Lie of the year [politifact.com] was claims by Obama on the ACA. All news outlets agreed. Yet, here we have someone 5 years later still telling us it was the truth.
Hey look! You're lying again.
The "lie of the year" was a mistake by Obama. He left out "and if your insurance company wants to continue issuing the insurance". All those people who couldn't keep their plan? Their insurance company ended the plan.
But if you actually look at your own link, that "lie of the year" has nothing to do with how long the bill was available or debated. Which is what you lied about in your previous post.
Liberals are currently encouraging the death of 300 US citizens a DAY due to drugs coming from Mexico
You mean by the 4000 terrorists who actually turned out to be 6 people?
Also, most of those deaths are being caused by opioids. Which are made in the good ol' US of A.
Finally, very little drug smuggling is done directly over the border. Instead, it's delivered via ports, ports of entry, and airports. Says who? Trump's DEA and CBP https://www.azcentral.com/stor...
They are willing to let thousands die for a political attempt to make sure Trump loses reelection
How, exactly, would this work?
If thousands are supposedly dying and the Democrats are to blame, then Trump can point to the lack of a wall as the reason for all those deaths. That would help Trump win re-election.
What's interesting is that when clamoring for rules to impose upon "the rich" you use examples like trump. But when it comes to implementing the rules, you re-define "the rich" to mean folks barely into the middle class.
Alternatively, you're pulling this out of your ass since I supplied exactly zero numbers.
And I don't want what the Canadians have imposed on me.
Don't worry, you're free to pay your own way in Canada. You'd be an idiot and paying way more for crappier service, but you can feel all rugged while doing it.
Which is exactly what you receive as the holder of a debt. Usually called "interest", but it's still a return on your investment.
No income, no return, so it's not a debt.
Debts do not (normally) guarantee repayment. Just incentives to repay.
A bonus is that if enough companies start backing students for a percentage of their future income, it might put pressure on our economic system to raise wages.
Why should the rest of us end up on the hook for personal choices/mistakes?
Because all college graduates, including the ones who get degrees in fields you do not like, make more money than high school graduates.
Which means they pay more in taxes. And will pay more for about 50 years.
Which means you pay less in taxes.
So, you could pay for their college, or pay more to not pay for their college. As an added bonus, we get a more educated population that is capable of seeing beyond the end of their own nose.
And highly trained medical staff shouldn't be forced into slavery, to take care of every health issue for people who can't or won't pay anything for it.
If only there was some other entity that would pay those medical staff. You know, like the single-payer system in virtually every other developed country. Then it wouldn't be slavery.
Honestly, I'm tired of people going on, constantly, about equality in America, as though it's something we're obligated to try to achieve, or even a worthy goal?
Inequality is inefficient. You don't get the "best and brightest", you get the richest and most-connected. And >90% of the time, those rich people got their wealth from their parents, so they're not actually good at anything.
For example, Trump. His dad made a crapload of money in NY real estate, because he was good at it. Trump has lost enormous amounts of money in NY real estate because he isn't any good at it. That's why he was on a TV show instead of doing more real estate.
it's really all about giving people a framework of opportunities to better THEMSELVES, if they wish to make the effort.
What you fail to understand is the effort to benefit from that framework is not equal. The wealthy give their children many advantages that put them ahead within that framework. Again, this means we get massive inefficiency because the person didn't actually make the effort, mom and dad bought their place. So they don't know what the hell they are doing and go bankrupt running a casino. Twice.
Between doctors and dentists who willingly volunteer some of their time to provide these services
The last Doctors without Borders event in the US had a line about 3x longer than they could serve. Many were turned away. Charity will not get this done.
Also, did ya notice the irony of bemoaning "medical professionals working for free" at the start of your post, and "medical professionals working for free" as your preferred solution?
Finally, Medicaid doesn't cover an enormous swath of uninsured people, thanks to Republicans blocking Medicare expansion from the ACA. Which means they don't get any insurance coverage and thus no medical treatment beyond Emergency Rooms.....which means you are paying a shitload more money in insurance premiums and taxes because the poor can't get preventative care.
Single-payer is much cheaper than our current system. You would save a hell of a lot of money. Your taxes would go up, but your insurance premiums would disappear. Netting you a lot more in each paycheck. I don't know about you, but I really don't care if the deduction on my paycheck is labeled "Cigna premium" or labeled "Medicare". But some of those people might not suffer enough for your liking.
