has seen in a long time.
Nevermind that it's virtually identical to the plan that Romney implemented in his home state.
There's an important difference -- Romney signed legislation that the people of Massachusetts (a very liberal state) wanted. In the case of the ACA, the Democrats of Congress pushed it down the throats of an unwilling American public.
If you still think there's any meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans, you're hopelessly ignorant of the world around you. Pull your head out of your ass, stop throwing your vote away, and support an independent or third party next time around.
I know the arguments for voting for a third party, and I also know the arguments against doing so. It's all very depressing.
Slashdot Mirror
As a habitually Republican leaning voter and a geek myself, I find this insulting. Of course being treated as an optimization problem for data analysts is something that happens all the time in commerce and advertising. But I am turned off by multiple disingenuous elements here. Let's name a few:
1. It isn't about "immigration reform", it's about amnesty. The Democrat agenda will do nothing to reduce illegal immigration, but rather increase it.
2. Bringing in lots of new workers is a direct cause of lower wages and more job competition and unemployment in the USA.
3. Really rich, corporate Republicans want more labor because it benefits them fiscally.
4. Lots of Democrats in general want more immigrants because it strengthens the power of the government and the welfare state, and shifts voting demographics favorably for them (e.g. when they turn Texas blue, they win the presidency for the foreseeable future).
5. So the bottom line is that when they approach a presumably low information Republican voter, they will have to lie their little tails off about their agenda to get him/her to go along with their so-called "immigration reform".
(Do I sound a little mad?)
[...]affecting everything from mom-and-pop shops to power stations. This unpatchable hell is a problem with many fathers, from recalcitrant vendors to customers wary of[...]
This is a weighty issue. I will take it before the elders of my own company -- surely those wise fathers will know what to do. In the meantime, send forth the maidens to wail and weep in the streets, that all the people may know how grievous is this news.
Nonsense, there are lots of ways of countering the snarky objections of me and a few other folks around here by creatively applying "double blind" techniques. In the case of the test subjects, the light could just be turned on when ambient sensors detected that they were asleep (pulse and breathing monitors). Have a computer randomize subjects to light regimens, so the researchers can't consciously or unconsciously assign the perky people one place and the laggers another. See? Double blind.
... the lard butts sleep all day? Just saying. That's why you need double blind studies (no pun intended), correlation/causation, and all that.
Over-simplification results in fallacy.
Well, I guess by definition over-simplification involves some sort of fallacy. However, there's nothing inherently wrong with simplification; it just depends on what claims you make about the simplified perspective.
Your fallacy here is similar to those who claim that there's no such thing as IQ just because nature itself doesn't supply a simple linear scale. Psychopathy is complex and multivariate, just like intelligence. But there is usefulness in identifying a "boolean" here -- person A crosses a line and we'll call him a psychopath, person B is not a psychopath. Sure, it's a continuum. Sure, there are multiple variables. But a simplification can still be useful, and those who say otherwise are in denial about what is a pretty obvious phenomenon to an open minded person.
on your head, it protects you from the mind control of the lizard people.
Sounds great. If it is not part of a natural cycle, but anthropogenic in origin, that's fantastic. What a wonderful possibility, that our species might not have to weather any more ice ages on this planet. But I guess we don't really know for certain.
This is the best long thread I've had the pleasure of participating in on slashdot. So civil! So reasonable! Usually things would devolve to ad hominem attacks at this point. Instead, you treat me to "you're certainly entitled to your opinion." Refreshing!
I've enjoyed the exchange as well. Cheers!
You can't possibly think that's what I mean, since I myself openly stated that I think the ACA is shitty.
No, I think I read your position pretty well. You're in favor of fully nationalized healthcare, taking the "for profit" companies out of the picture. As such, I would expect you to be cool with the ACA's less granular risk pooling and so forth. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
I merely pointed out that of all the things to point out as lies, the particular quote you're hung up on is relatively excusable.
I agree that it's possible for such a statement to be "mostly true", but leave out the fine print. That's not really what happened in this case. As far as I can tell, the ACA forced most plans to be canceled, regardless of whether the holders of those plans "liked them". In fact, to the degree that people "liked" their plans, they were more likely to be forcibly closed by the ACA. People who hated paying for the expense of their risk pools (and thus hated their plans before) were those who benefitted from the ACA. When you add the missing fine print, the meaning changes into pretty much the opposite of what it meant before. Do you see that distinction? It was not a simplification, it was a lie.
Apparently you're new to the ideas of risk and risk pooling
Oh, brother. Excuse me while I go barf. The only possible reason to disagree with the ACA would be out of ignorance, I'm sure. What luck that Obama and the Democratic party are here to rescue benighted America from the darkness of ignorance and backwardness.
I understand that the ACA forces risk pooling among groups where it didn't exist before. So you're right -- no plan can be good if it doesn't force you as a healthy person to subsidize smoking, being overweight, and having kids, even if you do none of those things. News flash -- Obama still lied. If he hadn't repeated that lie so often, he might not have won reelection.