Cancer treatment is HUGELY expensive, though - to the point where many insurance policies even put a "cap" on the amount they'll spend for it over your lifetime
Nope. One of the things the ACA eliminated was lifetime caps.
You can't just demand America provide the "best care possible" to everybody
Sure we can. Every other developed nation pulls it off. Are you saying we can't do what the Canadians can?
But will you actually get any care? I thought that to keep it affordable, you only get treatment if you meet certain criteria.
You thought wrong.
In other words, if you're 90 years old, no heart transplant for you, no matter how healthy you may otherwise be.
Guess what? No heart transplant for 90 year olds in the US either. The eligibility criteria for getting on the transplant list would exclude an otherwise-healthy 90 year old.
The papers being discussed here are just vacuous rambling which any person who wasn't a feminist studies major would immediately identify as blatant nonsense.
And I've read plenty of papers published in biology journals that were vacuous rambling, with glaring omissions in their conclusions. For example, "___ causes cancer in mice". The cancer rate only increased in female mice, and it wasn't in female-specific parts of those mice. The cancer rate was lower than control in male mice. And the small sample size meant they really couldn't come to any conclusions. Still showed up in Nature.
No journals are not the sacred texts you are portraying them as.
One of them even directly copied entire passages from Mein Kamph,
Nope. The Mein Kamph one was actually completely rewritten to make it sound right. Same overall theme, but completely different phrasing and wording.
This is purely specious. You are making a blind claim in this regard, does being big help? Sure does, but it is also often not a requirement like so many people think. Lots of businesses have started off small and then got big
Didn't think this through much, did you?
So you start your little telco, with your 10 customers.
Why does AT&T route any calls to you? Or any calls from your customers to AT&T customers? Keep in mind we're in your ideal world without telecom regulations, so "common carrier" doesn't exist.
Or such regulations do exist, and AT&T just decided to route a few petabytes of traffic through your network, utterly swamping your network and crippling your service. Causing 8 of your customers to cancel service. You now have to charge the last 2 enormous subscriber fees to stay in business, so they also leave. Thus putting you out of business.
Additionally, the government helped them to create this problem by letting them have private property on public land. The wires and poles
The poles don't belong to the telephone companies. They belong to the power companies. The telephone companies are leasing space on the poles from the power companies.
Would you rather face down a free-market monopoly screwing you over or would you rather face down a government monopoly screwing you over? One side gets to put you in jail for not doing what they tell you to do.
And I get to vote on who's in charge of that side. That's a rather large difference.
several of these papers are not even fit to go into peer review.
Point me to a journal that never publishes shitty papers. They don't exist. Every single one has published lousy papers, and retractions of those papers are even rarer.
His claim is that rate of publication is higher in one field. Then he failed to submit papers in any other field. This is not a scientific approach. He needed at least one control.
He also needed to get approval for conducting experiments on humans without their consent. And he didn't get it. And that is what he is actually being punished for.
No, the controls are not sentient. They just have to be present. Again, he needs something to measure against in order to demonstrate his conclusion. By not having any controls at all, he isn't measuring anything.
He's trying to say a stick is 4 long, and not giving any units.
Also, you vastly overestimate the review a journal conducts before publication. There is no effort to validate the data in a paper. There is at most a check on your math. Data validation happens after publication. As a result, I strongly suspect he'd get about 7 out of 20 in a "hard" science journal too.
A guy was making up data and submitting them to journals in one field. He failed to have any control groups in his "experiment", such as submitting similarly faked data to journals in other fields. His utter and complete lack of scientific rigor was somehow supposed to display the lack of scientific rigor in the targeted journals.
He also failed to get the required approvals for conducting experiments on humans without their consent.
He is now being punished for failing to get the required approvals for conducting experiments on humans without their consent.
Hoping to avoid/lessen his punishment, he is now engaging the public at-large in an attempt to have those perpetually aggrieved about academia rally to his defense.
to high-impact-factor journals with a strong reputation.
Imagine what would happen if someone published fake data about a link between autism and vaccines to a high-impact-factor journal with a strong reputation. Why, they'd never publish it, right?
Oh wait.....
Pre-publish review is essentially a spelling, grammar and math check. There is no effort to validate that your data is accurate, just that it adds up vaguely like you say it does. Then the paper gets published, and the rest of the world gets to look at it. And at that point some will make efforts to validate the data.
I wouldn't be impressed. Pre-publish review does not check the validity of the data.
Make up some tables and graphs that fit your conclusion, making sure your math is correct. Write the paper and submit it. It will be published, in any field.
And it will be caught as a wider audience is able to read your paper. Just like it was caught here.
Even worse, it was a terrible experimental design. He lacked any control groups. I'm pretty sure false data would get published in a 'hard science' journal too. Because pre-publish review does not and can not check the data.
If you're going to attack something for not having sufficient scientific rigor, you really need to have plenty of scientific rigor.
Or a reputable medical journal publishing a paper about the link between autism and the MMR vaccine?
Peer review does not work like you think it does. Pre-publication review is not nearly as thorough as you seem to believe. It is meant to catch "Take me off your mailing list"-quality papers. The real review happens after the wider community gets a hold of the paper, post-publication. Just like every other scientific field.
Catch spelling/grammar mistakes, and make sure it's not another "Take me off your mailing list" paper.
The real review happens after publication, when a wider audience looks at the information. Just like in other fields. After all, Wakefield got published, right?
Maybe because the attack is on the field, or even philosophy itself?
You still need controls to demonstrate that the field is different than others. Otherwise you have nothing to compare it to. 7 out of 20 could be outrageous....or normal. Without a control, they have nothing to measure against.
Slashdot Mirror
Lie of the year [politifact.com] was claims by Obama on the ACA. All news outlets agreed.
Yet, here we have someone 5 years later still telling us it was the truth.
Hey look! You're lying again.
The "lie of the year" was a mistake by Obama. He left out "and if your insurance company wants to continue issuing the insurance". All those people who couldn't keep their plan? Their insurance company ended the plan.
But if you actually look at your own link, that "lie of the year" has nothing to do with how long the bill was available or debated. Which is what you lied about in your previous post.
Liberals are currently encouraging the death of 300 US citizens a DAY due to drugs coming from Mexico
You mean by the 4000 terrorists who actually turned out to be 6 people?
Also, most of those deaths are being caused by opioids. Which are made in the good ol' US of A.
Finally, very little drug smuggling is done directly over the border. Instead, it's delivered via ports, ports of entry, and airports. Says who? Trump's DEA and CBP
https://www.azcentral.com/stor...
They are willing to let thousands die for a political attempt to make sure Trump loses reelection
How, exactly, would this work?
If thousands are supposedly dying and the Democrats are to blame, then Trump can point to the lack of a wall as the reason for all those deaths. That would help Trump win re-election.
What's interesting is that when clamoring for rules to impose upon "the rich" you use examples like trump.
But when it comes to implementing the rules, you re-define "the rich" to mean folks barely into the middle class.
Alternatively, you're pulling this out of your ass since I supplied exactly zero numbers.
And I don't want what the Canadians have imposed on me.
Don't worry, you're free to pay your own way in Canada. You'd be an idiot and paying way more for crappier service, but you can feel all rugged while doing it.
We already have a problem with too many students going into low market value degrees and too few into high market value degrees.
We graduate 1.5 STEM students for every entry-level STEM job opening.
So what, exactly, is the "high market value degrees"? They were supposed to be STEM, but that's not actually the case.
Companies claiming a shortage are looking for highly experienced people, and refusing to train. So universities can not fill the claimed "shortage".
It's not a debt, it's a return on investment.
Which is exactly what you receive as the holder of a debt. Usually called "interest", but it's still a return on your investment.
No income, no return, so it's not a debt.
Debts do not (normally) guarantee repayment. Just incentives to repay.
A bonus is that if enough companies start backing students for a percentage of their future income, it might put pressure on our economic system to raise wages.
ROFL.
Fake majors that provide neither marketable skills
The US graduates 1.5 STEM students for every entry-level STEM job opening.
So, you'd be surprised at what majors actually provide "marketable skills".
n fact, one could argue they are the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity on the horizon right now.
Nah, the biggest threat are the people so wedded to their ideology that they are unwilling to believe reality.
Why should the rest of us end up on the hook for personal choices/mistakes?
Because all college graduates, including the ones who get degrees in fields you do not like, make more money than high school graduates.
Which means they pay more in taxes. And will pay more for about 50 years.
Which means you pay less in taxes.
So, you could pay for their college, or pay more to not pay for their college. As an added bonus, we get a more educated population that is capable of seeing beyond the end of their own nose.