I am not a sick person in Canada, so I don't have much personal knowledge of facts on the ground. I've heard (from Canadians I know) and read differing accounts. As in any massive system, the quality of your care probably depends on being in the right place at the right time with the right health problem. That goes for the US as well. There are some hospitals and medical practices that do a great job, and others that... don't...
I thought we were discussing healthcare. and Canada vs U.S. What do anecdotes about the old (and dead) Soviet Union have to do with anything?
When the government steps in to mandate a socialist approach to what had been a free market, it turns out that you see the same kinds of patterns.
Someone in need of healthcare is much better off being a Canadian.
Nah. Somebody with money who needs an elective procedure is much better off being in the USA, where the wait time will be shorter.
Somebody without money with a life threatening illness will probably be treated in either country.
Somebody without money who needs an elective procedure may be better off in Canada, but it's not clear because they may also be denied it or have to wait forever (denial by default).
In the meantime, it turns out that our medical professionals are compensated better. So where do you think the best doctors will want to work?
There were a lot of jokes made about socialized grocery stores in the Soviet era. It doesn't matter if they have guarantees about no favoritism based on personal wealth, or even if they have better quality and selection of groceries than the USA, if they only have 15 items to be distributed among a population of 300.
Nope, try again. Part of these sensible changes includes requiring 60 year old single men to have plans with maternity coverage -- which would NOT cover a significant other, so it really is as silly as it sounds.
Both the $5 and the $60 are out of pocket costs independent of insurance. Apparently you are unaware that the ACA precipitated a drastic cost increase in medical services and pharmaceuticals pretty much across the board. Unintended consequences and so forth.
Obama didn't "forget" anything. He lied. And people weren't forced to drop their "worthless" plans, they were in many cases perfectly good plans that the ACA torpedoed. You appear to have a really naive perspective here, if you were so completely duped by the president's lies and propaganda.
That's obviously an oversimplification, since there's a steady stream of medical tourism from Canada to the US. There's something here that people aren't getting up north.
OK, I grant that, in the specific sense of: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it". Baldfaced lies worked out pretty well for Obama in the 2012 election, at least among the masses of low information voters.
What a shock. The world is actually a complicated place that doesn't easily align to partisan talking points. :)
Those comparisons are still somewhat apples to oranges. The cost of living is cheaper in Mumbai than New York City, but most people would rather live in NYC. Here in the USA we have a lot of business startups that burn through piles of cash that would make the third world turn pale -- and of course most startups fail. So does the USA have it worse than third world countries? Of course not. Our failed entrepreneurs laugh, chalk it up to experience, and try again.
With medicine I grant that some of your criticisms are true in a sense, but a fair evaluation is more complicated than you let on, and in fact our healthcare is the envy of almost all of the world. We burn through a lot of cash in our healthcare system, but we also have more cash to burn. The lower classes had many options (even before the ACA) to make sure that the most essential needs get met. The USA is a great place to live in terms of healthcare, and those who claim otherwise have some kind of agenda they're trying to push. (Not saying things can't be improved further, because there's always room for improvement.)
Not one Republican in Congress has voted for any bill supported by Obama.
That's a silly thing to say, and it's obviously false. Obama has signed legislation for which Republicans voted.
That's more an indication of hyperpartisanship than merit of the legislation itself. The ACA was pushed down Republicans' throats, for sure. Americans in general, however, supported it to various extents.
According to polls, many Americans were opposed to the passage of the ACA; sometimes a majority. Some Americans liked the sound of the promises attached to it, and when it turned out later that Obama was just telling baldfaced lies about the ACA in order to get elected, people were disappointed. The "Republican/Tea Party wave" election of 2010 could be seen as a referendum on the popularity of the ACA, and it will be very interesting to see what happens this year.
US healthcare is competitive with the best healthcare around the world. There are a few metrics in which a few countries rate higher, but most of the comparisons you'll see are misleading. In particular, looking at life expectancy is not really fair. Does your doctor follow you around and stop you from eating Twinkies or smoking?
Right, I completely agree that everybody wants "healthcare reform" in some shape or fashion. That's why I specifically referred to the ACA as being pushed down Americans' throats. Not one Republican in Congress voted for it (though I concede that some parts of it have been supported by Republicans from time to time).
The ACA was only passed by means of telling some really bold lies, and shutting out the opposition in the most major act of extreme partisanship that Capitol Hill has seen in a long time.
Nevermind that it's virtually identical to the plan that Romney implemented in his home state.
There's an important difference -- Romney signed legislation that the people of Massachusetts (a very liberal state) wanted. In the case of the ACA, the Democrats of Congress pushed it down the throats of an unwilling American public.
If you still think there's any meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans, you're hopelessly ignorant of the world around you. Pull your head out of your ass, stop throwing your vote away, and support an independent or third party next time around.
I know the arguments for voting for a third party, and I also know the arguments against doing so. It's all very depressing.