Yes, it's well known that the poor have ample money to pay for high-priced "alternative" medicine out of pocket.
Oh wait.....
we had to pass the bill to see what was in it
The bill was available and debated for almost a year.
Obamacare fixed all of this
The way the ACA would have fixed this particular problem is Medicaid expansion. Which Republicans sued over. And are blocking in every state they can.
Why do they lie?
Why do you?
And highly trained medical staff shouldn't be forced into slavery, to take care of every health issue for people who can't or won't pay anything for it.
If only there was some other entity that would pay those medical staff. You know, like the single-payer system in virtually every other developed country. Then it wouldn't be slavery.
Honestly, I'm tired of people going on, constantly, about equality in America, as though it's something we're obligated to try to achieve, or even a worthy goal?
Inequality is inefficient. You don't get the "best and brightest", you get the richest and most-connected. And >90% of the time, those rich people got their wealth from their parents, so they're not actually good at anything.
For example, Trump. His dad made a crapload of money in NY real estate, because he was good at it. Trump has lost enormous amounts of money in NY real estate because he isn't any good at it. That's why he was on a TV show instead of doing more real estate.
it's really all about giving people a framework of opportunities to better THEMSELVES, if they wish to make the effort.
What you fail to understand is the effort to benefit from that framework is not equal. The wealthy give their children many advantages that put them ahead within that framework. Again, this means we get massive inefficiency because the person didn't actually make the effort, mom and dad bought their place. So they don't know what the hell they are doing and go bankrupt running a casino. Twice.
Between doctors and dentists who willingly volunteer some of their time to provide these services
The last Doctors without Borders event in the US had a line about 3x longer than they could serve. Many were turned away. Charity will not get this done.
Also, did ya notice the irony of bemoaning "medical professionals working for free" at the start of your post, and "medical professionals working for free" as your preferred solution?
Finally, Medicaid doesn't cover an enormous swath of uninsured people, thanks to Republicans blocking Medicare expansion from the ACA. Which means they don't get any insurance coverage and thus no medical treatment beyond Emergency Rooms.....which means you are paying a shitload more money in insurance premiums and taxes because the poor can't get preventative care.
Single-payer is much cheaper than our current system. You would save a hell of a lot of money. Your taxes would go up, but your insurance premiums would disappear. Netting you a lot more in each paycheck. I don't know about you, but I really don't care if the deduction on my paycheck is labeled "Cigna premium" or labeled "Medicare". But some of those people might not suffer enough for your liking.
Cancer treatment is HUGELY expensive, though - to the point where many insurance policies even put a "cap" on the amount they'll spend for it over your lifetime
Nope. One of the things the ACA eliminated was lifetime caps.
You can't just demand America provide the "best care possible" to everybody
Sure we can. Every other developed nation pulls it off. Are you saying we can't do what the Canadians can?
But will you actually get any care? I thought that to keep it affordable, you only get treatment if you meet certain criteria.
You thought wrong.
In other words, if you're 90 years old, no heart transplant for you, no matter how healthy you may otherwise be.
Guess what? No heart transplant for 90 year olds in the US either. The eligibility criteria for getting on the transplant list would exclude an otherwise-healthy 90 year old.
So your argument is pre-Geneva doesn't count and post-Geneva doesn't count.
Must be nice to never be responsible for anything.
The papers being discussed here are just vacuous rambling which any person who wasn't a feminist studies major would immediately identify as blatant nonsense.
And I've read plenty of papers published in biology journals that were vacuous rambling, with glaring omissions in their conclusions. For example, "___ causes cancer in mice". The cancer rate only increased in female mice, and it wasn't in female-specific parts of those mice. The cancer rate was lower than control in male mice. And the small sample size meant they really couldn't come to any conclusions. Still showed up in Nature.
No journals are not the sacred texts you are portraying them as.
One of them even directly copied entire passages from Mein Kamph,
Nope. The Mein Kamph one was actually completely rewritten to make it sound right. Same overall theme, but completely different phrasing and wording.
This is purely specious. You are making a blind claim in this regard, does being big help? Sure does, but it is also often not a requirement like so many people think. Lots of businesses have started off small and then got big
Didn't think this through much, did you?
So you start your little telco, with your 10 customers.
Why does AT&T route any calls to you? Or any calls from your customers to AT&T customers? Keep in mind we're in your ideal world without telecom regulations, so "common carrier" doesn't exist.
Or such regulations do exist, and AT&T just decided to route a few petabytes of traffic through your network, utterly swamping your network and crippling your service. Causing 8 of your customers to cancel service. You now have to charge the last 2 enormous subscriber fees to stay in business, so they also leave. Thus putting you out of business.
Additionally, the government helped them to create this problem by letting them have private property on public land. The wires and poles
The poles don't belong to the telephone companies. They belong to the power companies. The telephone companies are leasing space on the poles from the power companies.
Would you rather face down a free-market monopoly screwing you over or would you rather face down a government monopoly screwing you over? One side gets to put you in jail for not doing what they tell you to do.
And I get to vote on who's in charge of that side. That's a rather large difference.
IIRC, A-GPS can be turned back on remotely by the carrier. Theoretically, it's supposed to happen in response to something like a warrant.
(Or at least I've read articles that make this claim)
So, would you prefer the post-Geneva list then? 'Cause it's not exactly short either.....
Several convictions. Followed by several pardons.
It's amazing what you can get away with on Christmas day in 1992, when re-election is no longer an issue.
several of these papers are not even fit to go into peer review.
Point me to a journal that never publishes shitty papers. They don't exist. Every single one has published lousy papers, and retractions of those papers are even rarer.
His claim is that rate of publication is higher in one field. Then he failed to submit papers in any other field. This is not a scientific approach. He needed at least one control.
He also needed to get approval for conducting experiments on humans without their consent. And he didn't get it. And that is what he is actually being punished for.
No, the controls are not sentient. They just have to be present. Again, he needs something to measure against in order to demonstrate his conclusion. By not having any controls at all, he isn't measuring anything.
He's trying to say a stick is 4 long, and not giving any units.
Also, you vastly overestimate the review a journal conducts before publication. There is no effort to validate the data in a paper. There is at most a check on your math. Data validation happens after publication. As a result, I strongly suspect he'd get about 7 out of 20 in a "hard" science journal too.
Let me clarify your clarification:
A guy was making up data and submitting them to journals in one field. He failed to have any control groups in his "experiment", such as submitting similarly faked data to journals in other fields. His utter and complete lack of scientific rigor was somehow supposed to display the lack of scientific rigor in the targeted journals.
He also failed to get the required approvals for conducting experiments on humans without their consent.
He is now being punished for failing to get the required approvals for conducting experiments on humans without their consent.
Hoping to avoid/lessen his punishment, he is now engaging the public at-large in an attempt to have those perpetually aggrieved about academia rally to his defense.
to high-impact-factor journals with a strong reputation.
Imagine what would happen if someone published fake data about a link between autism and vaccines to a high-impact-factor journal with a strong reputation. Why, they'd never publish it, right?
Oh wait.....
Pre-publish review is essentially a spelling, grammar and math check. There is no effort to validate that your data is accurate, just that it adds up vaguely like you say it does. Then the paper gets published, and the rest of the world gets to look at it. And at that point some will make efforts to validate the data.
I wouldn't be impressed. Pre-publish review does not check the validity of the data.
Make up some tables and graphs that fit your conclusion, making sure your math is correct. Write the paper and submit it. It will be published, in any field.
And it will be caught as a wider audience is able to read your paper. Just like it was caught here.
Even worse, it was a terrible experimental design. He lacked any control groups. I'm pretty sure false data would get published in a 'hard science' journal too. Because pre-publish review does not and can not check the data.
If you're going to attack something for not having sufficient scientific rigor, you really need to have plenty of scientific rigor.
Or a reputable medical journal publishing a paper about the link between autism and the MMR vaccine?
Peer review does not work like you think it does. Pre-publication review is not nearly as thorough as you seem to believe. It is meant to catch "Take me off your mailing list"-quality papers. The real review happens after the wider community gets a hold of the paper, post-publication. Just like every other scientific field.
Bullshit, that what a "review" is supposed to do.
Catch spelling/grammar mistakes, and make sure it's not another "Take me off your mailing list" paper.
The real review happens after publication, when a wider audience looks at the information. Just like in other fields. After all, Wakefield got published, right?
Maybe because the attack is on the field, or even philosophy itself?
You still need controls to demonstrate that the field is different than others. Otherwise you have nothing to compare it to. 7 out of 20 could be outrageous....or normal. Without a control, they have nothing to measure against.